title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
<!-- page 209 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum latria exhibenda sit membris Christi.*

Quinto quaeritur, utrum *latria* exhibenda sit membris Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. (*Ad oppositum.*) *Primo* auctoritate et exemplo ipsius Abrahae, qui, in Genesis decimo octavo[^1], tres viros vidit et unum adoravit, et Augustinus exponit, quod viri illi Angeli fuerunt; sed tamen in illis adoravit Deum et obtulit eis adorationem latriae: ergo si Deus habitat in membris Christi, videtur, quod eis cultus *latriae* debeat exhiberi.

2. Item, in Apocalypsi[^2] dicitur, quod Ioannes cecidit in faciem suam, ut adoraret Angelum, et ibi dicitur, quod Angelus non permisit; aut ergo Ioannes adorare voluit adoratione *latriae*, aut *duliae*. Si *latriae*: ergo cum Ioannes recte fecerit nec reprehendatur tanquam idololatra, adoratio *latriae* potest exhiberi rationali creaturae: ergo si paris dignitatis sunt Angeli et membra Christi, videtur, quod membris Christi exhibendus sit cultus *latriae*. Si dicas, quod Ioannes voluit adorare adoratione *duliae*; *contra*: dulia debetur Angelis bonis: ergo male faciebat Angelus, quod[^3] prohibebat ab adoratione, quam debebat; quodsi Angeli nunquam male faciunt, restat, quod praecedens membrum est verum.

3. Item, Deus adorandus est adoratione *latriae* in templo sancto suo, secundum quod dicit Psalmus[^4]: *Introibo in domum tuam et adorabo* etc.; sed quodlibet membrum Christi est templum Spiritus sancti, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios tertio: ergo quodlibet Christi membrum adorandum est adoratione *latriae*.

4. Item, corpus Christi verum refertur ad corpus Christi mysticum tanquam signum ad signatum: ergo si signatum sit nobilius signo, corpus Christi mysticum est magis vel aeque nobile quam corpus Christi verum; sed verum corpus Christi adoratur *latria*[^5]: ergo et corpus Christi mysticum.

5. Item, eadem adoratione adoratur caput regis, et alia membra; sed Christus est caput Ecclesiae[^6] et adoratur adoratione, quae est *latria*: ergo et alia eius membra.

6. Item, quodlibet membrum Christi est imago Christi, nec imago tantum, sed etiam imago assimilata per gratiam; sed « honor imaginis, sicut vult Damascenus[^7], refertur ad prototypum »: ergo si prototypum adoratur adoratione *latriae*, videtur quod et membra Christi, in quibus est reperire imaginem naturae et similitudinem gratiae.

**Sed contra:** 1. (*Fundamenta.*) Non sumus membra Christi nisi quantum ad humanitatem: ergo si *latria* est cultus Deo debitus[^8], videtur, quod *latria* membris Christi non communicetur.

2. Item, membra Christi ad invicem habent societatem[^9]; sed adoratio *latriae* ponit habitudinem et gradum dominii et servitutis inter adorantem et adoratum: ergo non videtur, quod unum membrum debeat alteri cultum *latriae*.

3. Item, non est eadem adoratione et honore venerandus dominus et servus; sed membra Christi sunt subiecta servituti Christi et Dei[^10]: ergo adoratione *latriae* non debent adorari.

<!-- page 210 -->

4. Item, maior est auctoritas et potestas in malo praelato quam in bono subdito, ergo maior debetur ei reverentia[^11]; sed constat, quod malo praelato non debetur *latriae* adoratio: ergo multo minus subdito, qui est membrum Christi.

### Conclusio.

> Membris Christi cultus latriae nullatenus est exhibendus.

