title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 76 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum in secunda sanctificatione a beata Virgine ablata fuerit peccandi potentia.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum in secunda sanctificatione ablata fuerit ab ea peccandi potentia. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per Ambrosium in libro de Virginitate beatae Virginis[^1]: « Impossibile fuit, uterum Virginis, quem Filius Dei inhabitando consecravit, alienae copulae coitu incestari »; sed similis ratio fuit de aliis generibus peccatorum: ergo videtur, quod nullo alio peccati genere potuerit maculari post conceptionem Filii Dei.

2. Item, vituperium esset Christo, si haberet matrem peccatricem[^2]: si ergo Christo in nullo potest fieri contumelia, videtur, quod post ipsius conceptionem in beata Virgine non potuerit esse culpa.

3. Item, si beata Virgo potuerit peccare, potuit in peccato perseverare, ergo potuit damnari: si ergo Matrem Dei et Reginam caelorum damnari in inferno omnino est impossibile: ergo et illud, ex quo sequitur, scilicet hoc quod ponitur, ipsam posse peccare[^3]: ergo etc.

4. Item, dignior fuit Mater Christi ex hoc, quod Mater Dei effecta est, quam sit aliquis Angelus in caelo: si ergo Angeli boni in gratia sunt confirmati[^4], multo magis et Mater Dei: ergo etc.

<!-- page 77 -->

**Sed contra:** 1. Lucae secundo[^5]: *Tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius*; hoc verbum tractans Damascenus dicit: « Dolores, quos Virgo effugit pariens, hos in Christi passione sustinuit, ita quod gladius animam eius pertransivit »: ergo ipsius anima fuit in Christi passione turbata, et ita perturbata: si ergo potuit perturbari, videtur, quod potuit ad veniale pertrahi.

2. Item, Augustinus in Quaestionibus novi et veteris Testamenti[^6] tractans illud: *Tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius*, ait sic: « Hoc utique significavit, quod Maria, per quam gestum est mysterium incarnationis, dubitaret, non tamen in dubitatione permaneret »: si ergo, postquam genuit Filium Dei, potuit dubitare in fide, potuit peccare.

3. Item, potentia moriendi consequitur potentiam peccandi[^7]; sed beata Virgo Maria post conceptionem mori potuit: ergo videtur, quod peccare potuerit.

4. Item, impossibilitas[^8] peccandi spectat ad statum comprehensoris; sed beata Virgo ex hoc, quod Filium Dei genuit, non est posita extra statum viatoris: ergo videtur, quod non sit ei ablata potentia peccandi.

### Conclusio

> Beata Virgo post Filii Dei conceptionem peccare non potuit, non propter alicuius potentiae amissionem, sed propter potentiae in bono confirmationem et defectus ablationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in secunda sanctificatione non tantum fuit data Virgini gratia sanctificans, sed etiam gratia in bono confirmans; et hoc, quia Filio suo adeo fuit coniuncta, ut nullo modo permitteret, eam a se ipso sequestrari.

Propter quod notandi sunt gradus divinorum beneficiorum. Christus enim, qui fuit Sanctus Sanctorum, facultatem habuit vitandi omne peccatum et impossibilitatem committendi aliquod peccatum[^9]. Alii vero filii hominum difficultatem habent ad vitandum peccatum et necessitatem ad committendum; et hoc quidem competit omnibus generatis de massa peccati. Ab hac igitur massa liberata fuit Virgo Maria in prima sanctificatione, liberata etiam fuit in secunda; sed in prima fuit conformis aliis sanctificatis; in secunda facta est conformis Filio, quem genuit. — In prima namque sanctificatione data est ei potestas et facultas vitandi omne peccatum mortale; data est etiam facultas vitandi frequentiam venialium; data est etiam nihilominus facultas vitandi omne peccatum, non tantum particulariter, sed etiam universaliter. — Et in his tribus gradibus patent tres gradus sanctificationum, videlicet Ioannis Baptistae, Ieremiae et Mariae. Nam prima conditio fuit Ieremiae; secunda vero Ioannis; sed ista triplex[^10] Virginis Mariae, quae plus ad Filii accessit puritatem per vitae meritum.

Sed cum Sanctum Sanctorum gestavit in utero suo, tunc sanctificata fuit conformiter Filio suo, non tantum quantum ad potentiam ad peccatum[^11], sed etiam quantum ad impossibilitatem labendi in aliquod peccatum. Unde sicut impossibile fuit propter honorem Filii sui, ut alium haberet filium; sic impossibile fuit, ut unquam ulterius haberet peccatum. Sicut etiam impossibile fuit, ut carnis virginitas violaretur, in qua Filius Dei habitaverat; sic impossibile fuit, ut mentis sanctitas aliqua culpa macularetur. — Ad cuius testimonium valet quod quidam Iudaei asserunt, hoc mirum fuisse in Virgine Maria, quod cum esset pulcherrima, tamen a nullo unquam viro fuerit concupita. Nec vilipendendum est illud infidelium testimonium; oportet enim testimonium habere ab his qui foris sunt[^12].

Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod beata Virgo Maria post Filii Dei conceptionem peccare non potuit, non propter alicuius potentiae amissionem, sed propter potentiae confirmationem et defectus ablationem.

<!-- page 78 -->

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod beata Virgo fuit perturbata; dicendum, quod immensitas illa doloris non refertur ad partem animae rationalem, sed sensibilem. Unde *anima* stat ibi pro illa parte, secundum quam convertitur ad corpus; unde non fuit perturbata, secundum quod perturbatio dicit deordinationem in parte rationali[^13].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Quaestionum novi et veteris Testamenti, quod beata Virgo dubitavit; dicendum, quod non constat, illum librum esse Augustini, propter hoc quod multa ibi sunt, quae non videntur esse verba Augustini. — Verumtamen, ne fugam petere videamur, dici potest, quod est dubitatio proveniens ex *fidei debilitate*, et est quaedam dubitatio proveniens ex *admirationis immensitate*, qua dicitur homo dubitare, cum exstupescit et quasi fit totus extra se ex intuitu rei admirabilis. Et hoc modo intelligendum est, Virginem dubitasse, non propter defectum fidei[^14]. Indubitanter enim credendum est, quod Virgo Maria semper stetit, unde in ea fides sibi invenit solidum fundamentum. Unde discipulis non credentibus et dubitantibus, ipsa fuit, in qua fides Ecclesiae remansit solida et inconcussa; et ideo in die sabbati in honorem eius solemnizat omnis Ecclesia[^15].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potuit mori: dicendum, quod non est simile, pro eo quod non fuit decens, Filium Dei habere matrem immortalem, cum ipse esset mortalis[^16], sed valde indecens esset, si matrem haberet peccatricem; quamvis Hieronymus dicat, quod solum peccatrices numerantur in genealogia Salvatoris; hoc enim non est propter peccatum, sed propter aliquod speciale factum, propter quod illae mulieres exprimuntur in Scriptura. Et completur in eis illa prophetia, sicut illud Isaiae decimo sexto[^17]: *Emitte agnum Domine dominatorem terrae* etc., et per *petram deserti* intelligitur Ruth, sicut dicit Hieronymus. Quidquid tamen sit de parentibus remotis, nulli tamen dubium est de Matre Dei, quin talis debuerit esse, quae non potuerit redargui de peccato, cum fuisset ad improperium Christi.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de impossibilitate peccandi, dicendum, quod verum est, quantum est de lege communi; sed nihil impedit, quin de gratia speciali possit alicui concedi in via, quod aliis communiter datur in patria, et illi personae praecipue, quae in terris degens regina erat eorum qui exsultant in caelis[^18].

---

english:
<!-- page 76 -->

### Question III. *Whether in the second sanctification the power of sinning was taken from the Virgin.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether in the second sanctification the power of sinning was taken from her. And that it was, it seems:

1. *First*, by Ambrose in the book *On the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin*[^1]: « It was impossible that the womb of the Virgin, which the Son of God consecrated by dwelling in it, should be defiled by intercourse of another's union »; but a like account holds of the other kinds of sins: therefore it seems that by no other kind of sin could she be stained after the conception of the Son of God.

2. Likewise, it would be a reproach to Christ if he had a sinful mother[^2]: if therefore no affront can be done to Christ, it seems that after his conception there could be no fault in the blessed Virgin.

3. Likewise, if the blessed Virgin could sin, she could persevere in sin, and so she could be damned: if therefore it is altogether impossible that the Mother of God and Queen of heaven be damned in hell: therefore also that from which it follows, namely the thing posited—that she could sin[^3]—[is impossible]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Mother of Christ was more worthy from the fact that she was made the Mother of God than is any Angel in heaven: if therefore the good Angels are confirmed in grace[^4], much more also is the Mother of God: therefore etc.

<!-- page 77 -->

**Sed contra:** 1. Luke, chapter two[^5]: *And thy own soul a sword shall pierce*; treating this word Damascene says: « The sorrows which the Virgin escaped in giving birth, these she sustained in the passion of Christ, so that a sword pierced her soul »: therefore her soul was troubled in the passion of Christ, and so disturbed: if therefore she could be disturbed, it seems that she could be drawn to a venial sin.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the *Questions on the New and Old Testament*[^6], treating that text *And thy own soul a sword shall pierce*, says thus: « This indeed signified that Mary, through whom the mystery of the incarnation was accomplished, would doubt, yet would not remain in doubt »: if therefore, after she bore the Son of God, she could doubt in faith, she could sin.

3. Likewise, the power of dying follows upon the power of sinning[^7]; but the blessed Virgin Mary could die after the conception: therefore it seems that she could sin.

4. Likewise, the impossibility[^8] of sinning belongs to the state of the comprehensor; but the blessed Virgin, from the fact that she bore the Son of God, was not placed outside the state of the wayfarer: therefore it seems that the power of sinning was not taken from her.

### Conclusio

> The blessed Virgin, after the conception of the Son of God, could not sin—not on account of the loss of any power, but on account of the confirmation of her power in the good and the removal of defect.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that in the second sanctification there was given to the Virgin not only sanctifying grace, but also grace confirming her in the good; and this, because she was so joined to her Son that she would in no way allow herself to be separated from him.

On account of which the degrees of the divine benefits are to be noted. For Christ, who was the Holy of Holies, had the faculty of avoiding every sin and the impossibility of committing any sin[^9]. But the other sons of men have difficulty in avoiding sin and necessity toward committing it; and this indeed belongs to all who are begotten from the mass of sin. From this mass, then, the Virgin Mary was freed in the first sanctification, and she was freed also in the second; but in the first she was conformed to the others who are sanctified; in the second she was made conformed to the Son whom she bore. — For in the first sanctification there was given to her the power and faculty of avoiding every mortal sin; there was given also the faculty of avoiding the frequency of venial sins; there was given moreover the faculty of avoiding every sin, not only particularly, but also universally. — And in these three degrees the three degrees of sanctifications appear, namely those of John the Baptist, of Jeremiah, and of Mary. For the first condition was Jeremiah's; the second indeed John's; but this triple[^10] [condition was] of the Virgin Mary, who came nearer to the purity of the Son by the merit of her life.

