title: Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 645 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum simoniacus episcopus aliquem ordinem possit vendere.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum simoniacus episcopus aliquem valeat ordinem vendere. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quoniam nihil prohibetur, nisi quod fieri est possibile, alioquin frustra prohibetur; sed sacri ordinis venditio prohibetur — Causa prima, quaestione prima[^1] Calixtus prohibet: « Sanctorum, inquit, Patrum exempla sequentes, ordinari quemquam in Ecclesia Dei vel promoveri per pecuniam, auctoritate sedis apostolicae modis omnibus prohibemus » — ergo etc.

2. Item, quod potest furtive accipi potest etiam pecunia emi et vendi; sed ordo sacer potest furtive accipi, sicut dicitur *Extra*, de Eo qui furtive ordinem suscepit[^2], ubi cum eis dispensatur, si ingrediantur religionem, quod possunt in susceptis ordinibus ministrare: ergo etc.

3. Item, illud quod in humana dispensatione consistit, potest emi et vendi, sicut etiam liberaliter ministrari[^3]; sed ordinum collatio in humana dispensatione consistit: ergo potest emi et vendi: ergo simoniace dari.

4. Item, character ordinis stat cum quantacumque

<!-- page 646 -->

culpa et malitia, ergo et potestas ordinandi et ordinem suscipiendi: ergo quantacumque sit in aliquo simoniaca[^4] pravitas, non videtur dationem vel susceptionem ordinis impedire.

**Contra:** 1. Gregorius dicit, et habetur Causa prima, quaestione prima[^5]: « Quicumque studet pretii datione sacrum ordinem accipere, non est sacerdos; sed inaniter tantummodo dici concupiscit »: ergo per simoniam ordo non potest suscipi, ergo nec simoniacus dare.

2. Item, Leo Papa sic arguit, Causa prima, quaestione prima[^6]: « Gratia, si non gratis datur vel accipitur, gratia non est; simoniaci autem non gratis accipiunt: igitur gratiam, quae maxime in ecclesiasticis ordinibus operatur, non accipiunt. Si autem non accipiunt, non habent; si autem non habent, nec gratis nec non gratis cuiquam dare possunt ».

3. Item, dona Spiritus sancti sunt in potestate Dei, non hominis — ideo enim sancti Spiritus dicuntur et sunt, quia ipse ea donat — ergo nemo potest ea habere nisi a Spiritu sancto; sed Spiritus sanctus, cum sit liberalissimus, nihil potest vendere neque vendit: ergo eius dona nec pecunia possunt vendi nec pretio comparari. Si ergo ordo donum Spiritus sancti est, impossibile est, ipsum pretio vendi vel emi: ergo nec ab aliquo simoniaco dari[^7].

4. Item, in sacris ordinibus, scilicet diaconatu et sacerdotio, Spiritus sanctus datur, quod patet per hoc quod dicitur ibi[^8]: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum*; sed Spiritus sanctus non potest vendi: ergo nec ordines sacri, qui etiam eius datione conferuntur. *Probatio minoris*: quod potest emi et vendi potest in servitutem redigi; sed Spiritus sanctus non potest redigi in servitutem: ergo etc.

Quaeritur igitur, cum simonia sit studiosa voluntas emendi vel vendendi spirituale[^9], quomodo possit incidere in sacrorum ordinum collatione, vel aliorum spiritualium, cum illa, ut videtur, vendi non possint.

### Conclusio.

> *Episcopus simoniacus simoniace ordines dare potest.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod spirituale dicitur dupliciter[^10]: uno modo, quod est spirituale pure, ut gratia et virtutes et dona; et hoc nec de facto nec de iure vendi potest, immo si quis habens vellet emere, non solum non acquireret amplius, sed etiam quod haberet amitteret. — Alio modo spirituale est quod adiungitur, scilicet rei corporali; quae tamen ratione illius spiritualis consecratur et accipit rationem spiritualis; et hoc, quia spirituale, de iure non potest vendi, pro eo quod non potest poni sub pretio, de facto tamen ratione rei corporalis vendi potest; et talia sunt Sacramenta ecclesiastica. Quoddam est spirituale, quod adiungitur rei corporali, quae tamen habet rationem rei temporalis, ut calix consecratus, vel etiam ius patronatus; quia ibi consecratio iuncta est argento, et ius patronatus fundo; et illud dicitur spirituale, quia spirituali annexum; et hoc de facto vendi potest, de iure non potest vendi, tamen potest cum eo cui adiunctum est, in venditione transire. Calix enim consecratus vendi potest, ita tamen, quod consecratio non vendatur, sed argenti valor; et fundus vendi potest, cui annexum est ius patronatus, sed non ipsum ius patronatus de iure, quin committatur simonia[^11].

His praenotatis, ad ordines veniendum est, in quibus est aliquid de primo genere, scilicet gratia sanctificans, aliquid de secundo, scilicet potestas ministerialis, per aliquod signum exterius dispensata, cui inseparabiliter est adiuncta[^12]. Primam impossibile est pretio comparare nec vendere; secundam vero possibile est pro pretio dari, quia inseparabiliter est adiuncta exteriori Sacramento; et cum illud possit pro pecunia dari, potest et illa potestas vendi. — Et sic patet, quod simoniacus simoniace ordines dare potest.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Gregorio et de Leone Papa, patet responsio, quod loquuntur de *gratia gratum faciente*, quae non potest nisi gratis dari, et haec est quae *sacrum* facit; non[^13] quantum ad *potestatem*, quae iuncta est rei exteriori positae in hominis dispensatione.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de donis Spiritus sancti etc., dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de huiusmodi donis gratis datis[^14]: aut ratione *sui*, aut ratione *annexi*; et secundum hoc duplicem habent dispensatorem: quantum *ad se* habent dispensatorem Spiritum sanctum, qui characterem imprimit, vel totam Trinitatem; quantum vero *ad annexum*

<!-- page 647 -->

dispensatorem habent hominem purum. Et primus nunquam vendit, sed secundus vendere potest annexum illi quod est quodam modo spirituale, et propter illud emitur; et ideo ipsa dona dicitur vendere et potest, cum in eius potestate commissa sint temporalia dispensanda.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod Spiritus sanctus non potest redigi in servitutem; dicendum, quod in se ipso vendi non potest, tamen eius effectus vendi possunt, pro eo quod sunt in humano dominio constituti. — Et sic concedendum est, veros ordines a simoniacis posse dari quamvis non dentur nec recipiantur ad utilitatem, sed potius ad damnationem, et bonum convertatur eis in malum[^15].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether a simoniac bishop can sell any order.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether a simoniac bishop is able to sell any order. And that he can, it seems:

1. Because nothing is forbidden except what is possible to be done, otherwise it is forbidden in vain; but the selling of a sacred order is forbidden — for in *Cause* I, *Question* I[^1] Calixtus forbids: "Following the examples of the holy Fathers, we forbid by every means, on the authority of the apostolic see, that anyone be ordained in the Church of God or promoted by money" — therefore etc.

2. Likewise, what can be received furtively can also be bought and sold for money; but a sacred order can be received furtively, as is said in the *Extra* [Decretals], "On one who furtively received an order"[^2], where a dispensation is granted to such men, if they enter religion, that they can minister in the orders received: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that which consists in human dispensation can be bought and sold, just as it can also be freely administered[^3]; but the conferral of orders consists in human dispensation: therefore it can be bought and sold: therefore given simoniacally.

4. Likewise, the character of an order stands together with any culpability and malice whatsoever, therefore also the power of ordaining and of receiving an order: therefore however great the simoniacal[^4] depravity may be in someone, it does not seem to impede the giving or the reception of an order.

**On the contrary:** 1. Gregory says, and it is held in *Cause* I, *Question* I[^5]: "Whoever strives to receive a sacred order by the giving of a price is not a priest; but only vainly does he desire to be called one": therefore an order cannot be received through simony, therefore neither can a simoniac give it.

2. Likewise, Pope Leo argues thus, *Cause* I, *Question* I[^6]: "Grace, if it is not given or received freely, is not grace; but simoniacs do not receive freely: therefore the grace which operates most of all in ecclesiastical orders they do not receive. But if they do not receive it, they do not have it; and if they do not have it, they can give it to no one, neither freely nor not freely."

3. Likewise, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are in the power of God, not of man — for they are called and are the gifts of the Holy Spirit precisely because He gives them — therefore no one can have them except from the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit, since He is most liberal, can sell nothing nor does He sell: therefore His gifts can neither be sold for money nor purchased for a price. If therefore an order is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible for it to be sold or bought for a price: therefore neither can it be given by any simoniac[^7].