**Respondeo:** (*Conclusio.*) Dicendum, quod absque dubio cultus *latriae* membris Christi non est exhibendus; pro eo quod membra Christi sumus secundum humanam naturam; et sic sumus membra, ut tamen ratio membri non tollat rationem servitutis nec ponat aequalitatem dignitatis. Et quoniam *latria* debetur Creatori ratione suae maiestatis et excellentiae; hinc est, quod membris Christi non competit cultus *latriae*. Multa enim distantia distat caput a corpore ratione divinitatis unitae. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* (*Solutio oppositorum.*) Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Abraham adoravit tres Angelos; dicendum, quod isti Angeli et creaturae rationales erant, et tamen ad repraesentationem Trinitatis ipsi Abrahae apparuerunt; et utrumque horum ipsi Abrahae notum erat. Et (*Notandum.*) in quantum *creaturae rationales* erant, exhibuit eis Abraham non adorationem *latriae*, sed reverentiam *duliae*[^12] et ministerium honorificentiae. In quantum autem *signum Trinitatis* erant, exhibuit Abraham cultum *latriae*, non in quantum signo, sed ipsi signato; ad hoc enim specialiter apparebant. Non sic autem est de membris Christi, quoniam, etsi in eis possit cognosci Trinitas, non tamen sic repraesentant ex speciali institutione vel missione divina; et ideo non est eis exhibenda *latria*, nec quantum ad illud quod sunt, nec quantum ad illud quod per eos intelligitur.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Ioannes voluit adorare Angelum; dicendum, quod noluit adorare eum adoratione *latriae*, sed *duliae*. Et quod obiicit, quod non debuit eum[^13] prohibere; dicendum, (*Triplex ratio.*) quod immo, triplici ratione. *Prima* quidem est propter dignitatem ipsius Ioannis, qui excellentior erat multis Angelis. *Secunda* vero propter vitationem erroris, ne aliquis ex hoc crederet, quod Angeli adoratione *latriae* deberent adorari. *Tertia* vero ratio est propter manifestationem exaltationis dignitatis generis humani. Genus enim humanum exaltatum fuit per Christum supra naturam angelicam. Unde (*Notandum.*) quamvis Angeli in veteri Testamento paterentur, se *dulia* adorari ab hominibus; in novo tamen post glorificationem humanae naturae in Christo non patiuntur, sibi illam naturam subiici, quam vident consedere ad dexteram Patris; et haec est ratio specialis beati Gregorii[^14].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Deus est adorandus in templo[^15]; dicendum, quod secus est de templo ab homine fabricato et de templo a Spiritu sancto sanctificato; quia templum illud solum est inductivum in aliud et institutum propter aliquid aliud, ita quod in se non habet aliquam rationem, quare debeat adorari, sed ratione solum eius quod in eo colitur; non sic autem est de templo animae fidelis. Habet enim aliquid in se, ratione cuius potest esse capax et particeps honoris.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore mystico[^16], quod nobilius est etc.; (*Notandum.*) dicendum, quod si loquamur de corpore Christi vero, prout Deitati unitum est, dicendum, quod sermo ille non habet veritatem, immo multo nobilius est corpore mystico. Nam corpus mysticum non est Divinitati unitum in unitatem personae, sicut corpus Christi verum; et ideo non tanta est ei exhibenda honoris excellentia. Et si (*Notandum.*) obiicias, quod signatum est nobilius signo; dicendum, quod illud verum est, quando signatum est causa signi[^17]. Non sic autem est in proposito. Praeterea, corpus Christi non dicitur esse signum, nisi in quantum latet sub Sacramento et ratione ipsarum specierum continentium et sensibus apparentium[^18].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eadem adoratione adoratur caput regis, et alia membra; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia caput regis cum membris aliis simpliciter est eiusdem naturae; Christus autem, qui est caput nostrum, praeter naturam humanam, in qua communicat nobiscum, naturam habet divinam, in qua superexcellit omnem creaturam: et ideo ratione illius talis honor ei competit, qualem nulli creaturae est decens exhiberi[^19].

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in membro Christi est assimilatio per gratiam; dicendum, quod verum est; ex hoc tamen non sequitur, quod debeat adorari adoratione *latriae*, sicut in imagine

<!-- page 211 -->

sculpta; et hoc, quia imago illa non se offert tantum ut ductivam in aliud, sed ut rem rationalem et excellentem et dignam honore; et ideo honor sibi exhibitus non totaliter refertur ad prototypum, id est ad principale figuratum, sicut in imagine sculpta. Unde propter duplex periculum iunctum, et a parte adorantis et a parte adorati, non debet Deus in imagine, quae est homo, *latria* adorari, videlicet ne adoratus superbiat et extollatur per inanem gloriam, quasi honor ille sibi impendatur et fiat; et ne adorans cadat in idololatriam aspiciendo tantum ad formam humanam[^20].

english:
### Question V. *Whether latria is to be shown to the members of Christ.*

Fifth, it is asked whether *latria* is to be shown to the members of Christ. And that it is so, it seems:

1. (*To the opposite.*) *First*, by the authority and example of Abraham himself, who, in Genesis the eighteenth chapter[^1], saw three men and adored one, and Augustine explains that those men were Angels; yet nonetheless in them he adored God and offered them the adoration of latria: therefore if God dwells in the members of Christ, it seems that the cult of *latria* ought to be shown to them.