But when she bore the Holy of Holies in her womb, then she was sanctified conformably to her Son, not only as to the power for sin[^11], but also as to the impossibility of falling into any sin. Hence, just as it was impossible, on account of the honor of her Son, that she should have another son; so it was impossible that she should ever afterward have sin. Just as it was likewise impossible that the virginity of the flesh in which the Son of God had dwelt should be violated; so it was impossible that the holiness of the mind should be stained by any fault. — To the witness of which avails that which certain Jews assert, that this was a marvel in the Virgin Mary, that, although she was most beautiful, yet she was never coveted by any man. Nor is that testimony of unbelievers to be despised; for it is fitting to have testimony from those who are without[^12].

Therefore the arguments are to be granted which show that the blessed Virgin Mary could not sin after the conception of the Son of God, not on account of the loss of any power, but on account of the confirmation of power and the removal of defect.

<!-- page 78 -->

*Ad 1.* To that, then, which is objected first, that the blessed Virgin was disturbed; it must be said that that immensity of grief is not referred to the rational part of the soul, but to the sensible. Hence *soul* stands there for that part by which she is turned toward the body; hence she was not disturbed according as disturbance bespeaks a disorder in the rational part[^13].

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected from the authority of the *Questions on the New and Old Testament*, that the blessed Virgin doubted; it must be said that it is not established that that book is Augustine's, because there are many things there which do not seem to be the words of Augustine. — Nevertheless, lest we seem to seek flight, it can be said that there is a doubt arising from *weakness of faith*, and there is a certain doubt arising from *immensity of wonder*, by which a man is said to doubt when he is amazed and becomes, as it were, wholly beside himself from the contemplation of a marvelous thing. And in this way it is to be understood that the Virgin doubted, not on account of a defect of faith[^14]. For it is to be believed without doubt that the Virgin Mary always stood firm, so that in her faith found a solid foundation. Hence, while the disciples did not believe and doubted, she was the one in whom the faith of the Church remained solid and unshaken; and therefore on the day of the Sabbath the whole Church holds solemnity in her honor[^15].

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that she could die: it must be said that the case is not alike, because it was not fitting that the Son of God should have an immortal mother, since he himself was mortal[^16], but it would be very unfitting if he had a sinful mother; although Jerome says that only sinful women are reckoned in the genealogy of the Savior; for this is not on account of sin, but on account of some special deed, on account of which those women are mentioned in Scripture. And in them that prophecy is fulfilled, as that of Isaiah, chapter sixteen[^17]: *Send forth the lamb, O Lord, the ruler of the earth* etc., and by *the rock of the desert* Ruth is understood, as Jerome says. Yet whatever may be the case concerning the remote forebears, there is no doubt to anyone concerning the Mother of God, but that she ought to be such as could not be reproached for sin, since it would have been to the disgrace of Christ.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected concerning the impossibility of sinning, it must be said that it is true so far as concerns the common law; but nothing prevents that by special grace there be granted to someone in the wayfaring state what is commonly given to others in the fatherland, and especially to that person who, while dwelling on earth, was the queen of those who rejoice in the heavens[^18].

---

la: Sive de Institutione Virginis, c. 6 n. 44: An vero Dominus Iesus eam sibi matrem eligeret, quae virili semine augeretur... [quae] iam posset incestare caelestem, quasi eam cui impossibile esset virginalis pudoris servare custodiam?

en: Or rather, *On the Institution of the Virgin*, c. 6 n. 44: But would the Lord Jesus choose for himself as mother one who might be increased by a man's seed... [one] who might now defile the heavenly one, as though it were impossible for her to keep the guard of virginal modesty?

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Pro *Si ergo Matrem Dei... posse peccare, ergo* etc. cod. T brevius *si ergo est inconveniens hoc: ergo* etc.

en: For *If therefore... that the Mother of God... can sin, therefore* etc., codex T more briefly: *if therefore this is unfitting: therefore* etc.

la: Cod. Z *in gloria sunt gratia confirmati.*

en: Codex Z: *are confirmed in grace in glory.*

la: Vers. 35. — Dictum Damasceni, quod habetur in eius IV. de Fide orthod. c. 14., et simile est sententiae a Cyrillo Alex., XII, c. 19. in Ioan. l. 25. prolatae, sic ibi sonat: Dolores... sustinuit, materno affectu lacerari sibi viscera sentiens, intimisque cogitationibus veluti gladio discerpta, cum illum quem gignendo Deum esse cognoverat, tanquam sceleratum aliquem morte affici cerneret. Sic porro intelligendum illud est: *Et tuam ipsius animam* etc. (ed. Migne). Cfr. supra pag. 66, nota 6. — Deinde pro *ergo ipsius anima* codd. F G K M N O Y Z bb *ergo tota ipsius anima*, et mox cod. Z omittit verba *et ita perturbata*. In cod. T deest conclusio *ergo ipsius* usque ad *perturbata* inclusive.

en: Verse 35. — The saying of Damascene, which is found in his fourth book *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 14, and is similar to the opinion put forward by Cyril of Alexandria, XII, c. 19, on John l. 25, sounds there thus: He sustained the sorrows..., feeling her vitals torn with maternal affection, and rent in her inmost thoughts as if by a sword, when she saw him whom she had known by bearing to be God afflicted with death like some criminal. And so that text is to be understood: *And thy own soul* etc. (Migne ed.). Cf. above p. 66, note 6. — Then for *therefore her soul* codices F G K M N O Y Z bb read *therefore her whole soul*, and immediately codex Z omits the words *and so disturbed*. In codex T the conclusion *therefore her* up to *disturbed* inclusive is lacking.

la: Quaest. 73: Hoc utique significavit, quia etiam Maria... incarnationis Salvatoris, in morte Domini dubitaret, ita tamen ut resurrectionis honore et virtute Domini firmaretur. Omnes enim stupore quodam in morte Domini dubitarunt; non tamen in dubitatione permanserunt. — Post *pertransibit gladius* edd. cum non paucis codd. repetunt *animam*, et Vat. insuper pro *Hoc* substituit *Hic*; nostra lectio est codd. K N T U Z bb. Post *Maria* cod. F subiicit *in anima*.

en: Question 73: This indeed signified that Mary also... of the incarnation of the Savior, would doubt at the death of the Lord, yet in such a way that she would be strengthened by the honor and power of the Lord's resurrection. For all doubted with a certain amazement at the death of the Lord; yet they did not remain in doubt. — After *a sword shall pierce* the editions with not a few codices repeat *the soul*, and the Vatican edition moreover substitutes *Here* for *This*; our reading is that of codices K N T U Z bb. After *Mary* codex F adds *in the soul*.

la: Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 2. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the City of God* XIII, c. 2 and following.

la: Edd. *impotentia.*

en: The editions read *incapacity*.

la: Edd. *impotentiam.*

la: Vat. *tertia*. Subinde pro *Virginis* codd. A F G H L N U V X aa *Virgini*. Cod. T, omissis verbis *quae plus... meritum*, prosequitur sic: Sed cum genuit Christum, tunc sanctificata fuit etc.

en: The Vatican edition reads *third*. Thereupon for *of the Virgin* codices A F G H L N U V X aa read *to the Virgin*. Codex T, omitting the words *who came nearer... merit*, continues thus: But when she bore Christ, then she was sanctified etc.

la: Cod. Y subiungit *vitandum*. In cod. N legitur *ad potentiam vitandi peccatum*, in codd. M O (U primitus) *ad potentiam ad non peccandum*, in edd. et cod. bb *ad impotentiam ad peccatum*. Subinde pro *ad impossibilitatem* codd. G T exhibent *cui possibilitatem*, codd. A X *ad potentiam*.

en: Codex Y adds *to be avoided*. In codex N is read *to the power of avoiding sin*, in codices M O (U originally) *to the power for not sinning*, in the editions and codex bb *to the incapacity for sin*. Thereupon for *to the impossibility* codices G T present *to which the possibility*, codices A X *to the power*.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 3, 7, ubi pro *habere* codd. E G K L N U X aa *haberi*. — Epiphan. Monach. in sua Vita B. M. V. n. 22, narrat, quod B. Virginem « prosequebantur honore et timore omnes homines... nullus Iudaeorum princeps aut Graecorum audebat quid unquam de illa dicere aut appropinquare domui, in qua ipsa manserat ».

en: Epistle, 1 Tim. 3:7, where for *to have* codices E G K L N U X aa read *to be had*. — Epiphanius the Monk, in his *Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary* n. 22, relates that « all men attended the Blessed Virgin with honor and fear... no prince of the Jews or of the Greeks ever dared to say anything about her or to approach the house in which she stayed ».

la: Ambros., de Institut. Virginis, c. 7 n. 49 ait: Stabat ante crucem mater et, fugientibus viris, stabat intrepida... Stabat non degeneri matre spectaculo, quae non metuebat peremptorem. Pendebat in cruce Filius, mater se persecutoribus offerebat.

en: Ambrose, *On the Institution of the Virgin*, c. 7 n. 49 says: The mother stood before the cross and, while the men fled, stood undaunted... She stood as a spectacle of no degenerate mother, she who did not fear the slayer. The Son hung on the cross, the mother offered herself to the persecutors.

la: Eodem fere modo Ss. Patres stuporem explicant, quo invasa B. Virgo in verba prorupit: *Quomodo fiet istud* etc. (Luc. 1, 34.). — Cod. T hunc locum brevius sic exhibet: non constat, librum illum esse Augustini, quia multa videntur ibi esse, quae non sunt verba eius. Potest tamen dici, quod non fuit dubitatio ex fidei debilitate, sed ex admirationis immensitate. In ipsa enim sola remansit fides, ceteris discipulis dubitantibus; ideo in honore eius solemnizat omnis Ecclesia.

en: In almost the same way the holy Fathers explain the amazement by which the Blessed Virgin, seized, burst forth into the words: *How shall this be done* etc. (Luke 1:34). — Codex T presents this passage more briefly thus: it is not established that that book is Augustine's, because many things seem to be there which are not his words. Yet it can be said that it was not a doubt from weakness of faith, but from immensity of wonder. For in her alone faith remained, while the other disciples doubted; therefore the whole Church holds solemnity in her honor.