4. Likewise, in the sacred orders, namely the diaconate and the priesthood, the Holy Spirit is given, which is clear from what is said there[^8]: *Receive the Holy Spirit*; but the Holy Spirit cannot be sold: therefore neither can the sacred orders, which are also conferred by His giving. *Proof of the minor*: what can be bought and sold can be reduced to servitude; but the Holy Spirit cannot be reduced to servitude: therefore etc.

It is asked therefore, since simony is the deliberate will of buying or selling something spiritual[^9], how it can occur in the conferral of sacred orders, or of other spiritual things, since these, as it seems, cannot be sold.

### Conclusion.

> *A simoniac bishop can give orders simoniacally.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that "spiritual" is said in two ways[^10]: in one way, that which is purely spiritual, as grace and the virtues and gifts; and this can be sold neither in fact nor by right, indeed if someone possessing it should wish to buy it, not only would he acquire nothing more, but he would even lose what he had. — In another way, "spiritual" is that which is joined [to something], namely to a corporeal thing; which nevertheless by reason of that spiritual thing is consecrated and receives the character of the spiritual; and this, because it is spiritual, cannot by right be sold, for the reason that it cannot be set under a price, yet in fact by reason of the corporeal thing it can be sold; and such are the ecclesiastical Sacraments. There is a certain spiritual thing which is joined to a corporeal thing, which nevertheless has the character of a temporal thing, as a consecrated chalice, or also the right of patronage; because there the consecration is joined to the silver, and the right of patronage to the land; and that is called spiritual because it is annexed to something spiritual; and this can in fact be sold, by right it cannot be sold, yet it can pass in a sale together with that to which it is joined. For a consecrated chalice can be sold, yet in such a way that the consecration is not sold, but the value of the silver; and a piece of land can be sold to which the right of patronage is annexed, but not the right of patronage itself by right, without simony being committed[^11].

These things being premised, we must come to orders, in which there is something of the first kind, namely sanctifying grace, and something of the second, namely the ministerial power, dispensed through some exterior sign, to which it is inseparably joined[^12]. The first it is impossible to purchase or sell for a price; but the second it is indeed possible to give for a price, because it is inseparably joined to the exterior Sacrament; and since that can be given for money, that power too can be sold. — And so it is clear that a simoniac can give orders simoniacally.

1. 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning Gregory and Pope Leo, the response is clear, that they are speaking of *grace that makes pleasing* [gratia gratum faciens], which cannot be given except freely, and this is what makes [the order] *sacred*; not[^13] as regards the *power*, which is joined to the exterior thing placed in the dispensation of man.

3. To that which is objected concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit etc., it must be said that there are two ways of speaking of gifts of this kind that are freely given[^14]: either by reason of *themselves*, or by reason of *what is annexed*; and according to this they have a twofold dispenser: as regards *themselves* they have as dispenser the Holy Spirit, who imprints the character, or the whole Trinity; but as regards *what is annexed*

they have as dispenser a mere man. And the first never sells, but the second can sell what is annexed to that which is in a certain way spiritual, and on account of which it is bought; and therefore the gifts themselves are said to be sold, and he can [sell them], since temporal things to be dispensed have been committed to his power.

4. To that which is objected lastly, that the Holy Spirit cannot be reduced to servitude; it must be said that in Himself He cannot be sold, yet His effects can be sold, for the reason that they are established under human dominion. — And so it must be conceded that true orders can be given by simoniacs, although they are neither given nor received unto benefit, but rather unto damnation, and the good is turned for them into evil[^15].

---

la: Can. 10. Cod. aa cum textu originali post *sequentes* addit *et officii nostri debito innovantes.*

en: Canon 10. Codex aa, with the original text, after *sequentes* adds *et officii nostri debito innovantes* ["and, out of the debt of our office, making innovations"].

la: Libr. V. tit. 30, ubi in tribus cap. haec sententia exhibetur. Cfr. infra dub. 1.

en: Book V, title 30, where this judgment is set forth in three chapters. Cf. below, dubium 1.

la: Cod. aa allegat 1. Cor. 4, 1: *Sic nos existimet homo* etc.

en: Codex aa cites 1 Cor. 4:1: *So let a man esteem us* etc.

la: Codd. A W *simoniaco.*

en: Codices A W [read] *simoniaco.*

la: Can. 2: *Quicumque... ordinem mercari, dum non officium, sed nomen attendit, sacerdos non esse, sed dici tantummodo inaniter concupiscit* (sumtum ex IX. Regist. epist. indict. 2. epist. 106. ad Syagrium etc.).

en: Canon 2: *Whoever... [strives] to purchase an order, while he attends not to the office but to the name, is not a priest, but only vainly desires to be called one* (taken from Register IX, epist. indict. 2, epist. 106, to Syagrius etc.).

la: Can. 1. Respicitur Matth. 10, 8: *Gratis accepistis, gratis date.* Rom. 11, 6: *Si autem gratia, iam non ex operibus; alioquin gratia iam non est gratia.*

en: Canon 1. Reference is made to Matt. 10:8: *Freely you have received, freely give.* Rom. 11:6: *But if of grace, then not now of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.*

la: Supple: *potest.* Cfr. Act. 8, 18. seqq.

en: Supply: *potest* [it can]. Cf. Acts 8:18 ff.

la: Ioan. 20, 22. Verba haec dicit episcopus in ordinatione diaconi et presbyteri. — *Minor* est ex Hieron., I. in Mich. 4, 8. seq. — Inferius pro *qui etiam* codd. A E G L aa *qui in.*

en: John 20:22. The bishop says these words in the ordination of a deacon and a priest. — The *minor* [premise] is from Jerome, book I on Micah 4:8 seq. — Below, for *qui etiam* codices A E G L aa [read] *qui in.*

la: Haec definitio simoniae secundum Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 2, elici potest ex C. *Qui studet* (11.), C. 1. q. 1.

en: This definition of simony, according to Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 169, m. 2, can be drawn from C. *Qui studet* (11.), C. 1, q. 1.

la: Solae edd. *tripliciter;* sed lectio codd. recta est, quia secundum membrum divisionis subdistinguitur. — Inferius pro *vellet emere* edd. perperam *vellet vendere.*

en: The editions alone [read] *tripliciter*; but the reading of the codices is correct, because the second member of the division is subdivided. — Below, for *vellet emere* the editions wrongly [read] *vellet vendere.*

la: Cfr. C. *Aurum* (70.), C. 12. q. 2; C. *Ex litteris* (7.) et C. *De iure vero patronatus* (16.), X. de Iure patronatus (lib. III. tit. 38.). Vide infra dub. 5.

en: Cf. C. *Aurum* (70.), C. 12, q. 2; C. *Ex litteris* (7.) and C. *De iure vero patronatus* (16.), X. On the right of patronage (book III, title 38). See below, dubium 5.

la: Cod. aa subiungit *scilicet characteris impressio.*

en: Codex aa adds *scilicet characteris impressio* ["namely, the impression of the character"].

la: Cod. I *non autem loquuntur,* cod. S *non loquuntur tamen.*

en: Codex I [reads] *non autem loquuntur,* codex S *non loquuntur tamen.*

la: Codd. E Z *donis gratiae gratis datae.* In fine solut. post *et potest* cod. aa addit *sed simoniace tantum.*

en: Codices E Z [read] *donis gratiae gratis datae.* At the end of the solution, after *et potest,* codex aa adds *sed simoniace tantum* ["but only simoniacally"].

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{645,646,647}-{L,R}-*.png`) read column-by-column, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines L70030–L70164). The default vol4 column split (1880) clipped both columns on these three pages, so bands were regenerated with split_x = 2120 for the left columns and 1780 for the right columns; even at 1780 the right-column line-starts lose ~2 characters, reconstructed from the (clean) argument-prose OCR. Running heads verified: p.645 `DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAE[ST. III.]`, p.646 `646 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`, p.647 `DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. IV. 647`.

**No scholion (`has_scholion: false`).** Articulus I's scholion is held whole by `a1-q1` and covers all four Art. I questions; q3 carries only a cross-reference to it (marker [^15], "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.").

**Page-break precision.** The `<!-- page 646 -->` comment sits at a paragraph split, but the actual turn falls mid-argument-4, between "…stat cum quantacumque" (foot of p.645) and "culpa et malitia…" (head of p.646). The `<!-- page 647 -->` comment likewise falls mid-reply-3, between "…quantum vero ad annexum" (foot of p.646) and "dispensatorem habent hominem purum" (head of p.647). Both boundaries verified continuous against the bands — no text lost at either seam.

**Apparatus page-split.** 15 footnotes: [^1]–[^3] = p.645 footer notes 7–9 (notes 1–6 of p.645 belong to the preceding q2, per that chunk's hand-off, which claimed p.644 notes 1–8 + p.645 notes 1–6); [^4]–[^14] = p.646 footer notes 1–11 (all q3's); [^15] = p.647 footer note 1 (attached to q3's closing "…in malum¹" at the top of p.647's right column). **Hand-off to the a1-q4 promoter:** on p.647, footer notes 2–11 belong to q4 — note 1 alone is q3's.