2. Likewise, in the Apocalypse[^2] it is said that John fell on his face to adore the Angel, and there it is said that the Angel did not permit it; either, then, John wished to adore with the adoration of *latria*, or of *dulia*. If of *latria*: then since John acted rightly and is not censured as an idolater, the adoration of *latria* can be shown to a rational creature: therefore if Angels and the members of Christ are of equal dignity, it seems that the cult of *latria* is to be shown to the members of Christ. If you say that John wished to adore with the adoration of *dulia*; *on the contrary*: dulia is owed to the good Angels: therefore the Angel did wrong in that he[^3] forbade the adoration which was owed; but if Angels never do wrong, it remains that the preceding member [of the disjunction] is true.

3. Likewise, God is to be adored with the adoration of *latria* in his holy temple, according to what the Psalm says[^4]: *I will enter into thy house and will adore*, etc.; but every member of Christ is a temple of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said in the first to the Corinthians, chapter three: therefore every member of Christ is to be adored with the adoration of *latria*.

4. Likewise, the true body of Christ is referred to the mystical body of Christ as a sign to the thing signified: therefore if the thing signified is nobler than the sign, the mystical body of Christ is more or equally noble as the true body of Christ; but the true body of Christ is adored with *latria*[^5]: therefore also the mystical body of Christ.

5. Likewise, the head of a king and the other members are adored with the same adoration; but Christ is the head of the Church[^6] and is adored with an adoration that is *latria*: therefore also his other members.

6. Likewise, every member of Christ is an image of Christ, and not only an image, but also an image made like [him] through grace; but « the honor of an image, as Damascene holds[^7], is referred to the prototype »: therefore if the prototype is adored with the adoration of *latria*, it seems that the members of Christ also [are], in whom there is found the image of nature and the likeness of grace.

**On the contrary:** 1. (*Foundations.*) We are not members of Christ except as to [his] humanity: therefore if *latria* is the cult owed to God[^8], it seems that *latria* is not to be communicated to the members of Christ.

2. Likewise, the members of Christ have fellowship with one another[^9]; but the adoration of *latria* posits a relation and degree of lordship and servitude between the one adoring and the one adored: therefore it does not seem that one member ought [to render] to another the cult of *latria*.

3. Likewise, a lord and a servant are not to be venerated with the same adoration and honor; but the members of Christ are subjected to the servitude of Christ and of God[^10]: therefore they ought not to be adored with the adoration of *latria*.

4. Likewise, there is greater authority and power in an evil prelate than in a good subject, therefore greater reverence is owed to him[^11]; but it is established that the adoration of *latria* is not owed to an evil prelate: therefore much less to a subject, who is a member of Christ.

### Conclusion.

> The cult of latria is in no way to be shown to the members of Christ.