la: In opusculo, cui titulus « Vitis mystica » (inter opera Bernardi), c. 2 n. 4, similiter laudatur fides, quam B. M. V. in passione Filii sui inconcussam probavit, dubitantibus et fugientibus ipsis eius discipulis. Si vero, inquit auctor, fugam mentalem intelligimus, nec vir relictus est cum eo, nec mulier, praeter illam, quae sola benedicta est in mulieribus, quae sola per illud triste sabbatum stetit in fide, et salvata fuit Ecclesia in ipsa sola. Propter quod aptissime tota Ecclesia in laudem et gloriam eiusdem Virginis diem sabbati per totius anni circulum celebrare consuevit. Cfr. Durand., IV. Rational. div. offic. c. 1. Melchior Canus, IV. de Loc. theol. c. 5. seq., illam auctoris « Vitis mysticae » sententiam, quod B. Virginis fide inconcussa [Ecclesia salvata fuisset, evertere nititur]. — Pro *in honorem* codd. *in honore*. Paulo superius post *Virgo Maria semper* Vat. subiungit *in fide*. Deinde pro *remanserat* codd. G H N *remansit*.

en: In the little work entitled « The Mystical Vine » (among the works of Bernard), c. 2 n. 4, faith is likewise praised which the Blessed Virgin Mary proved unshaken in the passion of her Son, while his disciples themselves doubted and fled. But if, says the author, we understand mental flight, neither man nor woman remained with him, except her who alone is blessed among women, who alone through that sad Sabbath stood in faith, and the Church was saved in her alone. On account of which most fittingly the whole Church has been accustomed to celebrate the Sabbath day in praise and glory of the same Virgin throughout the cycle of the whole year. Cf. Durandus, *Rationale of the Divine Offices* IV, c. 1. Melchior Cano, *On the Theological Sources* IV, c. 5 and following, strives to overthrow that opinion of the author of « The Mystical Vine », that [the Church would have been saved] by the unshaken faith of the Blessed Virgin. — For *in honor* the codices read *in the honor*. A little above, after *Virgin Mary always* the Vatican edition adds *in faith*. Then for *had remained* codices G H N read *remained*.

la: Cfr. Damasc., Homil. 1. in Dormition. B. M. V. n. 10, (ubi etiam transitum B. Virginis non mortem, sed somnum, migrationem, praesentiam ad Deum vult vocari) et 2. n. 2. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 34. serm. 2. n. 3, Mariam ex Adam propter peccatum mortuam esse docet, dum Epiphan., III. Haeres. 78. n. 11, eius mortem in dubium revocat, cfr. ibid. n. 24. — Sententia Hieronymi habetur in eius Comment. in Matth. 1, 3: Notandum, in genealogia Salvatoris nullam sanctarum assumi mulierum, sed eas quas Scriptura reprehendit, ut qui propter peccatores venerat, de peccatoribus nascens, omnium peccata deleret.

en: Cf. Damascene, *Homily 1 on the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary* n. 10, (where he also wishes the Blessed Virgin's passing to be called not death, but sleep, migration, presence to God) and 2 n. 2. Augustine, *Enarrations on the Psalms* 34, sermon 2 n. 3, teaches that Mary, descended from Adam, died on account of sin, while Epiphanius, *Heresies* III, 78 n. 11, calls her death into doubt, cf. ibid. n. 24. — The opinion of Jerome is found in his *Commentary on Matthew* 1, 3: It is to be noted that in the genealogy of the Savior none of the holy women is taken up, but those whom Scripture rebukes, so that he who had come for sinners, being born of sinners, might blot out the sins of all.

la: Vers. 1. — Verba Hieronymi in hunc locum sunt: *De petra deserti*, hoc est de Ruth, quae mariti morte viduata, de Booz genuit Obed, et de Obed Iesse, et de Iesse David, et de David Christum. — Cod. T a pro *sicut illud Isaiae* ponit *sicut dicit Isaias*, cod. T omittit *sicut illud*.

en: Verse 1. — The words of Jerome on this passage are: *Of the rock of the desert*, that is, of Ruth, who, widowed by the death of her husband, bore Obed of Boaz, and Jesse of Obed, and David of Jesse, and Christ of David. — Codex T for *as that of Isaiah* puts *as Isaiah says*, codex T omits *as that*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 76–78 (PDF 98–100; offset +22) per the Vol II/III override (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo and footers and bleeds the two columns together). The IA OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 5906–6022) served as the base for clean running prose and exact footnote-marker spacing; the PDF read is authoritative throughout the Respondeo, replies, and footer apparatus. Running heads confirm the span: p.76 `76 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.77 `DIST. III. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 77`; p.78 `78 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`

**Alignment.** PASS. Opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum in secunda sanctificatione ablata fuerit ab ea peccandi potentia. Et quod sic, videtur` = PARS I ART. II TRACTATIO q3 (per the q1 TRACTATIO list: q1 culpa actualis / q2 fomes concupiscentiae / q3 peccandi potentia). No q-swap.

**Structure.** Args 1–4 (pro: Ambrose *Impossibile fuit uterum Virginis* / reproach to Christ if sinful mother / could sin → could be damned, impossible / Mother of God > confirmed Angels) + Sed contra 1–4 (Luke 2 *gladius* + Damascene / Augustine *Quaestiones* dubitaret / power of dying follows power of sinning / impossibility of sinning belongs to comprehensor not viator) + Conclusio blockquote (`peccare non potuit, non propter potentiae amissionem, sed propter potentiae in bono confirmationem et defectus ablationem`) + Respondeo (gratia in bono confirmans; three degrees of divine benefits — Christ has faculty + impossibility, others have difficulty + necessity, Virgin freed from the mass in both sanctifications; three degrees John/Jeremiah/Mary; in second sanctification made conformed to the Son — impossibility of falling into sin paralleled to inviolate flesh; Jewish testimony that she was never coveted) + replies *Ad 1* (immensity of grief in sensible not rational part) / *Ad 2* (book not certainly Augustine's; doubt from wonder not weakness of faith; Church's faith remained in her — Holy Saturday solemnity) / *Ad 3* (death fitting since Son mortal; sinful mother unfitting; Jerome on the genealogy) / *Ad 4* (true of common law; special grace can give in via what others have in patria). Marginal labels (*Fundamenta, Ad oppositum, conclusio, Gradus 3 beneficiorum, De 1. sanctificatione Virginis, Gradus 3 sanctificationum, De 2. sanctificatione ipsius, Conclusio 2, Solutio oppositorum, De libro spurio inter opera Augustini, Distinctio, Notandum*) rendered inline, NOT footnote anchors.

**Scholion: `has_scholion: false`.** No distinct SCHOLION block prints in q3's tail — after *Ad 4* (`...exsultant in caelis⁶`) the text proceeds directly to `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.` This is confirmed by p.78 footer 6 (`[^18]`): *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — q3's matter on the *habitus*/confirmatio is covered by the scholion held in q2 (commit 8d7d43f, §IV: `In seq. (3.) quaestione… completur respectu habitus peccandi… confirmationem in gratia`).

**Apparatus split (18 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^18]`, per-page restart):**
- **p.76 f.3–6 → `[^1]`–`[^4]` (INHERITED from q2 hand-off, commit 8d7d43f):** f.3 *Sive de Institutione Virginis c.6 n.44* (arg 1 `Virginis³`) / f.4 *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c.2* (arg 2 `peccatricem⁴`) / f.5 cod. T brevius var (arg 3 `peccare⁵`) / f.6 cod. Z var (arg 4 `confirmati⁶`). q2 had already taken p.76 f.1–2 as its `[^14]`–`[^15]`.
- **p.77 f.1–8 → `[^5]`–`[^12]`:** Vers.35 Damascene + Cyril + codd. vars (Sed contra 1 `secundo¹`) / Quaest.73 Augustine + codd. vars (Sed contra 2 `Testamenti²`) / Cfr Aug. de Civ. Dei XIII (Sed contra 3 `peccandi³`) / Edd. *impotentia* (Sed contra 4 `impossibilitas⁴`) / Plura infra d.12 + II Sent d.41 (Respondeo `peccatum⁵`) / Vat. *tertia* + *Virgini* + cod. T var (Respondeo `triplex⁶`) / cod. Y *vitandum* + codd. M N O U bb vars (Respondeo `peccatum⁷`) / 1 Tim 3:7 + Epiphan. Monach. Vita B.M.V. n.22 (Respondeo `foris sunt⁸`).
- **p.78 f.1–6 → `[^13]`–`[^18]`:** Ambros. de Institut. Virginis c.7 n.49 *Stabat ante crucem* (Ad 1 `rationali¹`) / Ss. Patres + cod. T brevius (Ad 2 `fidei²`) / Vitis mystica c.2 n.4 + Durand./Melchior Cano + codd. vars (Ad 2 `Ecclesia³`) / Damasc. Homil.1 Dormition + Aug. Enarr. Ps.34 + Epiphan. Haeres.78 + Hieron. in Matth. (Ad 3 `mortalis⁴`) / Vers.1 Hieron. *de petra deserti*=Ruth + cod. T var (Ad 3 `sexto⁵`) / *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (Ad 4 `caelis⁶`).
- **p.78 f.7–8 OMITTED** (f.7 `Epist. II. Cor. 12, 7`; f.8 `Codd. F N et edd. omittunt huius...`) — these anchor the DUBIA section body (`DUB. I.` *gratiae divinae conservationem⁷` / *medicinaliter⁸*), NOT q3. They belong to **d3-p1-dubia**, documented here and not rendered (would be anchorless in q3).

**Marker pairing:** 18 La anchors = 18 En anchors = 18 defs, continuous 1–18, 0 anchorless / 0 defless.

**Boundary / forward hand-off to d3-p1-dubia (raw ~6023–6157, printed p.78+):** q3 ends grammatically complete at `…exsultant in caelis` (p.78 R-col, raw 6022). `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (raw 6023) + `DUB. I.` + `In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur in littera: Spiritus sanctus Mariam a fomite peccati purgavit. — Si enim fomes relinquitur in nobis ad exercitium et meritum…` begin the PARS I dubia block on p.78 — NOT included here. Continuous, no cascade-merge splice. **p.78 footers 7–8 carry forward to the dubia chunk** (f.7 *Epist. II. Cor. 12, 7*; f.8 *Codd. F N et edd. omittunt huius. Paulo inferius pro per exercitationem codd. G K T bb cum edd. propter exercitationem. Post pauca pro in utroque cod. N in utraque.*). With this chunk **PARS I ART. II is COMPLETE** (q1+q2+q3 all Tier 2); the next chunk (the PARS I *Dubia circa litteram Magistri*, Dub. I–V) is the last of PARS I — on its promotion **PARS I COMPLETE**.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 81 -->

### Articulus I. *De Christi decimatione.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum aliquis possit decimari in parentibus.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum aliquis decimari habeat in parentibus. Et quod sic, probatur:

1. Per illud Apostoli ad Hebraeos septimo[^1]: *Per Abraham et Levi, qui decimas accepit, decimatus est.*

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per Augustinum, decimo *super Genesim ad litteram*, et habetur in Glossa[^2]: «Sicut, Adam peccante, peccaverunt qui in lumbis eius erant; sic, Abraham dante decimas, qui in lumbis eius erant decimati sunt»; sed constat, quod proles potuit peccare in Adam: ergo et decimari in Abraham.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia proles in parentibus potest liberari et in servitutem redigi, quia servus natus est servilis conditionis[^3]: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod in parentibus dantibus decimas filii habeant decimari.