**No `[?]` flags** — all readings resolved cleanly against the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 4

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; here the markers are renumbered continuously across the quaestio.

### Articulus I. *De ministris.*
### Quaestio IV. *Utrum dans ordines simoniace ex hoc ipso fiat haereticus.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum dans ordines simoniace ex hoc ipso fiat haereticus. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Gregorius in Registro, et habetur Causa prima, quaestione prima[^1], *Presbyter si per pecuniam*; et infra: « Quia decimas et altare et Spiritum sanctum emere vel vendere simoniacam haeresim nullus fidelium ignorat ».

2. Item, in eodem[^2]: « Quisquis per pecuniam ordinatur, ad hoc, ut fiat haereticus, promovetur ».

3. Item, Causa prima, quaestione prima[^3], *Eos qui per pecunias*; et infra: « Tolerabilior est enim Macedonii et eorum qui circa ipsum sunt Spiritus sancti impugnatorum impia haeresis; illi enim creaturam et servum Dei Patris et Filii Spiritum sanctum delirando fatentur; isti vero eundem Spiritum sanctum efficiunt servum suum »: ergo videtur, quod sit impiissima haeresis.

4. Item, omnis qui aestimat, *donum Dei pecunia possideri*[^4], errat et haereticus est iudicandus; sed omnis vendens vel emens ordines aestimat, donum Dei pecunia possideri: ergo etc.

5. Item, nullus est maior error circa *naturalia* quam uni contrario attribuere suum contrarium, ut si quis ponat album nigrum; et circa *mores* nullus maior quam ponere *bonum malum*[^5]: ergo nec circa *divina* aliquis est maior error quam ponere, Dei gratiam non esse gratiam; hoc autem ponit omnis qui eam emere vel vendere contendit: ergo etc.

6. Item, sicut Filio attribuitur sapientia, ita Spiritui sancto largitas[^6]; sed qui attribueret Filio insipientiam laberetur in haeresim: ergo qui attribuit Spiritui sancto avaritiam haereticus est. Sed qui credit, dona Spiritus sancti per pecuniam vendi vel emi, est huiusmodi, quia ponit, Spiritum sanctum esse venalem: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Nulla haeresis est in contractu, sed in credulitate[^7]; sed simonia est in contractu emptionis et venditionis: ergo non videtur, quod simoniacus fiat haereticus.

2. Item, haeresis est peccatum in Filium et contra veritatem; sed simonia[^8] peccat contra Spiritus sancti gratiam et bonitatem: ergo non videtur esse haereticus.

3. Item, non videtur labi in aliquod peccatum vendendo Spiritus sancti donum, quia dicitur primi Regum nono[^9] de Saul, et tertii Regum decimo quarto de uxore Ieroboam, quod utrique ad sanctos Prophetas pretium detulerunt pro prophetica manifestatione; et constans est, prophetiam donum ei esse: ergo etc.

4. Item, per novum testamentum, primae ad Corinthios nono[^10]: *Si nos vobis spiritualia seminamus, non est magnum, si carnalia vestra metamus*: ergo licitum est pro spiritualibus carnalia accipi: non ergo videtur peccare.

5. Item, non videtur peccare qui emit: quia regnum caelorum, quod est supremum inter omnia,
<!-- page 648 -->
vendi potest et emi, sicut dicit Gregorius[^11]: « Regnum caelorum tantum valet, quantum habes »: ergo etc.

6. Item, qui emit dat temporale pro spirituali, ergo carius habet spirituale quam carnale: ergo non avertit se ab incommutabili bono, immo potius convertit: ergo non peccat, quia « peccatum est aversio ab incommutabili bono et conversio ad commutabile[^12] ».

### Conclusio
> Simoniacus non est proprie haereticus, nisi credat, spiritualia esse venalia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sacri ordines nec aliquid Sacramentorum per pecuniam dari potest sine gravi et enormi peccato, pro eo quod spirituale, quod ex sola liberalitate pro sui dignitate dandum est, mercatur et facit vile[^13]; rursus, quia illud quod erat impretiabile, sub pretio ponit; quod nullo modo potest fieri, quin fiat contumelia Spiritui sancto: et ideo illud non tantum est malum in se, immo etiam secundum se.

*Si* autem *tu quaeras* a me, utrum sit peccatum *in fide*, vel in *moribus*; dicendum, quod ille qui emit vel vendit huiusmodi spiritualia, aut credit, ea pro pretio posse aestimari et valori rei terrenae aequari et per pecuniam possideri; et haec est haeresis manifesta, et sic aestimavit Simon magus[^14]. Talis enim errat in fide, quia credit, gratiam non esse gratiam. — Aut ille qui vendit et emit *non hoc credit*, quod gratia Dei per pecuniam comparetur, sed tamen ardens avaritia nititur aliquid assequi vel impetrare per pecuniam, quod ad humanam spectat dispensationem; et sic non est peccatum *fidei*, sed *morum*, quoniam talis peroptime novit et male[^15] facit; sicut et ille qui fornicatur sciens, fornicationem esse peccatum, non errat in fide, sed in via morum. — Et sic simoniacus est avarus et in pessima specie avaritiae, nec est haereticus proprie, sed tamen a Sanctis haereticus vocatur, sive quia ad modum haeretici operatur, sive quia ut haereticus proiicitur a Dei servitio et cultu propter enorme scelus.

Et sic patet, quomodo respondendum sit ad illud quod obiiciebatur, quod simoniacus non sit haereticus; patet etiam, quod ad utramque partem obiicitur.

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non sit peccatum vendere exemplo Prophetarum; dicendum, quod nullus Propheta donum vendidit prophetiae, qui esset bonus et sanctus, sed solum mali, sicut expresse reprehenduntur tales in Michaeae tertio[^16]: *Iudices eius in muneribus iudicabant, et sacerdotes eius in mercede docebant, et Prophetae eius in pecunia divinabant*; et infra: *Propter hoc causa vestri Sion quasi ager arabitur* etc. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de uxore Ieroboam et Saul; dicendum, quod nunquam legitur, quod illi Prophetae aliquid recepissent; sed ignoranter illi dicebant, quia morem istum accipere consueverunt quodam modo a divinis hariolis, qui non erant prophetae veri.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod seminans spiritualia potest metere carnalia; dicendum, quod si propter hoc seminat, ut illa metat finaliter, maxime si pactio interveniat, non est iustitia, immo malitia et avaritia; quodsi hoc non intendit principaliter, immo carnalia metit, ut se sustentet et spiritualia seminet; nulla est avaritia, nulla mercatio, immo manifesta iustitia, sicut multiplici exemplo Apostolus primae ad Corinthios nono[^17] probat, quoniam talis debet sustentari. — Unde ex hoc patet, quod si doctor et consiliarius et medicus et alii, qui laborant, de consilio sive de doctrina pretium recipiant *propter laborem* et *suam sustentationem*; nulla est culpa, nulla est simonia. Si tamen quis venderet *donum sibi divinitus datum*, non laborem suum, iudicaretur simoniacus[^18]. Similiter intelligendum est de celebratione Missarum et consimilibus.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod regnum caelorum emitur; dicendum, quod emptio illa non est emptio, pro eo quod pretium eius non est nisi bona voluntas, quae mercedem non intuetur; unde quamvis sine mercede non possit servire[^19], tamen, quia liberaliter deservit, nulla omnino pactio intervenit; unde totum spirituale est.
<!-- page 649 -->
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod se convertit ad bonum spirituale; dicendum, quod quamvis se convertat, tamen convertit se inordinate; et hoc est magis averti quam converti. Exemplum huius est in Lucifero, qui ad Deum se convertens, volens ei aequari, magis cecidit, quam ascendit; sic qui convertitur ad emendum donum Spiritus sancti magis a Deo recedit, quam ad eum accedit[^20].

---

english:
### Article I. *On the ministers.*
### Question IV. *Whether one who confers orders simoniacally thereby becomes a heretic.*

Fourth, it is asked whether one who confers orders simoniacally thereby becomes a heretic. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Gregory in the *Register*, and it is found in Cause I, question I[^1], *A presbyter, if through money*; and below: "That no one of the faithful is ignorant that to buy or sell tithes and the altar and the Holy Spirit is a simoniacal heresy."

2. Likewise, in the same[^2]: "Whoever is ordained through money is promoted to this end, that he may become a heretic."

3. Likewise, Cause I, question I[^3], *Those who through moneys*; and below: "For more tolerable is the impious heresy of Macedonius and of those around him who assail the Holy Spirit; for they, raving, declare the Holy Spirit to be a creature and a servant of God the Father and of the Son; but these make the same Holy Spirit their own servant": therefore it seems that it is a most impious heresy.