**Respondeo:** (*Conclusion.*) It must be said that without doubt the cult of *latria* is not to be shown to the members of Christ; for the reason that we are members of Christ according to [his] human nature; and we are members in such a way that nevertheless the character of a member does not take away the character of servitude nor posit an equality of dignity. And since *latria* is owed to the Creator by reason of his majesty and excellence; hence it is that the cult of *latria* does not befit the members of Christ. For the head is far distant from the body by reason of the divinity united [to it]. — Hence the reasons adduced for this side are to be conceded.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 1.* (*Solution of the opposing arguments.*) To that which is objected, that Abraham adored three Angels; it must be said that those Angels were also rational creatures, and yet they appeared to Abraham for the representation of the Trinity; and both of these were known to Abraham. And (*Note.*) insofar as they were *rational creatures*, Abraham showed them not the adoration of *latria*, but the reverence of *dulia*[^12] and the ministry of honor. But insofar as they were a *sign of the Trinity*, Abraham showed the cult of *latria*, not insofar as [they were] a sign, but to the thing signified itself; for it was for this that they specially appeared. But it is not so concerning the members of Christ, since, even if the Trinity can be known in them, they nevertheless do not represent [it] thus by a special institution or divine mission; and therefore *latria* is not to be shown to them, neither as to that which they are, nor as to that which is understood through them.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that John wished to adore the Angel; it must be said that he did not wish to adore him with the adoration of *latria*, but of *dulia*. And as to what he objects, that he ought not to have forbidden him[^13]; it must be said (*Threefold reason.*) that on the contrary [he ought], for a threefold reason. The *first* indeed is on account of the dignity of John himself, who was more excellent than many Angels. The *second* is on account of the avoidance of error, lest anyone should from this believe that Angels ought to be adored with the adoration of *latria*. The *third* reason is on account of the manifestation of the exaltation of the dignity of the human race. For the human race was exalted through Christ above the angelic nature. Hence (*Note.*) although the Angels in the Old Testament permitted themselves to be adored with *dulia* by men; in the New, nevertheless, after the glorification of human nature in Christ, they do not permit that nature to be subjected to them which they see to sit at the right hand of the Father; and this is the special reason of blessed Gregory[^14].

*To 3.* But to that which is objected, that God is to be adored in [his] temple[^15]; it must be said that it is otherwise with a temple built by man and with a temple sanctified by the Holy Spirit; because that temple is only inductive toward another and instituted for the sake of something else, so that in itself it has no character by which it ought to be adored, but only by reason of that which is worshiped in it; but it is not so with the temple of the faithful soul. For it has something in itself, by reason of which it can be capable and a participant of honor.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the mystical body[^16], that it is nobler, etc.; (*Note.*) it must be said that if we speak of the true body of Christ, inasmuch as it is united to the Deity, it must be said that that statement does not hold true, but rather it is much nobler than the mystical body. For the mystical body is not united to the Divinity in unity of person, as the true body of Christ is; and therefore so great an excellence of honor is not to be shown to it. And if (*Note.*) you object that the thing signified is nobler than the sign; it must be said that this is true when the thing signified is the cause of the sign[^17]. But it is not so in the case at hand. Moreover, the body of Christ is not said to be a sign, except insofar as it lies hidden under the Sacrament and by reason of the very species that contain [it] and appear to the senses[^18].

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that the head of a king and the other members are adored with the same adoration; it must be said that it is not similar, because the head of a king with the other members is simply of the same nature; but Christ, who is our head, besides the human nature, in which he shares with us, has a divine nature, in which he super-excels every creature: and therefore by reason of that, such honor befits him as it is fitting to show to no creature[^19].

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that in a member of Christ there is a being-made-like [him] through grace; it must be said that it is true; nevertheless from this it does not follow that it ought to be adored with the adoration of *latria*, as in a sculpted image

and this, because that image does not offer itself only as leading toward another, but as a rational and excellent thing and worthy of honor; and therefore the honor shown to it is not totally referred to the prototype, that is, to the principal thing figured, as in a sculpted image. Hence, on account of a twofold danger joined [to it], both on the part of the one adoring and on the part of the one adored, God ought not to be adored with *latria* in the image which is man, namely lest the one adored grow proud and be exalted through empty glory, as if that honor were paid and rendered to himself; and lest the one adoring fall into idolatry by looking only at the human form[^20].

la: Vers. 2. — Augustini de hoc loco expositio habetur in eius Serm. 7. (alias 6.) n. 6. et XVI. de Civ. Dei, c. 29. Cfr. ibid. X. c. 8.

en: Verse 2. — Augustine's exposition of this passage is found in his Sermon 7 (elsewhere 6), n. 6, and in *On the City of God* XVI, c. 29. Cf. ibid. X, c. 8.

la: Cap. 19, 10. *Et cecidi ante pedes eius, ut adorarem eum. Et dixit mihi: Vide, ne feceris* etc.

en: Chapter 19, 10. *And I fell down before his feet to adore him. And he said to me: See thou do it not*, etc.

la: Pro *quod* cod. Z *quando.* Edd. post *quod* subiiciunt *eum.*

en: For *quod* (that) codex Z [reads] *quando* (when). The editions, after *quod*, add *eum* (him).