4. Item, decimatio est actus *figuralis*[^4]; sed figura non tantum est respectu praesentis, sed praeteriti et futuri: ergo videtur, quod non tantum possit decimari in propria persona filius, sed etiam cum est in parente tanquam in causa et materia.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus decimo *super Genesim ad litteram*[^5]: «In lumbis Abrahae illud decimabatur quod curabatur»; sed filii Abrahae non sunt curati ab originali, immo nati sunt cum peccato originali: ergo non videtur, quod in Abraham fuerint decimati.

2. Item, cum datur decima de frumento, non propter hoc datur decima de illo frumento, quod debet nasci[^6]: ergo pari ratione, cum datur decima pro homine, non videtur, quod ille qui nasciturus est ex eo, decimetur in eo — sicut enim homo est in homine seminaliter, sic granum in grano — ergo ratio ista bona videtur.

3. Item, sicut circumcisio remedium est contra originale in Lege figurae, et baptismus in Lege gratiae, sic decimatio in Lege naturae, ut dicit Hugo de sancto Victore[^7]; sed nullus in ventre matris potuit baptizari nec circumcidi: ergo nec decimari.

4. Item, aut *decimari* est per decimam curari, aut *decimari* est ad decimam obligari, aut *decimari* est de aliquo decimam partem dare, aut *decimari* est per decimam praefigurari; sed nullo istorum modorum fuit Levi in Abraham decimatus, quia nec per decimam curatus, nec ad dandum decimas obligatus, cum potius reciperet[^8], nec decimam dedit, nec per decimam significatus fuit: ergo nullo modo videtur decimatus fuisse in Abraham: et si ille non fuit decimatus, pari ratione nec aliqui alii.

### Conclusio

> Proles aliquo modo potest in parentibus decimari, secundum eum modum, quo decimatio nihil ponit in actu circa decimatos, sed est actus *figuralis*, *significans futuram curationem*.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod decimatio fuit actus *moralis*, *sacramentalis* et *figuralis*. Secundum quod fuit actus

<!-- page 82 -->

*moralis*, sic decimatio dicitur alicuius certae partis donatio ad sustentationem eorum qui serviunt Domino et deputati sunt cultui divino; et hoc modo decimatio aliquo modo perseverat usque modo[^9]. — Secundum autem quod decimatio est actus *sacramentalis*, sic decimatio est alicuius partis donatio ad curationem morbi originalis. — Secundum autem quod decimatio est actus *figuralis*, sic decimatio est decimae partis donatio ad praefigurationem curationis universalis, quae futura erat per oblationem Christi.

Duobus primis modis accepta decimatio respicit tantum praesens[^10]; quia non datur decima nisi de hoc, quod habetur, et non curatur nisi quod iam habet morbum. Tertio autem modo decimatio accepta non tantum est praesentis, sed etiam futuri, pro eo quod *figuratio* est *significatio*, et significatio non tantum extendit se ad praesentia, sed etiam ad futura; et hoc modo dicuntur filii Abrahae decimati in Abraham, quia per illam decimationem praefigurati sunt omnes filii Abraham curandi esse per eum qui significabatur per Melchisedech, id est per verum sacerdotem Christum. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus decimo *super Genesim ad litteram*[^11]: «Cum ipsa decimatio ad praefigurandam medicinam pertinuerit, ille in Abraham decimabatur, qui curabatur», non quando praefigurabatur, sed quando illius figurae veritas implebatur. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod aliquo modo potest decimari proles in parente, secundum eum modum, quo decimatio nihil ponit in actu circa decimatos, sed solum secundum significationem, quae non tantum est praesentium, sed etiam futurorum.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur primo de auctoritate Augustini, dicendum, quod sicut patet ex verbo praecedenti[^12], *decimabatur quod curabatur* non dicit concomitantiam secundum idem tempus ad hoc quod est *decimari*, immo potius se extendit ad omne tempus, et pro illo tempore reddit locutionem veram, in quo implebatur veritatis figura.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non datur decima de grano, quod non est in re, sed solum in ratione seminali; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia decimatio, prout est actus *figuralis*, non se extendit ad significandum aliquid circa granum, sed ad significandum aliquid circa genus humanum, unde granum respicit ut materiam, circa quam habet exerceri, non circa illud quod per ipsum habet significari. Et quia *exercitium* requirit materiam praesentem, *significatio* se extendit ad futura[^13], ideo non est simile.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo et circumcisione, dicendum, quod non est simile, nisi in quantum decimatio est actus *sacramentalis* Legis naturae ad remedium originalis peccati; hoc modo non est nisi circa praesens, sicut circumcisio et baptismus. Secundum autem quod est actus *figuralis*, sic non est simile.

Si autem quaeratur, quare baptismus et circumcisio non potest esse actus figuralis, sicut et decimatio; dicendum, quod ratio huius est, quia circumcisio et baptismus est actus *in persona*; decimatio autem, cum sit decimae partis oblatio, est actus *pro persona*. Et quia oblatio potest fieri pro eo quod est et quod futurum est, circumcidi et baptizari non nisi[^14] quod iam est; hinc est, quod actus decimandi potuit se extendere ad futuros, et non actus circumcidendi, vel baptizandi.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod quaeritur, quomodo proles dicitur decimari in parente; dicendum, quod decimatio idem est quod praefiguratio curationis. Unde nullo illorum modorum accipitur, qui in opponendo assignabantur[^15]: et ideo insufficienter procedebat illa obiectio.

english:
### Article I. *On the tithing of Christ.*
### Question I. *Whether anyone can be tithed in his forefathers.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and asks whether anyone has to be tithed in his forefathers. And that this is so is proved:

1. By that saying of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter seven[^1]: *Through Abraham, Levi too, who received tithes, was tithed.*

2. Likewise, this same thing seems to follow from Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*, and it is found in the Gloss[^2]: «Just as, when Adam sinned, those who were in his loins sinned; so, when Abraham gave tithes, those who were in his loins were tithed»; but it is established that the offspring could sin in Adam: therefore also be tithed in Abraham.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems to follow by reason: because offspring can be set free and reduced to servitude in their forefathers, since a slave is born of servile condition[^3]: therefore by like reasoning it seems that, when forefathers give tithes, the sons have to be tithed in them.

4. Likewise, tithing is a *figurative* act[^4]; but a figure regards not only the present, but also the past and the future: therefore it seems that a son can be tithed not only in his own person, but also when he is in his forefather as in a cause and matter.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^5]: «In the loins of Abraham that was tithed which was healed»; but the sons of Abraham were not healed of original sin, but rather were born with original sin: therefore it does not seem that they were tithed in Abraham.

2. Likewise, when a tithe is given of grain, a tithe is not on that account given of that grain which is to be born[^6]: therefore by like reasoning, when a tithe is given for a man, it does not seem that he who is to be born from him is tithed in him — for just as a man is in a man seminally, so is a grain in a grain — therefore this reasoning seems sound.

3. Likewise, just as circumcision is a remedy against original sin under the Law of figure, and baptism under the Law of grace, so tithing under the Law of nature, as Hugh of Saint Victor says[^7]; but no one could be baptized or circumcised in his mother's womb: therefore neither tithed.

4. Likewise, either *to be tithed* is to be healed by the tithe, or *to be tithed* is to be obligated to the tithe, or *to be tithed* is to give a tenth part of something, or *to be tithed* is to be prefigured by the tithe; but by none of these modes was Levi tithed in Abraham, since he was neither healed by the tithe, nor obligated to give tithes, since he rather received them[^8], nor did he give a tithe, nor was he signified by the tithe: therefore in no way does he seem to have been tithed in Abraham; and if he was not tithed, by like reasoning neither were any others.

### Conclusion

> Offspring can in some manner be tithed in their forefathers, according to that mode by which tithing posits nothing in act with regard to those tithed, but is a *figurative* act, *signifying a future healing*.

**I respond:** For an understanding of the foregoing, it must be noted that tithing was a *moral*, *sacramental*, and *figurative* act. According as it was a

*moral* act, tithing is so called as the donation of a certain fixed part for the support of those who serve the Lord and are appointed to divine worship; and in this manner tithing in some way perseveres even now[^9]. — But according as tithing is a *sacramental* act, tithing is the donation of a part for the healing of the original disease. — But according as tithing is a *figurative* act, tithing is the donation of a tenth part for the prefiguration of the universal healing which was to come about through the offering of Christ.

Taken in the first two modes, tithing regards only the present[^10]; because a tithe is given only of that which is had, and nothing is healed except what already has the disease. But taken in the third mode, tithing belongs not only to the present, but also to the future, inasmuch as *figuration* is *signification*, and signification extends itself not only to present things, but also to future ones; and in this manner the sons of Abraham are said to be tithed in Abraham, because through that tithing all the sons of Abraham were prefigured as to be healed through him who was signified by Melchizedek, that is, through the true priest Christ. And this is what Augustine says, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^11]: «Since that very tithing pertained to the prefiguring of the medicine, he was being tithed in Abraham who was being healed», not when he was being prefigured, but when the truth of that figure was being fulfilled. — Therefore the reasons are to be granted which show that offspring can in some manner be tithed in their forefather, according to that mode by which tithing posits nothing in act with regard to those tithed, but only according to a signification which belongs not only to present things, but also to future ones.

*To 1.* To that which is objected first concerning the authority of Augustine, it must be said that, as is clear from the preceding word[^12], *that was tithed which was healed* does not assert a concomitance according to the same time with respect to what it is *to be tithed*, but rather extends itself to every time, and for that time renders the statement true, in which the truth of the figure was being fulfilled.