4. Likewise, everyone who reckons *that the gift of God can be possessed by money*[^4] errs and is to be judged a heretic; but everyone selling or buying orders reckons that the gift of God can be possessed by money: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, there is no greater error concerning *natural things* than to attribute to one contrary its own contrary, as if someone should posit white [to be] black; and concerning *morals* none greater than to posit *good [to be] evil*[^5]: therefore neither concerning *divine things* is anyone in greater error than to posit that the grace of God is not grace; but this everyone posits who strives to buy or sell it: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, just as wisdom is attributed to the Son, so bounty to the Holy Spirit[^6]; but he who should attribute foolishness to the Son would lapse into heresy: therefore he who attributes avarice to the Holy Spirit is a heretic. But he who believes that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are sold or bought for money is of this kind, since he posits the Holy Spirit to be for sale: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. No heresy is in a contract, but in belief[^7]; but simony is in a contract of buying and selling: therefore it does not seem that the simoniac becomes a heretic.

2. Likewise, heresy is a sin against the Son and against truth; but simony[^8] sins against the grace and goodness of the Holy Spirit: therefore he does not seem to be a heretic.

3. Likewise, one does not seem to lapse into any sin by selling the gift of the Holy Spirit, since it is said in First Kings [Samuel] chapter nine[^9] concerning Saul, and in Third Kings chapter fourteen concerning the wife of Jeroboam, that both brought a price to the holy Prophets for a prophetic disclosure; and it is established that prophecy is a gift to him: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, through the New Testament, First Corinthians chapter nine[^10]: *If we have sown spiritual things for you, it is no great thing if we reap your carnal things*: therefore it is licit to receive carnal things for spiritual: therefore he does not seem to sin.

5. Likewise, he who buys does not seem to sin: since the kingdom of heaven, which is supreme among all things,
<!-- page 648 -->
can be sold and bought, as Gregory says[^11]: "The kingdom of heaven is worth as much as you have": therefore etc.

6. Likewise, he who buys gives a temporal thing for a spiritual, therefore he holds the spiritual dearer than the carnal: therefore he does not turn himself away from the unchangeable good, but rather turns [toward it]: therefore he does not sin, since "sin is a turning away from the unchangeable good and a turning toward the changeable[^12]."

### Conclusion
> A simoniac is not properly a heretic, unless he believes that spiritual things are for sale.

**I respond:** It must be said that neither the sacred orders nor anything of the Sacraments can be given for money without a grave and enormous sin, for the reason that a spiritual thing — which out of pure liberality, according to its dignity, ought to be given — he makes an object of trade and renders cheap[^13]; and again, because he sets under a price that which was priceless; which can in no way come about without becoming an affront to the Holy Spirit: and therefore that is not only evil in itself, but even according to itself.

But *if you ask* me whether the sin is *in faith* or in *morals*; it must be said that he who buys or sells such spiritual things either believes that they can be reckoned for a price and equated to the value of an earthly thing and possessed through money — and this is a manifest heresy, and thus Simon Magus reckoned[^14]. For such a one errs in faith, since he believes that grace is not grace. — Or he who sells and buys *does not believe this*, that the grace of God is procured through money, but nevertheless, burning with avarice, strives to obtain or procure through money something that pertains to human dispensation; and thus it is not a sin *of faith*, but *of morals*, since such a one knows full well and yet does ill[^15]; just as also he who fornicates knowing that fornication is a sin does not err in faith, but in the way of morals. — And thus the simoniac is avaricious and in the worst species of avarice, nor is he properly a heretic, but nevertheless is called a heretic by the Saints, either because he acts after the manner of a heretic, or because, like a heretic, he is cast out from the service and worship of God on account of the enormous crime.

And thus it is clear how one is to respond to that which was objected, that the simoniac is not a heretic; it is clear also with respect to what is objected on either side.

3. But to that which is objected, that it is not a sin to sell after the example of the Prophets; it must be said that no Prophet who was good and holy sold the gift of prophecy, but only the evil ones, as such are expressly reproved in Micah chapter three[^16]: *Her judges judged for bribes, and her priests taught for hire, and her prophets divined for money*; and below: *Therefore on your account Zion shall be plowed as a field*, etc. — To that which is objected concerning the wife of Jeroboam and Saul; it must be said that it is nowhere read that those Prophets received anything; but they said this in ignorance, since they had grown accustomed in a certain way to take up this practice from the diviners, who were not true prophets.

4. To that which is objected, that one who sows spiritual things may reap carnal things; it must be said that if he sows for this purpose, that he may in the end reap those [carnal things], especially if a bargain intervenes, it is not justice, but rather malice and avarice; but if he does not intend this principally, but rather reaps carnal things that he may sustain himself and sow spiritual things; there is no avarice, no commerce, but rather manifest justice, as the Apostle proves by manifold example in First Corinthians chapter nine[^17], since such a one ought to be sustained. — Whence from this it is clear that if a teacher and a counselor and a physician and others who labor should receive a price for counsel or for teaching *on account of the labor* and *their own sustenance*; there is no fault, no simony. If, however, someone should sell *a gift divinely given to him*, not his own labor, he would be judged a simoniac[^18]. Similarly it must be understood concerning the celebration of Masses and the like.

5. To that which is objected, that the kingdom of heaven is bought; it must be said that that buying is not a buying, for the reason that its price is nothing but a good will, which does not look to a reward; whence although one cannot serve without a reward[^19], nevertheless, because he serves freely, no bargain at all intervenes; whence the whole is spiritual.
<!-- page 649 -->
6. To that which is objected, that he turns himself toward the spiritual good; it must be said that although he turns himself, nevertheless he turns himself in a disordered way; and this is more to be turned away than to be turned. An example of this is in Lucifer, who, turning himself toward God, wishing to be made equal to Him, fell more than he ascended; so he who turns himself toward buying the gift of the Holy Spirit recedes from God more than he approaches Him[^20].

---

la: Can. 3, ubi textus originalis post *simoniacam haeresim* addit *esse*. Sententialiter habetur apud Gregor., IV. Regest. epist. epist. 13. ad Clementium episc. (allegatur a Gratiano C. 7. q. 1. c. 3.); eadem verba tribuuntur C. 1. q. 3. c. 14. *Paschali II.*

en: Canon 3, where the original text, after *a simoniacal heresy*, adds *is*. In substance it is found in Gregory, *Register* IV, epistle 13, to Bishop Clement (cited by Gratian, C. 7 q. 1 c. 3); the same words are attributed at C. 1 q. 3 c. 14 to *Paschal II*.

la: Can. 5. Attribuitur Gregorio, qui hanc sententiam V. Regest. epist. epist. 53. (allegatam a Gratiano C. 1. q. 1. c. 117.) ita proponit: *Cur non videtur, quia eum quem quis cum pretio ordinat, provehendo agit, ut haereticus fiat?* Idem dicit ibid. VI. Epist. 57. et 58. ac VI. epist. 8.

en: Canon 5. It is attributed to Gregory, who sets forth this sentence in *Register* V, epistle 53 (cited by Gratian, C. 1 q. 1 c. 117) thus: *Why does it not seem [so], since he whom one ordains for a price, by promoting him, brings it about that he becomes a heretic?* He says the same, ibid., VI, Epistles 57 and 58, and VI, epistle 8.

la: Can. 21, quod est sumtum ex Epist. Tarasii, Constantinopolitani episcopi, scripta an. 787 ad Papam Hadrianum. — Codd. et ed. I ante *pecunias* omittunt *per*, ante *Macedonii* supprimunt *enim*. Subinde in codd. desideratur *Spiritus sancti*, et subinde *et Filii Spiritum sanctum*. Post *creaturam* codd. FH IK bb addunt *Filium*, cod. E legit: *creaturam et servum Filium Dei Patris eundem delirando*. — In fine arg. post *quod sit* edd. addunt *ibi*.

en: Canon 21, which is taken from the Epistle of Tarasius, bishop of Constantinople, written in the year 787 to Pope Hadrian. — The codices and edition I omit *per* before *pecunias*, and suppress *enim* before *Macedonii*. Then in the codices *Spiritus sancti* is wanting, and then *et Filii Spiritum sanctum*. After *creaturam* codices FH IK bb add *Filium*; codex E reads: *creaturam et servum Filium Dei Patris eundem delirando*. — At the end of the argument, after *quod sit*, the editions add *ibi*.

la: Ut dicitur Act. 8, 20. de Simone. — Pro *aestimat* cod. aa *existimat* (Vulgata *existimasti*).