la: Psalm. 5, 8. — Seq. Scripturae testimon. est loc. cit. v. 17. Cfr. ibid. 6, 19, nec non II. Cor. 6. 16.

en: Psalm 5, 8. — The following scriptural testimony is at the place cited, v. 17. Cf. ibid. 6, 19, and also 2 Cor. 6, 16.

la: Vide supra q. 1.

en: See above, q. 1.

la: Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 2. — De *maiori* vide supra q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. below, d. 13, a. 2. — On the *major* [premise] see above, q. 1, in the body.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. Cfr. supra pag. 202, nota 2. — Subinde post *prototypum* edd. addunt *id est ad principale significatum.*

en: Bk. IV *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 16. Cf. above p. 202, note 2. — Then after *prototypum* the editions add *id est ad principale significatum* (that is, to the principal thing signified).

la: Vide infra a. 2. q. 1. seqq., ubi et illustrationem eius invenies, quod in minori arg. seq. proponitur.

en: See below, a. 2, q. 1 and following, where you will also find the illustration of that which is proposed in the minor [premise] of the following argument.

la: Cfr. I. Ioan. 1, 3. et 7.

en: Cf. 1 John 1, 3 and 7.

la: Cfr. Rom. 13, 1. seqq.; Coloss. 3, 18. seqq.; I. Petr. 2, 13. seqq.

la: Edd. 1, 2 hic — cum codd. K (1 a secunda manu) et infra in solut. ad 2. cum aliis codd. — pro *duliae* substituerunt *hyperduliae.* Cfr. supra pag. 206, nota 3. Subinde pro *ministerium* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *mysterium.* Paulo inferius pro *exhibuit Abraham* cod. K *exhibuit eis,* et post pauca pro *non in quantum* Vat. bene *non inquam.* Demum pro *etsi in eis* edd. *etsi ab eis,* codd. A G L N O V X aa *etsi eis.*

en: Editions 1, 2 here — with codex K (the first [word] by a second hand) and below in the solution to 2 with other codices — substituted *hyperduliae* for *duliae.* Cf. above p. 206, note 3. Then for *ministerium* the editions with some codices [read] *mysterium.* A little further down, for *exhibuit Abraham* codex K [reads] *exhibuit eis,* and shortly after, for *non in quantum* the Vatican edition rightly [reads] *non inquam.* Finally, for *etsi in eis* the editions [read] *etsi ab eis,* codices A G L N O V X aa *etsi eis.*

la: Vat. post *eum* supplet *Angelus.*

en: The Vatican edition after *eum* supplies *Angelus* (the Angel).

la: Libr. I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 8. n. 2. — Paulo superius pro *dulia,* ut iam observavimus, edd. 1, 2 cum pluribus codd., inter quos A N R S T cc, *hyperdulia.* Deinde pro *adorari* cod. K *venerari,* et pro *post glorificationem* idem cod. K *propter glorificationem.*

en: Bk. I *Homilies on the Gospels,* homily 8, n. 2. — A little above, for *dulia,* as we have already observed, editions 1, 2 with several codices, among which A N R S T cc, [read] *hyperdulia.* Then for *adorari* codex K [reads] *venerari,* and for *post glorificationem* the same codex K [reads] *propter glorificationem.*

la: Codd. Z bb adiiciunt *sancto.*

en: Codices Z bb add *sancto* (holy).

la: Cod. Z *de corpore Christi mystico.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *de corpore Christi mystico* (concerning the mystical body of Christ).

la: Nam, ut Avicenna, Metaph. tr. 6. c. 3, ait, causa dignior est causato. — Paulo superius pro *honoris excellentia* edd. *honoris reverentia et excellentia.*

en: For, as Avicenna, *Metaphysics* tr. 6, c. 3, says, the cause is more worthy than the thing caused. — A little above, for *honoris excellentia* the editions [read] *honoris reverentia et excellentia* (the reverence and excellence of honor).