*To 2.* To that which is objected — that a tithe is not given of grain which is not in reality, but only in seminal account — it must be said that it is not similar, because tithing, insofar as it is a *figurative* act, does not extend itself to signify something about the grain, but to signify something about the human race; whence it regards the grain as the matter about which it has to be exercised, not as that which is to be signified through it. And because *exercise* requires present matter, *signification* extends itself to future things[^13], therefore it is not similar.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning baptism and circumcision, it must be said that it is not similar, except insofar as tithing is a *sacramental* act of the Law of nature for the remedy of original sin; in this manner it is only about the present, like circumcision and baptism. But according as it is a *figurative* act, it is not similar.

But if it be asked why baptism and circumcision cannot be a figurative act, as tithing is; it must be said that the reason for this is that circumcision and baptism is an act *in the person*; but tithing, since it is the offering of a tenth part, is an act *on behalf of the person*. And because an offering can be made on behalf of that which is and that which is to be, but one is circumcised and baptized only as[^14] regards what already is; hence it is that the act of tithing could extend itself to future ones, but not the act of circumcising or baptizing.

*To 4.* To that which is asked, how offspring is said to be tithed in its forefather; it must be said that tithing is the same as the prefiguration of healing. Whence it is taken in none of those modes which were assigned in the objection[^15]: and therefore that objection proceeded insufficiently.

la: Vers. 9.

en: Verse 9.

la: *Super Hebr.* 7, 9, quae Glossa est secundum August., X. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 19. seq. n. 34. seqq. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: *On Hebrews* 7:9, which Gloss is according to Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* X, c. 19 ff., n. 34 ff. See here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *Polit.* c. 3. seq. (c. 2.), et Iustinian., I. *Institut. Iuris civ.* c. 3. et 4. Vide II. Sent. d. 44. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Politics* I, c. 3 ff. (c. 2), and Justinian, *Institutes of Civil Law* I, c. 3 and 4. See II Sent., d. 44, a. 2, q. 1 ff.

la: Cfr. hic corp. circa finem. — Paulo inferius ex codd. A K Z resarsimus *cum est*, quod ab edd. abest. Alii codd. *sed cum etiam est*, quae transpositio verborum minus probanda est.

en: Cf. here in the body, near the end. — A little below, from codices A K Z we have restored *cum est*, which is absent from the editions. Other codices have *sed cum etiam est*, which transposition of words is less to be approved.

en: Chapter 20, n. 36.

la: Cod. O adiungit *de eo*, Vat. *de grano*. Paulo inferius pro *sicut enim... sic granum* cod. Z *sic enim... sicut granum*. Dein pro *ergo ratio* codd. G K L P Q Z aa *ideo ratio*, cod. N *et ideo ratio*. Denique pro *videtur* sola Vat. *non videtur*.

en: Codex O adds *de eo*, the Vatican edition *de grano*. A little below, for *sicut enim... sic granum* codex Z has *sic enim... sicut granum*. Then for *ergo ratio* codices G K L P Q Z aa have *ideo ratio*, codex N *et ideo ratio*. Finally, for *videtur* the Vatican edition alone has *non videtur*.

la: *Sum. Sent.* tr. 4. c. 1; I. *de Sacram.* p. XI. c. 6, et *de Sacram. Legis natural. et scriptae*, circa finem. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 68, nota 1, et IV. Sent. d. 6. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *potuit* codd. K \ *potest*, edd. *poterit*.

en: *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 4, c. 1; *On the Sacraments* I, p. XI, c. 6, and *On the Sacraments of the Law of nature and of the written Law*, near the end. — On the minor premise cf. above p. 68, note 1, and IV Sent., d. 6, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — For *potuit* codices K \ have *potest*, the editions *poterit*.

la: Hebr. 7, 5: *Et quidem de filiis Levi sacerdotium accipientes, mandatum habent decimas sumere a populo secundum legem, id est a fratribus suis, quamquam et ipsi exierint de lumbis Abrahae.* Cfr. Deut. 18, 1. seqq.

en: Hebrews 7:5: *And indeed those of the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, although they too came forth from the loins of Abraham.* Cf. Deuteronomy 18:1 ff.

la: Vide *Iur. can. Decret.* p. II. caus. 13. q. 1. — Edd. omittunt *aliquo modo*, pro quo cod. R *alicubi*.

en: See the *Decretum of Canon Law*, p. II, cause 13, q. 1. — The editions omit *aliquo modo*, for which codex R has *alicubi*.

la: Edd. 1, 2 *tempus praesens*, Vat. *temporis praesens*. Mox cod. K. *nisi qui* pro *nisi quod*.

en: Editions 1, 2 have *tempus praesens*, the Vatican edition *temporis praesens*. Shortly after, codex K has *nisi qui* for *nisi quod*.

la: Cap. 20. n. 36, ubi textus origin. pro *ille... qui* exhibet *illud... quod* et post *curabatur* addit *non illud unde curabatur*. — Cfr. Hebr. 7, 1 seqq. — Superius codd. N U *decimari* pro *decimati*.

en: Chapter 20, n. 36, where the original text, for *ille... qui*, gives *illud... quod*, and after *curabatur* adds *non illud unde curabatur*. — Cf. Hebrews 7:1 ff. — Above, codices N U have *decimari* for *decimati*.

la: Circa finem corp. quaest. — In fine solut. pro *veritatis figura* Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *veritas figurae*.

en: Near the end of the body of the question. — At the end of the solution, for *veritatis figura* the Vatican edition with some codices has *veritas figurae*.

la: Codd. F K L N Q T Z *futurum*, codd. G H aa *futuram*.

en: Codices F K L N Q T Z have *futurum*, codices G H aa *futuram*.

la: Vat. adiicit *in eo*, et post pauca cum compluribus codd. et edd. 1, 2 pro *se extendere* vitiose habet *se extendi*, rectius codd. G L aa *extendi tantum*, sine *se*.

en: The Vatican edition adds *in eo*, and shortly after, with several codices and editions 1, 2, for *se extendere* it faultily has *se extendi*; more correctly codices G L aa have *extendi tantum*, without *se*.

la: Codd. B C D N P Q U V et alii *quod opponendo assignabatur*, nonnulli istorum codd. *assignatur*.

en: Codices B C D N P Q U V and others have *quod opponendo assignabatur*; some of those codices have *assignatur*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Duae huius articuli quaestiones solvunt duas difficultates, quae occurrunt in argumentatione Apostoli, Hebr. 7, quarum prima est, quomodo Levi ideo decimatus fuerit in Abraham (ibi v. 9. 10.), quia in lumbis eius erat; et altera, quomodo Christus, qui similiter in Abraham fuisse videtur, in ipso non fuerit decimatus, quod Apostolus manifeste supponit. Primam difficultatem solvit q. 1; alteram q. 2. — Solutio primae difficultatis eruitur ex hoc principio, quod decimatio sive decimarum oblatio, quae instituta fuit, ut sacerdos pro peccatis offerentium deprecaretur, non sit tantum actus *moralis*, sed etiam *figuralis*, ut explicatur a nostro Doctore secundum sententiam communem. Iam inde patet, decimationem minime convenire Christo. Alia ratio sumitur ex eo, quod ipse erat in Abraham alio modo ac Levi. — De hac et seq. quaestione late tractat Gulielmus Antissiodorrensis (rectius Autissiod.) in sua *Summa*, dicta *aurea* p. III, quae typis edita est Parisiis a Franc. Regnault (sine anno).

**II.** De utraque quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 9. m. 3. a. 4. — Scot., Report. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. III. q. 31. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 26. 27. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 4. a. 2. et dub. lit. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Biel, hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The two questions of this article resolve two difficulties which occur in the argumentation of the Apostle, Hebrews 7, of which the first is how Levi was therefore tithed in Abraham (there, vv. 9–10), because he was in his loins; and the other, how Christ, who likewise seems to have been in Abraham, was not tithed in him, which the Apostle clearly supposes. The first difficulty he resolves in q. 1; the other in q. 2. — The solution of the first difficulty is drawn from this principle: that tithing, or the offering of tithes, which was instituted so that the priest might intercede for the sins of those offering, is not only a *moral* act, but also a *figurative* one, as is explained by our Doctor according to the common opinion. And from this it at once appears that tithing in no way befits Christ. Another reason is taken from the fact that he was in Abraham in a different manner than Levi. — On this and the following question William of Auxerre treats at length (more correctly Autissiod.) in his *Summa*, called the *Golden* one, part III, which was published in print at Paris by Franc. Regnault (without year).

**II.** On both questions: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 9, m. 3, a. 4. — Scotus, *Report.* here, q. 2. — St. Thomas, here, q. 1, a. 3; *Summa* III, q. 31, a. 8. — B. Albert, here, a. 26, 27. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 3, q. 2, 3. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 4, a. 2, and the literal doubt. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 4. — Biel, here, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 81–82 (PDF 103–104, offset +22), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 6203–6324) as the base for clean running prose and exact footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation. The ART. I opener (`ARTICULUS I. — De Christi decimatione.`, raw 6203) folds into this q1 per the Vol II/III chunking convention (no standalone a1-divisio chunk); the ART. I sub-list *Circa primum quaeruntur duo* belongs to the d3-p2-divisio chunk (TRACTATIO) and is not repeated here.

**Running heads (verified on crops):** p. 81 `DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 81`; p. 82 `82 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`

**Alignment:** PASS. The q1 opener reads *Circa primum… utrum aliquis decimari habeat in parentibus* = PARS II ART. I TRACTATIO q1 (*de Christi decimatione*, *decimari in parentibus*). It is NOT the q2 wording (*Christus in Abraham decimatus*), so no auto-chunker q-swap.

**Page-split / column-reflow map:** ART. I + QUAESTIO I title block + body args 1–4 (pro) on p. 81 L-col; the ART. I sub-list catchword (running over from divisio) + body args 1(R)–4(R) (continuing the *Sed contra* and pro args) + Conclusio + Respondeo opener on p. 81 R-col. Respondeo (triplex modus) continues on p. 82 L-col → R-col; replies *Ad 1–4* (with the incidental *Si autem quaeratur* paragraph, marginal label *Quaestio incidens solvitur*, rendered inline) on p. 82. The full-width **SCHOLION** (§I–II) prints below both columns on p. 82, after *Ad 4*. Marginal labels (*Fundamenta, Ad oppositum, Conclusio 1/2/3, Solutio oppositorum, Quaestio incidens solvitur, Triplex actus decimationis*) are editorial side-notes, rendered inline / as structural cues, NOT footnote anchors.