en: As it is said in Acts 8:20 concerning Simon. — For *aestimat* codex aa reads *existimat* (the Vulgate *existimasti*).

la: Isai. 5, 20: *Vae qui dicitis malum bonum, et bonum malum.* Cfr. Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 4. (c. 14.). — In fine arg. pro *contendit* cod. E *intendit*.

en: Isaiah 5:20: *Woe to you who call evil good, and good evil.* Cf. Aristotle, *On Interpretation* II, c. 4 (c. 14). — At the end of the argument, for *contendit* codex E reads *intendit*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 34. q. 3. et dub. 7.

en: Cf. Book I of the *Sentences*, d. 34, q. 3, and dubium 7.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XIII. c. 2, et in Comment. dub. 4.

en: See above, the text of the Master, d. XIII, c. 2, and in the Commentary, dubium 4.

la: Edd. et pauci codd. *simoniacus*.

en: The editions and a few codices [read] *simoniacus*.

la: Vers. 8. — Seq. locus est III. Reg. 14, 3. — Inferius pro *prophetica manifestatione; et constans*, quod habent codd. DFQ (L primitus), alii codd. *prophetia; manifeste constans*, codd. K aa omittunt *manifeste*, plures codd. legunt *manifeste et constans*; edd. *manifestam et constans*; ultimae lectiones confirmant potius electam a nobis.

en: Verse 8. — The following passage is Third Kings 14:3. — Further on, for *prophetica manifestatione; et constans*, which codices DFQ (L originally) have, other codices [read] *prophetia; manifeste constans*; codices K aa omit *manifeste*; several codices read *manifeste et constans*; the editions *manifestam et constans*; the last readings rather confirm the one chosen by us.

la: Vers. 11: *Si... seminavimus, magnum est, si nos carnalia vestra metamus?*

en: Verse 11: *If... we have sown, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things?*

la: Libr. I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 5. n. 2: *Regnum Dei tantum* etc.

en: Book I of the *Homilies on the Gospels*, homily 5, n. 2: *The kingdom of God [is worth] as much*, etc.

la: Secundum August., II. de Lib. Arb. c. 19. n. 53. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 839, nota 4. in fine. — Pro *carnale* codd. EFI *temporale*.

en: According to Augustine, *On Free Choice* II, c. 19, n. 53. Cf. tom. II, p. 839, note 4, at the end. — For *carnale* codices EFI [read] *temporale*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 646, nota 3, et C. *Quidquid invisibilis gratiae* (101.), C. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 646, note 3, and the canon *Quidquid invisibilis gratiae* (101), C. 1 q. 1.

la: Act. 8, 18. seqq.

en: Acts 8:18 ff.

la: Codd. EFLZ *quod male*.

en: Codices EFLZ [read] *quod male*.

la: Vers. 11: *Principes eius* etc. (Septuaginta: *Duces eius cum muneribus... cum mercede respondebant... cum pecunia divinabant*). Pro *in mercede docebant* et *in pecunia* codd. *in muneribus respondebant* et *in pecuniis*. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 12. Cfr. Hieron. in hunc loc., ubi invenitur etiam exemplum de Saul et Ieroboam, et eadem expositio. — Circa finem solut. pro *illi dicebant* Vat. *illi dabant*.

en: Verse 11: *Her princes*, etc. (Septuagint: *Her leaders answered for bribes... for hire... they divined for money*). For *in mercede docebant* and *in pecunia*, the codices [read] *in muneribus respondebant* and *in pecuniis*. — The following passage is ibid., v. 12. Cf. Jerome on this passage, where the example of Saul and Jeroboam is also found, and the same exposition. — Near the end of the solution, for *illi dicebant* the Vatican [edition reads] *illi dabant*.

la: Vers. 7. seqq. Cfr. August., II. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 54. seq., Serm. 46. (alias 165. de Tempore sive liber de Pastoribus) c. 2. n. 5.) et de Opere monachor. c. 7. 8. seqq. — Post *probat* cod. F addit *probat enim*.

en: Verse 7 ff. Cf. Augustine, *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount* II, c. 16, n. 54 f.; Sermon 46 (otherwise 165, *On the Season*, or the book *On Shepherds*) c. 2, n. 5; and *On the Work of Monks* c. 7, 8 ff. — After *probat* codex F adds *probat enim*.

la: Cfr. C. *Non sane quidquid* (15.), C. 14. q. 5. § 1, et C. *Prohibeas* (2.), seqq., X. de Magistris etc. (lib. V. tit. 5.).

en: Cf. the canon *Non sane quidquid* (15), C. 14 q. 5 § 1, and the canon *Prohibeas* (2) and following, in the Decretals, *On Masters*, etc. (book V, title 5).

la: Bernard., de Diligendo Deo, c. 7. n. 17: *Non enim sine praemio diligitur Deus, etsi absque praemii intuitu diligendus sit* etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 556, nota 4. et pag. 606, nota 2.

en: Bernard, *On Loving God*, c. 7, n. 17: *For God is not loved without a reward, even though He ought to be loved without regard to a reward*, etc. Cf. tom. III, p. 556, note 4, and p. 606, note 2.

en: See the scholion at question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Vol IV VOL-II-OVERRIDE method:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 70165–70412) as base for clean running prose and marker spacing, corrected against 450 dpi PDF column bands for pp. 647–649 (recto p.647 column split x≈1880; verso pp.648–649 shifted right, split x≈2020). PDF bands authoritative for the *Respondeo*/*Conclusio* and all page-footer apparatus. Offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **No scholion.** Per Art. I convention, the scholion at Art. I q1 covers all four Art. I questions; footnote [^20] here (and the identical fn. 1 on p.647) is the recurring cross-reference *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* No q4-specific scholion appears in range. `has_scholion: false`.
- **Shared-page footer splits:**
  - **p.647:** printed footnote 1 (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) is anchored to *…in malum¹* in the tail of **q3** (raw ~L70160–70163, before this chunk); it belongs to a1-q3, not q4. This chunk claims p.647 fns 2–11 (→ [^1]–[^10]).
  - **p.649:** printed footnote 1 (*Vide scholion…*, anchored to *…accedit¹*, the last line of q4 reply 6) belongs here (→ [^20]); p.649 fns 2+ belong to the next chunk (ARTICULUS II, q1). ARTICULUS II begins immediately after (OCR `ARTICULUS 11.`, raw L70413) and is a separate chunk.
- **Apparatus count:** 20 footnotes = p.647 (fns 2–11, 10) + p.648 (fns 1–9, 9) + p.649 (fn 1, 1).
- **Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial side-labels, not Bonaventure's text): p.647 `pro / illir-` (beside arg. 1), `Pro parte negativa` (side heading, beside *Contra*); p.648 `De peccato simoniae`, `Distinctio`, `Conclusio 1`, `Conclusio 2`, `Corollarium`, `Ad partem`, `Nota`.
- **Page breaks:** `<!-- page 648 -->` falls mid-argument (Contra 5, before *vendi potest et emi*); `<!-- page 649 -->` before reply 6 (*6. Ad illud…quod se convertit*).
- **Band-vs-OCR reconciliations (band authoritative):** [^12] Augustine *de Lib. Arb.* c. 19 **n. 53** (djvu OCR mangled to n. 33); [^19] *tom. III. pag.* **556** (djvu OCR read 636). Both read off the 450 dpi footer band. No unresolved `[?]` flags.

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. 25, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 649 -->

### Articulus II. *De iis qui possunt suscipere ordines.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de possibilitate suscipiendi ordines, de qua quatuor quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum ad hoc, quod ab aliquo possit ordo recipi, requiratur sexus virilis, an femina possit suscipere. Secundo, utrum ad ordinis susceptionem necessarius sit usus rationis. Tertio, utrum necessaria sit indivisio carnis. Quarto, utrum necessaria sit conditio libertatis.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis requiratur sexus virilis.*

Quantum ergo ad primum, quod sexus virilis requiratur, ostenditur[^1]:

1. *Primo* sic: nullus ordo potest conferri ei qui non habet naturalem possibilitatem vel aptitudinem ad illum; nullus autem habet possibilitatem ad ordinem, qui non habet aptitudinem ad tonsuram et coronam; et nullus ad hoc habet naturalem aptitudinem, quem decet semper habere velatum caput: si ergo solum virum per naturam decet orare capite non velato, mulierem autem velato capite, sicut dicitur primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^2], quod et ipsa natura docet: ergo etc.

2. Item, nullus est possibilis ad ordines suscipiendos, nisi qui Dei gerit imaginem, quia in hoc Sacramento homo quodam modo fit Deus sive divinus, dum potestatis divinae fit particeps; sed vir ratione sexus est *imago Dei*, sicut dicitur primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^3]: ergo nullo modo mulier potest ordinari.