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. Bk. IV of the Sentences, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cod. K *decet exhiberi.*

en: Codex K [reads] *decet exhiberi* (it is fitting to show).

la: Cfr. supra q. 2. ad 4. et q. 3. — Paulo superius pro *quasi honor... et ne* non pauci codd. perperam *et quasi honor... ne.*

en: Cf. above, q. 2, to 4, and q. 3. — A little above, for *quasi honor... et ne* not a few codices wrongly [read] *et quasi honor... ne.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec quaestio per se est ita manifesta, ut non egeat disputatione, nisi ut solvantur quaedam difficultates ex s. Scriptura depromptae. Attamen utilis est ad confundendam impudentiam eorum qui manifesto mendacio Ecclesiae crimen imponunt, quasi Sanctos honorando idololatriam committat. — De hac quaestione unanimiter agunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. 3. a. 1. §2. (quoad Angelos) et a. 2. §1. 4. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 5. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 5.

**II.** Sequens (6.) quaestio solvit casum ad moralem disciplinam spectantem, qui non est pure fictus. Saepius enim, et etiam in ipsis Sanctorum vitis, narrantur falsae apparitiones sub figura Christi crucifixi. Communiter hic casus distinguitur ab altero, quando populus, errore facti deceptus, adorat hostiam non consecratam; tunc enim ad eum excusandum sufficit conditio *habitualiter* apposita; in primo autem casu antiqui Scholastici cum S. Thoma et Bonav. requirunt, quod ipsa *actualiter* fiat. — De hac re agunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. I. §3. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. II. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 6. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. 6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question is in itself so manifest that it does not need disputation, except that certain difficulties drawn from sacred Scripture may be resolved. Nevertheless it is useful for confounding the impudence of those who by a manifest lie lay a charge against the Church, as though it commits idolatry by honoring the Saints. — On this question all agree: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 30, m. 3, a. 1, §2 (as to the Angels) and a. 2, §1, 4. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 5. — Bl. Albert, here a. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2, quaestiuncula 5. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 5.

**II.** The following (6th) question resolves a case pertaining to moral discipline, which is not purely fictitious. For often, and even in the very lives of the Saints, false apparitions under the figure of Christ crucified are recounted. Commonly this case is distinguished from another, [namely] when the people, deceived by an error of fact, adore an unconsecrated host; for then a condition *habitually* added suffices to excuse them; but in the first case the old Scholastics, with St. Thomas and Bonaventure, require that it be done *actually*. — On this matter there treat: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. I, §3. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. II. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 6. — Giles of Rome, loc. cit. a. 6.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.209–211 (PDF 231–233; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 14898–15033. Running heads: p.209 recto `DIST. IX. ART. I. QUAEST. V.`; p.210 verso `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.211 recto `DIST. IX. ART. I. QUAEST. VI.` (the recto head names the next quaestio, which opens at the foot of p.211). The OCR is moderately garbled in the Respondeo/Solutio and footer band (cascade-shattered + two-column bleed); per the VOL II OVERRIDE the PDF column bands are authoritative there.

**Page-split map (body markers per-page restart; renumbered continuously `[^1]`–`[^20]`, no per-page suffix since the chunk is one continuous sequence):**
- p.209 (PDF 231): q5 opens at the foot of the **left column**, below q4's standalone SCHOLION (which occupies the top of p.209-L and belongs to q4, not q5). Quaestio header + title + opener + *Fundamenta* args 1–6 (markers ¹ Abraham / ² Apocalypse / ³ *quod* variant / ⁴ Psalm / ⁵ *latria* / ⁶ head of Church / ⁷ Damascene) + *Sed contra* [marginal *Fundamenta*] args 1–3 (⁸ *Deo debitus* / ⁹ *societatem* / ¹⁰ subject to servitude). Footer notes 1–10 → `[^1]`–`[^10]`.
- p.210 (PDF 232): *Sed contra* arg.4 (¹ reverence) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + *Solutio oppositorum* Ad 1 (²=`[^12]` *duliae*) / Ad 2 (³=`[^13]` *eum*; Gregory ⁴=`[^14]`) / Ad 3 (⁵=`[^15]` temple) / Ad 4 (⁶=`[^16]` mystical body; ⁷=`[^17]` *causa signi*; ⁸=`[^18]` species) / Ad 5 (⁹=`[^19]` *decet exhiberi*) / Ad 6 open. Footer notes 1–9 → `[^11]`–`[^19]`.
- p.211 (PDF 233): Ad 6 tail (continuous across the page break from p.210-R: *…sicut in imagine | sculpta*) ending *…aspiciendo tantum ad formam humanam¹* → `[^20]`; then the standalone q5 SCHOLION §I–§II. QUAESTIO VI opens at the foot of p.211. Only footer note 1 on p.211 belongs to q5; notes 2+ belong to q6.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. q5 carries its OWN standalone two-part SCHOLION on p.211: §I (the question is self-evident, useful against the calumny of "idolatry" toward the Saints; commentator list Alex.Hal./S.Thom./B.Albert/Petr.a Tar./Aegid.R.) and §II (the forward note that the *following* — 6th — question resolves a moral-discipline case of false apparitions under the figure of the crucified Christ, distinguished from the unconsecrated-host case by the *habitualiter* vs *actualiter* intention; commentator list). §II explicitly forward-covers q6.