**Apparatus split (15 entries, continuous [^1]–[^15], per-page restart):**
- **p. 81 footers 1–8 → [^1]–[^8]** (INHERITED in full from d3-p2-divisio, commit e0f3e32 — the divisio carried no footers, so the entire p. 81 sequence is this chunk's). Anchors: f.1 `septimo¹` (arg 1) / f.2 Glossa`²` (arg 2) / f.3 `conditionis³` (arg 3) / f.4 `figuralis⁴` (arg 4) / f.5 `litteram⁵` (Sed contra 1) / f.6 `nasci⁶` (Sed contra 2) / f.7 `Victore⁷` (Sed contra 3) / f.8 `reciperet⁸` (Sed contra 4). The L-col footer band also prints the signature/catchword `S. Bonav. — Tom. III.` and the page catchword `II`, which are NOT footnotes and are omitted.
- **p. 82 footers 1–7 → [^9]–[^15]**: f.1 `modo¹` (Respondeo, *moralis* mode) / f.2 `praesens²` (Conclusio 1) / f.3 Augustinus `litteram³` (Respondeo, Aug. citation) / f.4 `praecedenti⁴` (Ad 1) / f.5 `futura⁵` (Ad 2) / f.6 `nisi⁶` (Ad 3, incidental) / f.7 `assignabantur⁷` (Ad 4).

**Scholion disposition: has_scholion: true (§I–II), held in q1.** A distinct full-width `SCHOLION.` block prints on p. 82 after *Ad 4*, before QUAESTIO II. §I states the two article-questions resolve the two Hebrews-7 difficulties (Levi tithed in Abraham, q1; Christ not tithed, q2) and **forward-covers q2** (*altera difficultas… solvit q. 2*; the William of Auxerre reference covers *hac et seq. quaestione*). §II is the doctor list *De utraque quaestione*. The scholion carries no Quaracchi footer of its own. q2 (d3-p2-a1-q2) therefore correctly has no scholion of its own.

**Forward hand-off to d3-p2-a1-q2 (raw 6328–6458, `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus in Abraham fuerit decimatus`, printed p. 83+; LAST q of PARS II ART. I):**
1. **No p. 82 footer carries forward** — all 7 p. 82 footers are this q1's ([^9]–[^15]); the last (`assignabantur⁷`) anchors q1's *Ad 4*. QUAESTIO II's own footers begin fresh on p. 83.
2. **Scholion:** already held here (q1, §I–II, forward-covering q2). q2 should be built with `has_scholion: false` and a Note pointing back to this chunk's scholion.
3. **Boundary:** q1 ends grammatically complete at `…insufficienter procedebat illa obiectio` + the SCHOLION block (raw 6324). `QUAESTIO II.` (raw 6328) + `Ulrum Christus in Abraham fuerit decimatus` (raw 6329) + `Secundo quaeritur…` (raw 6331) begin d3-p2-a1-q2 on p. 83 (running head `DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 83`) — NOT included. Continuous, no cascade-merge splice.
4. After q2, ART. II opener (raw ~6459, p. 85) folds into d3-p2-a2-q1.

**[?] flags:** none. (Footer [^7] preserves the raw `codd. K \` glyph verbatim — the codex siglum after K is illegible in the band; rendered as `\` per the OCR, low-stakes.)

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 83 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christus in Abraham fuerit decimatus.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus in Abraham fuerit decimatus. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Apostoli ad Hebraeos septimo[^1]: per Abraham et Levi decimatus est; adhuc in lumbis patris erat, quando obviavit ei Melchisedech; sed Christus fuit in lumbis Abrahae, quando decimas illas dedit: ergo fuit decimatus, sicut et Levi.

2. Item, sicut dicit Hugo de sancto Victore[^2]: « Per decimas significatur ipse Christus »: ergo videtur, quod ipsa decimatio, in quantum est actus figuralis, principalius respiciat Christum quam alios filios Abrahae: ergo magis videtur, quod debeat dici decimatus quam alii.

3. Item, nihil plus requiritur ad decimationem, nisi quod illud realiter impleatur in prole, quod significatum fuit in decimatione Abrahae; sed hoc fuit maxime impletum in Christo, qui se ipsum obtulit hostiam Deo et Patri per oblationem corporis et sanguinis sui[^3].

4. Item, tota caro Christi fuit in carne beatae Virginis; sed caro Virginis[^4] habuit decimari in Abraham: ergo et caro Christi.

**Sed contra:**
1. Augustinus, decimo super Genesim ad litteram[^5]: « Ille non est decimatus, cuius caro non fervorem vulneris, sed materiam medicaminis traxit »; Christus autem fuit huiusmodi: ergo etc.

2. Item, sicut se habet Adam peccans ad posteros, ita Abraham in dando decimas; sed quamvis Christus esset in Adam peccante, non dicitur Christus peccasse in Adam; ergo pari ratione in Abraham dante decimas non dicitur decimatus[^6].

3. Item, decimatio vel erat curatio, vel curationis praefiguratio; sed Christus nec ibi curabatur nec curari praefigurabatur: ergo videtur, quod ibi decimatus non fuerit[^7].

4. Item, si Christus decimatus fuit in lumbis Abrahae, sicut et Levi, ergo nulla est argumentatio Apostoli[^8], qua probat, maius esse sacerdotium Melchisedech sacerdotio levitico, per hoc quod Levi decimatus fuit: quodsi ratiocinatio Apostoli recta est, restat igitur, quod Christus non decimatus fuit in Abraham.

Est igitur quaestio iuxta hoc: unde tenet illa consequentia, qua probat Apostolus, maius esse sacerdotium Melchisedech sacerdotio levitico, pro eo quod Levi[^9] obtulit decimas Melchisedech? Videtur, quod non cogat, quia secundum illam rationem posset argui, quod maior est dignitas unius sacerdotis pauperis quam Papae, esto quod pater Papae dederit decimas simplici sacerdoti.

### Conclusio

> Christus in lumbis Abrahae non fuit decimatus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut determinat Magister in littera[^10], immo Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram decimo, Christus in lumbis Abrahae non fuit decimatus.

Et ratio huius est, quia decimatio praefigurabat futuram curationem. Quoniam igitur Christus in lumbis Abrahae non erat sicut curatione indigens, sed potius sicut medicina; hinc est, quod decimatio ad ipsum non pertinebat. Sicut enim in Adam illi soli peccaverunt, qui secundum carnalem generationem et concupiscentiam seminalem ab ipso procedunt; et ideo ab illa generalitate excluditur Christus, qua dicitur: Omnes in Adam peccaverunt[^11], quia non processit ab ipso secundum libidinis ardorem, sed secundum Spiritus sancti operationem: sic in proposito intelligendum est de decimatione.

<!-- page 84 -->

1. Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod primo obiicitur in contrarium; quoniam Christus in lumbis Abrahae fuit et Levi[^12], sed non eodem modo. Et propterea non sequitur, quod sicut uni competit decimari, ita conveniat alteri. Decimatio autem non tantum respicit *esse in lumbis*, sed etiam *modum essendi* secundum traductionem originalis peccati.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus significatur per decimam oblatam; dicendum, quod decima oblata non decimabatur, sed decimatio potius respicit illud quod remanet in alio, sicut dicit Hugo[^13], quia remanet imperfectio ablata unitate, quae est perfectio denarii, per quod significatur futura curatio. Unde sicut alii figurantur in illa decimatione *curari*, sic Christus figuratur esse *ratio medicamenti*.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in illa decimatione significabatur oblatio Christi; dicendum, quod verum est, sed non significatur Christi oblatio, tanquam *pro quo* fieret oblatio[^14], sed tanquam *qui* offertur pro aliis. Et quoniam *decimari* dicitur ille, pro quo offertur oblatio decimae; hinc est, quod actus decimationis non debet Christo attribui; aliter enim praefigurabatur Christus, aliter alii.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro Christi fuit in beata Virgine, et caro Virginis in Abraham; dicendum, quod ibi est sophisma *secundum accidens*[^15], quia variatur modus essendi *hinc inde*. Alio enim modo fuit caro beatae Virginis in Abraham, aliter caro Christi in Matre sua; quia beata Virgo processit secundum legem concupiscentiae, Christus vero minime.

Ad illud quod quaerebatur de auctoritate Apostoli et ratione, dici potest, quod ratio Apostoli bona est ad illos, contra quos arguit, scilicet Iudaeos, qui supponebant, Abraham digniorem esse in suo genere. Si ergo Abraham benedictus fuit a Melchisedech et ei decimas obtulit tanquam superiori, sequitur ex hoc, quod non tantum maior fuit Melchisedech Abraham, sed etiam maior omnibus, qui processerunt secundum legem carnis ab eo; et ideo dignior fuit Levi et Aaron.

Sed quoniam illud non videtur esse verum, quod excellentior fuerit Melchisedech quam Moyses et David et beata Virgo, qui processerunt ex Abraham; et Apostolus non procedit ex falsis suppositionibus: ideo oportet aliter dicere, videlicet quod Apostolus arguit ex veritate et significatione illius figurae necessaria argumentatione. Decimatio[^16] pro illo tempore significabat curationem. Cum ergo Abraham obtulit decimas Melchisedech et ab eo benedictus est, significavit, se indigere curatione et benedictione per illum sacerdotem, qui significabatur per Melchisedech. Sed ille qui curat et benedicit, maior est absque ulla contradictione. Cum ergo sacerdotium Christi fuerit illud, quod praefigurabatur per illud Melchisedech, sicut in Psalmo[^17] legitur: *Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech*; restat igitur, quod maius fuit sacerdotium Christi quam Levi. Et haec est ratio Apostoli, quam impossibile est dissolvi. — Nec est simile de sacerdote simplici, et de patre Papae, quia ibi nulla est ratio figurae. Haec autem tota ratio fundatur supra decimationem, secundum quod est actus figuralis; nam secundum quod est actus moralis, nihil facit ad propositum[^18], quia nec Abraham nec eius posteri obligati fuerunt ad dandas decimas Melchisedech, maxime illi qui fuerunt de stirpe Levi, ad nullas decimas dandas fuerunt astricti[^19].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether Christ was tithed in Abraham.*

Secondly it is asked whether Christ was tithed in Abraham. And that he was, it seems:

1. By the authority of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter seven[^1]: through Abraham Levi too was tithed; he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him; but Christ was in the loins of Abraham when he gave those tithes: therefore he was tithed, just as Levi was.

2. Likewise, as Hugh of Saint Victor says[^2]: « By the tithes Christ himself is signified »: therefore it seems that the tithing itself, insofar as it is a figural act, regards Christ more principally than the other sons of Abraham: therefore it seems rather that he ought to be said to be tithed than the others.

3. Likewise, nothing more is required for a tithing than that there be really fulfilled in the offspring that which was signified in Abraham's tithing; but this was fulfilled most of all in Christ, who offered himself as a victim to God and the Father through the offering of his body and blood[^3].