3. Item, in ordine spiritualis potestas datur ordinato; sed talis potestatis non est mulier susceptibilis, sicut dicitur primae ad Timotheum secundo[^4]: *Mulierem in Ecclesia docere non permitto neque dominari in virum*: ergo nec ordinis.

4. Item, ordines alii praeparant ad episcopatum, si quis bene in illis conversetur; sed episcopus sponsus est Ecclesiae[^5]: ergo cum mulier non possit ad episcopatum provehi, sed tantum vir, alioquin sponsus non esset Ecclesiae; ergo ad ordines antecedentes promoveri est tantum virorum.

**Contra:** 1. Iudicum quarto[^6] legitur, quod Debbora iudicavit Israel et ei praefuit: ergo videtur, quod mulieri competat potestas iudiciaria, maxime quando abundat in gratia: ergo et potestas sacerdotalis.

2. Item, in novo testamento videmus abbatissas, quibus committuntur collegia regenda: ergo videtur, quod eis committi debeat potestas absolvendi et ligandi: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod conferri posset eis ordo sacerdotalis.

3. Item, ordo sacerdotalis et alii respiciunt animam et non carnem; sed quantum ad animam non est distinctio sexus, immo ita imago Dei est mulier, ut vir[^7]: ergo aeque bene est susceptibilis ordinis.

4. Item, non est maior perfectio, quam sit status religionis, nec maior fortitudo, quam sit in perpessione martyrii; sed mulieres admittuntur tam ad religionem quam ad martyrium: ergo debent et possunt admitti ad ordinem sacrum.

> **Conclusio.** Mulieres nec de iure nec de facto ordines suscipere possunt.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod communis hoc tenet opinio, quod mulieres ad sacros ordines admitti
<!-- page 650 -->
non debent. Nam expresse dicitur distinctione vigesima tertia[^1b]: «Sacratas Deo feminas vel monachas sacra vasa vel sacratas pallas penes vos contingere et incensum circa altare deferre, perlatum est ad apostolicam Sedem, quae omnia vituperatione et reprehensione plena esse, nulli recte sapientium est dubium. Quapropter huius sanctae Sedis auctoritate, ne pestis haec latius divulgetur, per omnes provincias abstergi citissime mandamus».

Et sic omnes consentiunt, quod promoveri *non debent*; sed utrum *possint*, dubium est. Sane quorundam opinio fuit, quod *possunt*, qui dicti sunt Cataphrygae[^2b], qui etiam non solum praemissis auctoritatibus innituntur, sed auctoritatibus adhaerent canonum et pro se adducunt, in quibus ostenditur, mulieres antiquitus ordines suscepisse. Dicitur enim Causa vigesima septima, quaestione prima[^3b]: «Diaconissam ante annos quadraginta non debere ordinari, statuimus»; et in eadem quaestione: «Si quis rapuerit, vel sollicitaverit diaconissam»; et similiter distinctione trigesima secunda mentio fit de presbytera. — Sed certe, si attendatur quod dicitur distinctione trigesima secunda[^4b], *Presbyteram* etc., ibi ostenditur, quod presbyterae vocantur viduae et seniores et matronae; et ex hoc colligitur, quod diaconissae dicebantur quae communicabant cum diaconibus in legendo homiliam, quibus fiebat aliqua benedictio. Unde nullo modo credendum est, quod unquam secundum canones mulieres fuerint ad sacros ordines promotae. Et secundum saniorem opinionem et prudentiorem[^5b] doctorum non solum non debent vel non possunt de iure, verum etiam non possunt de facto.

Et si quaeratur ratio huius, dicendum, quod hoc non venit tam ex institutione Ecclesiae quam ex hoc, quod eis non competit ordinis Sacramentum. In hoc enim Sacramento persona, quae ordinatur, significat Christum mediatorem; et quoniam mediator solum in virili sexu fuit et per virilem sexum potest significari[^6b]: ideo possibilitas suscipiendi ordines solum viris competit, qui soli possunt *naturaliter repraesentare* et secundum *characteris susceptionem* actu signum huius ferre. Et ista positio probabilior est et multis auctoritatibus Sanctorum potest probari[^7b].

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Debbora, dicendum, quod illa fuit potestas *temporalis*, non spiritualis. Mulieribus autem bene licet temporaliter dominari, sed non spirituali dominio, quod est signum, quod ille qui dominatur, gerit typum capitis Christi; quoniam ergo mulier non potest esse caput viri[^8b], ideo ordinari non potest.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de abbatissis, dicendum, quod non habent locum *praelationis ordinariae*, sed quasi loco abbatis sunt substitutae propter periculum cohabitandi cum viris; unde non possunt ordinarie absolvere nec ligare[^9b]. *Officium* autem *sacerdotale*, vel etiam cuiuslibet ordinis, cui datur ordinarie potestas ista et ordo, significationem habet, quae non competit mulieri, quamvis *regimen* competat feminis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo respicit animam; dicendum, quod non respicit animam tantum, sed animam, ut est carni coniuncta, et hoc ratione *significationis*, quae consistit circa signum *visibile*, ac per hoc etiam circa corpus; et *exsecutio* et usus ordinis coniunctum respicit. Quoniam nec ordinis *significatio* nec etiam *dispensatio* sic competit mulieri, sicut superius probatum est; ideo patet illud.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de perfectione religionis et martyrii; dicendum, quod est perfectio, quae respicit gratiam *gratum facientem*, et huius aeque bene est susceptibilis mulier, ut vir; et est
<!-- page 651 -->
perfectio status, qui concernit aliquid *gratis datum*, et haec potest competere uni sexui, quamvis non competat alii; quia haec non tantum respicit quod est interius, sed etiam quod est *exterius*. Talis est perfectio ordinis, in qua est collatio potestatis, quam ostendit multiplex ratio mulieribus[^1c] minime convenire.

english:
### Article II. *On those who can receive orders.*

Next, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the possibility of receiving orders, about which four things are asked.

First it is asked whether, for an order to be received by someone, the male sex is required, or whether a woman can receive it. Second, whether for receiving an order the use of reason is necessary. Third, whether integrity of the flesh is necessary. Fourth, whether the condition of freedom is necessary.

### Question I. *Whether the male sex is required for receiving an order.*

As regards the first, then, that the male sex is required is shown[^1]:

1. *First*, thus: no order can be conferred on one who does not have the natural possibility or aptitude for it; but no one has the possibility for an order who does not have the aptitude for the tonsure and the crown; and no one has a natural aptitude for this whom it befits always to have the head veiled: if, therefore, by nature it befits only a man to pray with head unveiled, but a woman with head veiled, as is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven[^2], which nature itself also teaches: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no one is capable of receiving orders except one who bears the image of God, because in this Sacrament a man is in a certain manner made God or divine, while he becomes a participant in divine power; but a man by reason of his sex is the *image of God*, as is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven[^3]: therefore in no way can a woman be ordained.

3. Likewise, in an order spiritual power is given to the one ordained; but a woman is not capable of such power, as is said in the first [Epistle] to Timothy, chapter two[^4]: *I do not permit a woman to teach in the Church, nor to have dominion over a man*: therefore neither [is she capable] of an order.

4. Likewise, the other orders prepare one for the episcopate, if one conducts himself well in them; but a bishop is the spouse of the Church[^5]: therefore, since a woman cannot be advanced to the episcopate, but only a man — otherwise there would not be a spouse of the Church — therefore to be promoted to the antecedent orders belongs only to men.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Judges, chapter four[^6], it is read that Deborah judged Israel and presided over it: therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs to a woman, especially when she abounds in grace: therefore priestly power also.

2. Likewise, in the New Testament we see abbesses, to whom communities are committed to be governed: therefore it seems that the power of absolving and binding ought to be committed to them: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the priestly order could be conferred on them.

3. Likewise, the priestly order and the others regard the soul and not the flesh; but as regards the soul there is no distinction of sex, indeed a woman is the image of God just as a man is[^7]: therefore she is equally well capable of an order.

4. Likewise, there is no greater perfection than the state of religion, nor greater fortitude than that in the endurance of martyrdom; but women are admitted both to religion and to martyrdom: therefore they ought to and can be admitted to a sacred order.

> **Conclusion.** Women can receive orders neither by right nor in fact.

**I respond:** It must be said that the common opinion holds this, that women ought not to be admitted to sacred orders.
For it is expressly said in distinction twenty-three[^1b]: «That women consecrated to God, or nuns, touch the sacred vessels or the consecrated palls in your presence, and carry incense around the altar, has been brought to the Apostolic See; and that all these things are full of censure and reproach, is doubtful to none of the rightly wise. Wherefore, by the authority of this holy See, lest this plague be spread more widely, we command that it be wiped away most swiftly throughout all the provinces».