4. Likewise, the whole flesh of Christ was in the flesh of the blessed Virgin; but the flesh of the Virgin[^4] had to be tithed in Abraham: therefore so also the flesh of Christ.

**Sed contra:**
1. Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^5]: « He is not tithed whose flesh drew from there not the ferment of a wound, but the matter of a remedy »; but Christ was of this kind: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, as sinning Adam stands to his posterity, so does Abraham in giving tithes; but although Christ was in sinning Adam, Christ is not said to have sinned in Adam; therefore by parity of reasoning, in Abraham's giving tithes he is not said to be tithed[^6].

3. Likewise, the tithing was either a healing or a prefiguration of healing; but Christ was neither healed there nor prefigured to be healed: therefore it seems that he was not tithed there[^7].

4. Likewise, if Christ was tithed in the loins of Abraham, just as Levi was, then the Apostle's argument is null[^8], by which he proves the priesthood of Melchizedek to be greater than the levitical priesthood through the fact that Levi was tithed: but if the Apostle's reasoning is correct, it follows therefore that Christ was not tithed in Abraham.

There is, then, a question alongside this: on what does that consequence rest, by which the Apostle proves the priesthood of Melchizedek to be greater than the levitical priesthood, for the reason that Levi[^9] offered tithes to Melchizedek? It seems that it does not compel, because by that reasoning it could be argued that the dignity of one poor priest is greater than the Pope's, granted that the Pope's father gave tithes to a simple priest.

### Conclusio

> Christ was not tithed in the loins of Abraham.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, as the Master determines in the text[^10]—indeed Augustine in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*—Christ was not tithed in the loins of Abraham.

And the reason for this is that the tithing prefigured the future healing. Since therefore Christ in the loins of Abraham was not as one needing healing, but rather as the medicine; hence it is that the tithing did not pertain to him. For just as in Adam those alone sinned who proceed from him according to carnal generation and seminal concupiscence; and therefore Christ is excluded from that generality by which it is said: All sinned in Adam[^11], because he did not proceed from him according to the ardor of lust, but according to the operation of the Holy Spirit: so in the matter at hand it is to be understood concerning the tithing.

1. And by this the reply is clear to that which is first objected to the contrary; for Christ was in the loins of Abraham, and so was Levi[^12], but not in the same way. And therefore it does not follow that, as it belongs to one to be tithed, so it should fit the other. For the tithing regards not only *being in the loins*, but also the *mode of being* according to the transmission of original sin.

2. To that which is objected, that Christ is signified by the offered tithe; it must be said that the offered tithe was not tithed, but rather the tithing regards that which remains in another, as Hugh says[^13], since there remains the imperfection removed by the unity, which is the perfection of the denarius, through which the future healing is signified. Hence, just as others are figured in that tithing as *being healed*, so Christ is figured as *the ground of the remedy*.

3. To that which is objected, that in that tithing the offering of Christ was signified; it must be said that this is true, but Christ's offering is not signified as one *for whom* the offering would be made[^14], but as one *who* is offered for others. And since he is said to be *tithed* for whom the offering of the tithe is made; hence it is that the act of tithing ought not to be attributed to Christ; for Christ was prefigured in one way, the others in another.

4. To that which is objected, that the flesh of Christ was in the blessed Virgin, and the flesh of the Virgin in Abraham; it must be said that there is a sophism *of accident*[^15] there, because the mode of being is varied *on this side and that*. For in one way the flesh of the blessed Virgin was in Abraham, in another the flesh of Christ in his Mother; because the blessed Virgin proceeded according to the law of concupiscence, but Christ in no way.

To that which was asked concerning the authority of the Apostle and the reasoning, it can be said that the Apostle's reasoning is good against those against whom he argues, namely the Jews, who supposed Abraham to be more worthy in his own kind. If, then, Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and offered tithes to him as to a superior, it follows from this that not only was Melchizedek greater than Abraham, but also greater than all who proceeded from him according to the law of the flesh; and therefore he was more worthy than Levi and Aaron.

But since that does not seem to be true—that Melchizedek was more excellent than Moses and David and the blessed Virgin, who proceeded from Abraham; and since the Apostle does not proceed from false suppositions: therefore it is necessary to speak otherwise, namely that the Apostle argues from the truth and signification of that figure by a necessary argumentation. The tithing[^16] for that time signified healing. When therefore Abraham offered tithes to Melchizedek and was blessed by him, he signified that he needed healing and blessing through that priest who was signified by Melchizedek. But he who heals and blesses is the greater, without any contradiction. Since therefore the priesthood of Christ was that which was prefigured by that of Melchizedek, as is read in the Psalm[^17]: *Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek*; it follows therefore that the priesthood of Christ was greater than Levi's. And this is the Apostle's reasoning, which it is impossible to dissolve. — Nor is it similar in the case of a simple priest and the Pope's father, because there there is no ground of figure. But this whole reasoning is founded upon the tithing, according as it is a figural act; for according as it is a moral act, it contributes nothing to the matter at hand[^18], since neither Abraham nor his posterity were obliged to give tithes to Melchizedek, especially those who were of the stock of Levi, who were bound to give no tithes[^19].

---

la: Vers. 9. seq., ubi Vat. post *Levi* addit *qui decimas accepit* et post *adhuc* inserit *enim*. Codd. K Z voculae *adhuc* praemittunt *cum*.

en: Verse 9 ff., where the Vatican edition after *Levi* adds *who received the tithes* and after *adhuc* (still) inserts *enim* (for). Codices K Z prefix *cum* to the little word *adhuc*.

la: Vide *de Sacram. Legis natural. et scriptae*, post medietatem, et I. *de Sacram.* p. XI. c. 6, ubi docet, oblationes et sacrificia et decimas, ut Sacramenta Legis naturalis, idem significare ac Sacramenta novae Legis. « Erat quippe, ait, idem Salvator, eadem gratia, eadem fides, illic venturi, hic exhibiti. Sed quia ipse, per quem salus dabatur, longe erat, eiusdem salutis signa obscura esse debuerunt » etc.

en: See *On the Sacraments of the Natural and the Written Law*, past the midpoint, and book I *On the Sacraments*, part XI, ch. 6, where he teaches that oblations and sacrifices and tithes, as sacraments of the natural law, signify the same as the sacraments of the new Law. « For there was, he says, the same Savior, the same grace, the same faith, of one to come there, of one shown forth here. But because he himself, through whom salvation was given, was far off, the signs of that same salvation had to be obscure » etc.

la: Cfr. Hebr. 9, 14. et 10, 12. — In *maiori* pro *impleatur* edd. *impleat*, et pro *realiter* cod. G *totaliter*.

en: Cf. Hebrews 9:14 and 10:12. — In the *major* [premise] for *impleatur* (be fulfilled) the editions read *impleat*, and for *realiter* (really) codex G *totaliter* (totally).

la: Cod. G ante *Virginis* repetit *beatae*.

en: Codex G before *Virginis* repeats *beatae* (of the blessed).

la: Cap. 20 n. 36: *Non autem et ille ibi decimatus est, cuius caro inde non fervorem* etc. — Ante *vulneris* edd. praemittunt *libidinis seu*.

en: Chapter 20, n. 36: *But neither was he tithed there whose flesh drew from there not the ferment* etc. — Before *vulneris* (of a wound) the editions prefix *libidinis seu* (of lust, or).

la: Cod. F *decimari*.

en: Codex F *decimari* (to be tithed).

la: Edd. addunt *scilicet in lumbis Abrahae, sicut et Levi*. Prima seq. arg. propositio deest in edd. 1, 2.

en: The editions add *namely in the loins of Abraham, just as Levi too*. The first proposition of the following argument is lacking in editions 1, 2.

la: Hebr. 7, 1. seqq. — Paulo inferius post *decimatus fuit* Vat. addit *in Abraham*, et subinde voci *ratiocinatio* codd. U X praefigunt *consequentia vel*; pro ipsa voce *ratiocinatio* codd. G H L N T aa substituunt *conratiocinatio*, cod. K *consideratio*.

en: Hebrews 7:1 ff. — A little lower, after *decimatus fuit* (was tithed) the Vatican edition adds *in Abraham*, and thereupon to the word *ratiocinatio* (reasoning) codices U X prefix *consequentia vel* (consequence, or); for the word *ratiocinatio* itself codices G H L N T aa substitute *conratiocinatio*, codex K *consideratio* (consideration).

la: Pro *Levi* codd. M O *Abraham*, qui revera decimas obtulit Melchisedech, quod tamen de Levi quoque dici potest, quatenus fuit in lumbis Abrahae. Mox post *Videtur* cod. V subiicit *enim*.

en: For *Levi* codices M O read *Abraham*, who in fact offered the tithes to Melchizedek, which however can also be said of Levi, inasmuch as he was in the loins of Abraham. Soon after *Videtur* (It seems) codex V appends *enim* (for).

la: Hic c. 3, ubi et verba Augustini, quae hic respiciuntur (X. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 20 n. 36.), afferuntur. De ratione mox adiuncta vide ibid. et q. praeced. in corp. circa finem. — Pro *determinat* edd. et nonnulli codd. *dicit*.

en: Here, ch. 3, where also the words of Augustine which are referred to here (book X *On Genesis according to the Letter*, ch. 20, n. 36) are adduced. Concerning the reasoning soon added, see the same place and the preceding question in the body near the end. — For *determinat* (determines) the editions and several codices read *dicit* (says).

la: Rom. 3, 23. — Paulo superius post *procedunt* cod. F adiungit *ita et illi soli decimabantur et curabantur*; Vat. autem, quae et in principio propos. pro *Sicut enim* substituit *Sicut etiam*, post *procedunt* addit *vel processerunt*: *ita illi soli in Abraham decimati sunt, qui ab ipso secundum rationem seminalem prodierunt*. Mox pro *processit ab ipso* codd. K Z *processit ex ipso*.

en: Romans 3:23. — A little above, after *procedunt* (proceed) codex F adds *thus those alone too were tithed and healed*; the Vatican edition, which also at the beginning of the proposition for *Sicut enim* (For just as) substitutes *Sicut etiam* (just as also), after *procedunt* adds *vel processerunt* (or proceeded): *thus those alone were tithed in Abraham who came forth from him according to the seminal account*. Soon, for *processit ab ipso* (proceeded from him) codices K Z read *processit ex ipso* (proceeded out of him).

la: Cod. U, pro *quoniam* substituto *scilicet quod*, hic interiicit *dicendum, quod verum est*. Paulo inferius post *Decimatio* edd. et aliquot codd. *enim* pro *autem*.

en: Codex U, with *scilicet quod* (namely that) substituted for *quoniam* (for), here interjects *it must be said that it is true*. A little lower, after *Decimatio* (The tithing) the editions and some codices read *enim* (for) for *autem* (however).