And thus all agree that they *ought not* to be promoted; but whether they *can*, is doubtful. Indeed the opinion of certain persons was that they *can*, who were called Cataphrygians[^2b], who moreover rely not only on the aforesaid authorities, but adhere to the authorities of the canons and adduce for themselves [texts] in which it is shown that women anciently received orders. For it is said in Cause twenty-seven, question one[^3b]: «We have decreed that a deaconess ought not to be ordained before forty years»; and in the same question: «If anyone should carry off or solicit a deaconess»; and likewise in distinction thirty-two mention is made of a woman-presbyter. — But certainly, if one attends to what is said in distinction thirty-two[^4b], *Presbyteram* etc., there it is shown that women-presbyters are called widows and elders and matrons; and from this it is gathered that those women were called deaconesses who communicated with the deacons in the reading of the homily, upon whom some blessing was conferred. Hence it is by no means to be believed that women were ever, according to the canons, promoted to sacred orders. And according to the sounder and more prudent opinion[^5b] of the doctors they not only ought not or cannot by right, but also cannot in fact.

And if the reason for this be asked, it must be said that this comes not so much from the institution of the Church as from this, that the Sacrament of order does not befit them. For in this Sacrament the person who is ordained signifies Christ the mediator; and since the mediator was only in the male sex and can be signified only through the male sex[^6b]: therefore the possibility of receiving orders belongs only to men, who alone can *naturally represent* and, according to the *reception of the character*, actually bear the sign of this. And this position is more probable and can be proved by many authorities of the Saints[^7b].

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Deborah, it must be said that that was a *temporal* power, not spiritual. But it is indeed permitted to women to exercise dominion temporally, but not with spiritual dominion, which is a sign that he who exercises dominion bears the type of the head, Christ; since, therefore, a woman cannot be the head of a man[^8b], therefore she cannot be ordained.

2. To that which is objected concerning abbesses, it must be said that they do not hold the place of an *ordinary prelacy*, but are substituted as it were in the place of an abbot on account of the danger of cohabiting with men; hence they cannot in the ordinary way absolve or bind[^9b]. But the *priestly office*, or also that of any order, to which this power and order are ordinarily given, has a signification which does not befit a woman, although *governance* may befit women.

3. To that which is objected, that an order regards the soul; it must be said that it does not regard the soul alone, but the soul as it is joined to the flesh, and this by reason of *signification*, which consists about a *visible* sign, and through this also about the body; and the *execution* and use of the order regard the conjoined [soul-and-body]. Since neither the *signification* of the order nor even its *dispensation* thus befits a woman, as was proved above; therefore that is evident.

4. To that which is objected concerning the perfection of religion and of martyrdom; it must be said that there is a perfection which regards the grace that *makes pleasing*, and of this a woman is equally well capable as a man; and there is
a perfection of state, which concerns something *freely given*, and this can befit one sex, although it may not befit the other; because this regards not only what is interior, but also what is *exterior*. Such is the perfection of the order, in which there is a conferral of power, which manifold reasoning shows to be by no means fitting for women[^1c].

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article.

la: Vers. 4. seq.: «Omnis vir orans aut prophetans velato capite deturpat caput suum. Omnis autem mulier orans aut prophetans non velato capite deturpat caput suum; unum enim est, ac si decalvetur». Vers. 13. seq.: Decet mulierem non velatam orare Deum? Nec ipsa natura docet vos, quod vir quidem si comam nutriat, ignominia est illi etc. — De tonsura vide supra d. 24. p. I. q. I. — Pro *quod et ipsa natura docet* codd. et ed. 1 *quod nec ipsa natura docet* [codd. GH *decet*], lectio recipienda, si S. Bonav. modum non mutasset in verbis Apostoli; cod. Q *ergo nullo modo mulier, quod nec ipsa* etc.

en: Verse 4 f.: «Every man praying or prophesying with head veiled disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with head not veiled disgraces her head; for it is one and the same as if she were shaven». Verse 13 f.: Is it becoming for a woman to pray to God unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame to him, etc. — On the tonsure, see above d. 24, p. I, q. I. — For *which nature itself also teaches* the codices and ed. 1 have *which not even nature itself teaches* [codd. GH *befits*], a reading to be accepted, had St. Bonaventure not altered the wording in the words of the Apostle; cod. Q *therefore in no way [can] a woman [be ordained], which not even nature itself* etc.

la: Vers. 7: Vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria Dei est, mulier autem gloria viri est. Cfr. C. *Mulier debet* (19.), C. 33. q. 5. — Post *imago Dei* codd. M O R S T addunt *non mulier*.

en: Verse 7: A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. Cf. Canon *Mulier debet* (19), C. 33, q. 5. — After *image of God* codd. M O R S T add *not the woman*.

la: Vers. 12: Docere autem mulieri non permitto etc. Cfr. I. Cor. 14, 34: Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant etc.

en: Verse 12: But I do not permit a woman to teach, etc. Cf. 1 Cor. 14, 34: Let women keep silence in the churches, etc.

la: Cfr. supra d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp., et C. *Inter corporalia* (2.), X. de Translatione episcopi (lib. 1. tit. 7.).

en: Cf. above d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body [of the response], and the Canon *Inter corporalia* (2), Decretals, on the Translation of a bishop (bk. 1, tit. 7).

la: Vers. 4.

en: Verse 4.

la: Cfr. August., XII. de Trin. c. 7. n. 10. seqq. Vide etiam II. Sent. d. 16. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* bk. XII, c. 7, n. 10 ff. See also II Sent., d. 16, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Can. 25. Textus originalis subiicit post *auctoritate* haec verba, quae etiam cod. aa exhibet: haec omnia vobis resecare funditus, quanto [cod. aa quam] citius poteritis, censemus. Et.

en: Canon 25. The original text subjoins after *authority* these words, which cod. aa also exhibits: we deem [it right] to cut off all these things from you utterly, and as speedily [cod. aa: as] you can. And.

la: Quorum auctores fuerunt Montanus, Prisca et Maximilla. Inter Cataphryges recensentur *Pepuziani* (Pepuza, oppidum in Phrygia, secundum Epiphan., II. Adversus Haeres. haeres. 48. c. 14, et Hieron., Epist. 41. alias 54. n. 3.) sive Quintilliani, de quibus refert Epiphan., loc. cit. haeres. 49. c. 2: Apud eosdem mulieres episcopi sunt et presbyteri et ad ceteros gradus alleguntur, nullum ut sexus discrimen servetur. Nam in Christo Iesu *neque mas est neque femina* [Gal. 3, 28.]. Cfr. August., de Haeres. n. 26. et 27.

en: The authors of whom were Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla. Among the Cataphrygians are reckoned the *Pepuzians* (Pepuza, a town in Phrygia, according to Epiphanius, *Against Heresies* bk. II, heresy 48, c. 14, and Jerome, Letter 41, elsewhere 54, n. 3), or the Quintillians, concerning whom Epiphanius reports, in the cited place, heresy 49, c. 2: Among them women are bishops and presbyters and are chosen for the other grades, so that no distinction of sex is kept. For in Christ Jesus *there is neither male nor female* [Gal. 3, 28]. Cf. Augustine, *On Heresies*, nn. 26 and 27.

la: Can. 23. — Seq. canon est ibid. c. 30: *Si quis rapuerit*, vel sollicitaverit, vel corruperit assisteriam [ascetriam] vel diaconissam etc. — Tertius est C. *Mulieres*, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur (19.).

en: Canon 23. — The following canon is in the same place, c. 30: *If anyone should carry off*, or solicit, or corrupt a female assistant [ascetria] or a deaconess, etc. — The third is the Canon *Women*, who among the Greeks are called presbyters (19).

la: Cap. 19: *Mulieres*, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur, apud nos viduae, seniores, univirae et matricuriae appellantur, in ecclesia tanquam ordinatas constitui non debere. Gratian. huic cap. praemittit: «*Presbyteram* vero quam debeamus accipere, Laodicense Concilium, c. 11, ostendit dicens». — S. Bonav. haec verba respiciens allegat *Presbyteram*. — Pro *matronae* permulti codd. *matrices*, cod. U *maturiores*. — Quae paulo inferius de diaconissis dicuntur sunt secundum *Glossam* in C. *Diaconissam* superius allegatum.

en: Chapter 19: *Women*, who among the Greeks are called presbyters, among us are called widows, elders, univirae, and matron-registrars, [it is said] that they ought not to be established in the church as ordained. Gratian prefixes to this chapter: «What we ought to understand by *woman-presbyter*, the Council of Laodicea, c. 11, shows, saying». — St. Bonaventure, regarding these words, cites *Presbyteram*. — For *matrons* very many codices [have] *matrices*, cod. U *maturiores*. — What is said a little below concerning deaconesses is according to the *Gloss* on the Canon *Diaconissam* cited above.

la: Pro *et prudentiorem*, quod codd. IK omittunt, Vat. *et prudentiorum*. Inferius post *quod hoc* Vat. cum pluribus codd. omittit *non*.

en: For *and more prudent*, which codd. IK omit, the Vatican [edition has] *and of the more prudent*. Below, after *that this*, the Vatican [edition], with several codices, omits *not*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 12. a. 3. q. 1. — Inferius pro *signum huius ferre*, quod habet cod. F a secunda manu (primitus legebat cum codd. E L R S T bb *signum huius conferre*), alii codd. et edd. *signum his conferre* (fortasse *huiusmodi ferre*).

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 12, a. 3, q. 1. — Below, for *bear the sign of this*, which cod. F has from a second hand (originally it read, with codd. E L R S T bb, *confer the sign of this*), other codices and editions [have] *confer the sign to these* (perhaps *bear [a sign] of this kind*).

la: Vide Epiphan., II. Adversus Haeres. haeres. 49. c. 3. et III. haeres. 79. c. 3. seqq., ubi etiam officium *diaconissarum* exponitur, de quo cfr. etiam ipsius III. Expositio fidei, c. 21; Gratian. C. 15. q. 3. introduct.

en: See Epiphanius, *Against Heresies* bk. II, heresy 49, c. 3, and bk. III, heresy 79, c. 3 ff., where also the office of *deaconesses* is expounded, concerning which cf. also his own *Exposition of the Faith* (bk. III), c. 21; Gratian, C. 15, q. 3, introduction.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 11, 3: Volo autem vos scire, quod omnis viri caput Christus est; caput autem mulieris, vir etc. Cfr. Eph. 5, 23. Vide Gratian. C. 15. q. 3. introduct. § 1. seq. — Pro *quod est signum* edd. *cuius ratio est*.

en: Epistle 1 Cor. 11, 3: But I wish you to know that the head of every man is Christ; but the head of the woman is the man, etc. Cf. Eph. 5, 23. See Gratian, C. 15, q. 3, introduction, § 1 f. — For *which is a sign* the editions [have] *the reason of which is*.

la: Cfr. C. *Nova quaedam* (10.), X. de Poenitentiis et remiss. (lib. V. tit. 38.). — Infra post *ordinarie* cod. W supplet *datur*, edd. *eidem datur etiam*.

en: Cf. the Canon *Nova quaedam* (10), Decretals, on Penances and remissions (bk. V, tit. 38). — Below, after *ordinarily* cod. W supplies *is given*, the editions *is given to the same one also*.

la: Codd. R S T X et ed. 1 *quam constat mulieribus*.

en: Codd. R S T X and ed. 1 [read] *which it is agreed [befits] for women*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Communis doctrina cum inviolabili praxi Ecclesiae tenet, *iure divino* mulieres ineptas esse ad ordinem quemlibet suscipiendum.

*De 1. quaestione:* Scot., hic q. 2. n. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 39. a. 1; — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., a. 4. q. 1. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem Durand. (loc. cit. n. 8.) opinionem I. hic relatam defendere voluit; de qua S. Thom. dicit, eam nec ratione nec auctoritate confirmari. — Exceptio, quam S. Doctor ponit quoad episcopatum, confirmatur a S. Thoma et Petro a Tar., non vero a Scoto et a sententia, ut videtur, nunc communi. Antiqua illa opinio, ut patet, cohaeret cum memorata doctrina, quod episcopatus proprie non sit ordo, et quod per consequens non imprimat characterem.

*De 2. quaestione:* Scot., hic q. 2. n. 3. — S. Thom., locis quaestiunc. 2. et a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.

**III.** De tertia quaestione ab auctoribus rerum moralium et canonicarum agitur in tractatu de *irregularitatibus*, et quidem specialiter de defectu Sacramenti, quae est *bigamia*, sive *vera*, sive *interpretativa* (si quis duxit in matrimonium viduam vel corruptam), sive *similitudinaria*. Alii commentatores Lombardi tractant diffusius de bigamia infra d. 27, sed Scot. infra d. 33. q. 2. — S. Thom., d. 27. q. 3. a. 1-3; Suppl. q. 66. a. 1-5. — B. Albert., d. 27. a. 20-22. — Petr. a Tar., d. 27. q. 5. n. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., d. 27. a. 4. q. 1-4. — Durand., d. 27. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., d. 27. q. 4.

**IV.** Quaestio 4. agit de irregularitate ex *defectu libertatis* secundum canones. — De eadem quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 39. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The common doctrine, together with the inviolable practice of the Church, holds that *by divine right* women are unfit to receive any order whatever.

*On the first question:* Scotus, here q. 2, nn. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, sub-question 1; Suppl. q. 39, a. 1; — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, a. 4, q. 1. — On this and the following questions: Durandus, here q. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4.

**II.** As regards the second question, Durandus (in the cited place, n. 8) wished to defend the first opinion related here; of which St. Thomas says that it can be confirmed neither by reason nor by authority. — The exception which the holy Doctor makes with respect to the episcopate is confirmed by St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, but not by Scotus nor by the opinion, as it seems, now common. That ancient opinion, as is evident, coheres with the aforementioned doctrine, that the episcopate is not properly an order, and that consequently it does not imprint a character.

*On the second question:* Scotus, here q. 2, n. 3. — St. Thomas, in the [cited] places, sub-question 2 and a. 2. — Blessed Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4, q. 2.

**III.** The third question is treated by the authors of moral and canonical matters in the tract on *irregularities*, and indeed especially concerning the defect of the Sacrament, which is *bigamy*, whether *true*, or *interpretative* (if someone has taken in marriage a widow or a corrupted woman), or *similitudinary*. Other commentators on the Lombard treat more at length of bigamy below at d. 27, but Scotus below at d. 33, q. 2. — St. Thomas, d. 27, q. 3, aa. 1–3; Suppl. q. 66, aa. 1–5. — Blessed Albert, d. 27, aa. 20–22. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 27, q. 5, nn. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, d. 27, a. 4, qq. 1–4. — Durandus, d. 27, q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 27, q. 4.

**IV.** Question 4 treats of irregularity arising from *defect of freedom* according to the canons. — On the same question: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 1; Suppl. q. 39, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 649–651 (pdf 669–671; offset pdf = printed + 20), read column-by-column (Left top→bottom, then Right), corrected against IA djvu OCR raw lines 70413–70617. Raw range and page numbers verified against running heads (`DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` and page numbers 649/650/651). This chunk folds the short **Articulus II** opener (`Consequenter … de qua quatuor quaeruntur` + the four-question listing) into q1, per the locked chunking convention.

**Band regeneration.** Default `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1880` clipped both columns. Regenerated pp. 649 & 651 at `split_x=1780` (right-column left edge was clipped) and p. 650 at `split_x=2120` (its columns sit shifted right; 1780 clipped the left column's right edge). Page-verified all three.

**Apparatus / page-footer split (17 footnotes).** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page:
- **p. 649 → [^1]–[^7]** (question opener, pro-arguments, contra).
- **p. 650 → [^1b]–[^9b]** (Respondeo + replies).
- **p. 651 → [^1c] only.** Printed page 651 carries footnotes 1–7, but only footnote **1** (`Codd. R S T X et ed. 1 quam constat mulieribus`, anchored to *mulieribus* in the tail of Ad 4) belongs to this chunk. **Footnotes 2–7 of p. 651 belong to Quaestio II** (`Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis`), which begins on p. 651 after the scholion and is **not** part of this chunk. The next chunk (d25-a2-q2) must claim p. 651 footnotes 2–7.

**Scholion disposition.** The **Article II scholion** (`SCHOLION.`, OCR-garbled `SOHOLION.`, printed at the top of p. 651 spanning both columns) is rendered here in full (La + En) as the last subsection. Its four numbered sections **I–IV** with `De 1./2./3./4. quaestione` blocks cover **all four questions of Article II**. Since this q1 owns the whole article-level scholion, the sibling quaestiones (a2-q2, q3, q4) render **no** scholion. `has_scholion: true`.

**[?] flags.**
- **[^1] anchor position:** footnote 1 (`Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.`) is placed at `ostenditur[^1]:` (the demonstration lead-in, immediately before pro-argument 1 and thus before marker 2). The OCR renders a stray raised dot at the head of the `1. Primo sic` line, consistent with a superscript ¹ on the preceding `ostenditur:`. Position is confident but not glyph-certain. **[?]**
- **Scholion, *De 2. quaestione*:** the printed text reads `S. Thom., locis quaestiunc. 2. et a. 2.` — `locis` is verbatim from the band (a plural "in the places [cited]"); rendered "in the [cited] places". No emendation made. **[?]**