la: Libr. I. *de Sacram.* p. XI. c. 6: *Primam namque institutionem accepit homo, ut pro remediis salutis exterioris substantiae partem offerret Deo, partem ad usum proprium retineret, quatenus in hoc facto disceret, ea quae intrinsecus bona erant, Deo tribuere, quae vero mala, sibi imputare. Denarius quippe (quoniam perfectus numerus est) signum est bonitatis et virtutis, quae Deo tribuitur et in homine a Deo cognoscitur. Nonarius autem, quia minus habet a perfecto, habet perfectum et vitium, et corruptionem significat, quae merito homini deputatur. Propterea igitur homo decimam dare Deo, nonam sibi retinere praecipitur, ut quod bonum est in se a Deo esse, quod vero malum est a se esse confiteatur. Sed hoc signum quasi de lege sumtum magis docuit hominem, quid esset, quam quid fieret.* — Immediate post pro *quia remanet* codd. U Z et edd. 1, 2 *quod remanet*. Subinde pro *per quod*, quae verba in plurimis codd. desunt, cod. O *et sic*. Codd. C U bb, qui etiam *per quod* omittunt, paulo ante inter *ablata* et *unitate* interserunt *enim*.

en: Book I *On the Sacraments*, part XI, ch. 6: *For man received the first institution, that for the remedies of salvation he should offer part of his outward substance to God, retain part for his own use, so that in this deed he might learn to attribute to God the things that were inwardly good, but to impute to himself the things that were evil. For the denarius (since it is a perfect number) is a sign of the goodness and virtue which is attributed to God and is recognized in man as from God. But the nonarius (nine), because it has less of the perfect, has both the perfect and the defect, and signifies the corruption which is deservedly reckoned to man. Therefore man is commanded to give the tenth to God and retain the ninth for himself, so that he may confess that what is good in him is from God, but what is evil is from himself. But this sign, taken as it were from the law, taught man more what he was than what he should become.* — Immediately after, for *quia remanet* (since there remains) codices U Z and editions 1, 2 read *quod remanet* (which remains). Thereupon for *per quod*, which words are lacking in most codices, codex O reads *et sic* (and thus). Codices C U bb, which also omit *per quod*, a little before insert *enim* between *ablata* and *unitate*.

la: Cod. U adiungit *decimae*. Dein pro *qui offertur* codd. A E G L *quod offeretur*, Vat. *quae offertur*. Circa finem solut. post *aliter enim* edd. cum aliquibus codd. subiiciunt *ibi*, et pro *praefigurabatur* codd. A B (T a secunda manu) V Z exhibent *praefiguratur*.

en: Codex U adds *decimae* (of the tithe). Then for *qui offertur* (who is offered) codices A E G L read *quod offeretur* (which would be offered), the Vatican edition *quae offertur* (which is offered). Toward the end of the solution, after *aliter enim* (for in another way) the editions with some codices append *ibi* (there), and for *praefigurabatur* (was prefigured) codices A B (T by a second hand) V Z give *praefiguratur* (is prefigured).

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 870, nota 8. — De ultima propos. solutionis vide supra p. I. huius d. a. I. q. I. in corp.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 870, note 8. — Concerning the last proposition of the solution, see above, part I of this distinction, article I, question I, in the body.

la: Cod. U subdit *enim*. Edd., paucis tantum codd. suffragantibus, paulo superius post *significatione* interserunt *et*, ac post *argumentatione* voculam *quod*, sic propositionem seq. coniungentes cum praeced.

en: Codex U adds *enim* (for). The editions, with only a few codices supporting, a little above insert *et* (and) after *significatione*, and the little word *quod* (that) after *argumentatione*, thus joining the following proposition with the preceding.

la: Psalm. 109, 4. Cfr. August., VI. *Oper. imperf. contra Iulian.* c. 22. — Paulo superius post *contradictione* codd. U W Y adiiciunt *eo quod [qui?] curatur*. Post pauca pro *maius fuit* codd. A E T X *maius fuerit*.

en: Psalm 109:4 [Ps 110:4]. Cf. Augustine, book VI of the *Unfinished Work against Julian*, ch. 22. — A little above, after *contradictione* (contradiction) codices U W Y add *because he [who?] is healed*. After a few words, for *maius fuit* (was greater) codices A E T X read *maius fuerit* (would be greater).

la: Cod. N *oppositum*. — Cfr. G. Antissiodor., S. p. III. tr. I. c. 3.

en: Codex N reads *oppositum* (the opposite). — Cf. William of Auxerre, *Summa*, part III, treatise I, ch. 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p083-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, `vol3-p084-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines **6328–6458**) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing, per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/footer regions. Printed **pp.83–84** (PDF 105–106; offset +22). Running heads confirmed: p.83 `DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 83`; p.84 `84 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (catchword `DIST. III. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 85` begins the next page = ARTICULUS II, not included).

**Alignment: PASS.** Opener reads `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus in Abraham fuerit decimatus` = PARS II ART. I TRACTATIO q2. Not the q1 wording (*utrum aliquis possit decimari in parentibus*). No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Scholion: NONE of its own — `has_scholion: false`.** No distinct SCHOLION block prints in q2's tail; after *Ad* the incidental question (`…ad nullas decimas dandas fuerunt astricti⁸`) the text proceeds directly to `ARTICULUS II.` on p.85. q2's matter is covered by q1's SCHOLION (§I–II, held in commit 4bdff34), which forward-covers q2 (William of Auxerre *Summa aurea* *hac et seq. quaestione*; the *De utraque quaestione* doctor list). This is confirmed by the page-84 footer `[^19]` = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`

**Page-split map.** q2 opens at the top of p.83 with a FRESH p.83 footer sequence (no inherited footer split — q1 consumed all p.82 footers). p.83 L-col: title + args 1–4 + Sed contra 1–4; p.83 R-col: SC4 tail + incidental question (*Est igitur quaestio iuxta hoc*) + Conclusio + Respondeo/Ratio + opening of *Ad 1*. q2 spills to p.84: *Ad 1* tail through *Ad 4* + the reply to the incidental question (*Ad quaestionem incidentem*, with *Non probatur* / *Solutio 2* / *Solvitur obiectio*). Marginal labels (*Ad oppositum*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Ad quaestionem incidentem solutio*, *Non probatur*, *Solutio 2*, *Solvitur obiectio*) rendered inline / as structure, NOT footnote anchors.

**Apparatus split (19 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^19]`, per-page restart):**
- **p.83 footers 1–11 → `[^1]`–`[^11]`** (fresh sequence): f.1 Vers.9+Vat./codd. vars (arg1 `septimo¹`) / f.2 Hugo *de Sacram.* (arg2 `Victore²`) / f.3 Hebr 9,14+10,12+edd. vars (arg3 `sui³`) / f.4 cod.G *beatae* (arg4 `Virginis⁴`) / f.5 Cap.20 n.36 textus+edd. var (SC1 `litteram⁵`) / f.6 cod.F *decimari* (SC2 `decimatus⁶`) / f.7 Edd. *scilicet in lumbis Abrahae*+ed.1,2 omission (SC3 `fuerit⁷`) / f.8 Hebr 7,1+Vat./codd. *ratiocinatio* vars (SC4 `Apostoli⁸`) / f.9 codd. M O *Abraham*+cod.V *enim* (incidental q `Levi⁹`) / f.10 Hic c.3+Aug. X.de Gen. c.20 n.36+edd. *dicit* (Resp `littera¹⁰`) / f.11 Rom 3,23+cod.F/Vat. long vars (Resp `peccaverunt¹¹`).
- **p.84 footers 1–8 → `[^12]`–`[^19]`**: f.1 cod.U *scilicet quod*+edd. *enim* (Ad1 `Levi¹²`) / f.2 Hugo *de Sacram.* I p.XI c.6 long quote+codd. vars (Ad2 `Hugo¹³`) / f.3 cod.U *decimae*+codd. *quod offeretur* vars (Ad3 `oblatio¹⁴`) / f.4 tom.II p.870 nota 8+cross-ref p.I a.I q.I (Ad4 `accidens¹⁵`) / f.5 cod.U *enim*+edd. *et*/*quod* (incidental sol. `Decimatio¹⁶`) / f.6 Ps 109,4+Aug. Op.imperf.+codd. vars (`Psalmo¹⁷`) / f.7 cod.N *oppositum*+William of Auxerre *Summa* III tr.I c.3 (`propositum¹⁸`) / f.8 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (`astricti¹⁹`).

**Marker pairing: 19 La = 19 En = 19 defs, continuous 1–19, 0 anchorless / 0 defless.** No out-of-chunk footers (q2's footer block on both pages is fully its own; ARTICULUS II opener on p.85 carries no footer onto p.84's band).

**Forward hand-off to `bon-sent-III-d3-p2-a2-q1`** (raw 6459–~6628, printed p.85+):
1. **No p.84 footer carries forward** — all 8 p.84 footers were q2's (`[^12]`–`[^19]`; last `astricti¹⁹` = *Vide scholion*). ARTICULUS II's own footers begin fresh on p.85 → render starting `[^1]`.
2. **ARTICULUS II opener** (raw 6459, p.85): `ARTICULUS II. De carnis Christi traductione. — Consequenter quaeritur de carnis Christi traductione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum caro Christi fuerit in primis parentibus secundum qualitatem puritatis…; Secundo quaeritur, utrum aliter fuerit quam secundum legem propagationis.` Per the chunking convention the short ART. II opener folds into a2-q1 (no standalone a2-divisio).
3. **QUAESTIO I opener** (raw 6477): `QUAESTIO I. Utrum caro Christi in Abraham et aliis Patribus distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem a carne aliorum hominum. — Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod caro Christi in Abraham et aliis Patribus distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem a carne aliorum filiorum. 1. Septimo Sapientiae: Nihil coinquinatum in eam…` **VERIFY alignment** (a2-q1 opener = *utrum caro Christi… distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem*; STOP if it reads a2-q2 *utrum aliter fuerit quam secundum legem propagationis*).
4. **Check p.85+ for an ART. II `SCHOLION` block** — set `has_scholion` per the finding.
5. **Boundary:** the incidental-question reply (raw 6457 `…fuerunt astricti⁸`) + footer `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` (raw 6448) end q2; the running head `DIST. III. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 85` (raw 6458) + `ARTICULUS II.` (raw 6459) begin a2-q1. Seam continuous, no cascade-merge splice.

**`[?]` flags:** none. (Footer `[^17]` preserves the raw Quaracchi conjectural bracket `eo quod [qui?] curatur` verbatim — that is Quaracchi's own editorial query, not an OCR ambiguity.)