**Footer hand-off.**
- RECEIVED: **none.** The prior chunk's (`d9-a1-q4`) hand-off framed p.209 footer notes "6–10" as q5's first footers; on eyes-on this was a slight mis-statement. q4's footers were fully on pp.207–208, and q4's SCHOLION (top of p.209-L) carries no footers. The entire p.209 footer band (notes **1–10**) keys q5's own body markers ¹–¹⁰ (Abraham¹ … servitude¹⁰). q5 therefore opens a FRESH p.209 footer sequence at note 1 and consumes all ten — no notes were inherited from q4.
- FORWARDED to `d9-a1-q6`: **none.** q5's footers are fully exhausted at p.211 note 1 (the *formam humanam¹* note on Ad 6). The p.211 footer band notes 2+ (Justinian *Instit. iuris civ.*; the *Decretal. Gregor.* IX on the bad priest; etc.) key QUAESTIO VI's own arguments and open q6's fresh footer sequence. q6 opens at the foot of p.211 (`QUAESTIO VI. Utrum cultus latriae possit exhiberi adversario Christi absque peccato`; *Sexto et ultimo quaeritur…*, raw 15034).

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the 450 dpi PDF column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 6

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 211 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum cultus latriae possit exhiberi adversario Christi absque peccato.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae possit exhiberi Christi adversario absque peccato. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. (*Ad oppositum.*) Esto quod angelus satanae transfiguraret se in Angelum lucis, ut dicitur secundae ad Corinthios undecimo[^1]; quantumcumque quis adhibeat diligentiam, potest videri, quod sit Christus; sed ignorantia facti, adhibita diligentia, excusat: ergo videtur, quod talis excusetur a peccato, si eum adoret.

2. Item, qui emit cuprum, intendens emere aurum, non damnificatur: ergo qui adorat angelum tenebrarum, credens adorare Christum, non incurrit peccatum; maior propositio manifestatur secundum regulam iuris civilis[^2].

3. Item, mulier, quae consentit in Petrum, putans consentire in Paulum, habetur pro non consentiente — error enim personae impedit matrimonium, secundum quod iura dicunt, et in quarto libro[^3] habetur — ergo pari ratione, qui adorat luciferum, putans Christum adorasse, habetur quasi non adorasset.

4. Item, opus sequitur intentionem et credulitatem[^4]: ergo si aliquis credens, luciferum esse Christum, adorat luciferum, cum intentio eius ad Christum feratur: si adorando Christum meretur, nullum videtur ei esse peccatum.

**Sed contra:** (*Fundamenta.*) 1. Idololatra, cum adorat idolum, credit, idolum esse Deum; et tamen ex hoc non dicitur Deum adorare, sed magis idolum, unde committit idololatriae peccatum: ergo pari ratione, cum quis adorat luciferum, credens, illum esse Christum, propter credulitatem non evadit scelus idololatriae.

2. Item, diabolus ideo transfigurat se in Angelum lucis[^5], ut adoretur ab homine; sed hoc non faceret, nisi videret, hominem in illa adoratione peccare: ergo non videtur, quod sit possibile, absque peccato cultum latriae offerri diabolo.

3. Item, latria est de his quae sunt necessaria ad salutem; sed error vel ignorantia in his quae sunt necessaria ad salutem, non excusant a toto[^6]: ergo videtur, quod ille qui adorat diabolum cultu latriae, non excusetur a peccato.

4. Item, in quadam Decretali[^7] dicitur, quod plus peccat malus sacerdos, qui non conficit et si-

<!-- page 212 -->

mulat, se conficere, quam ille qui conficit, pro eo quod facit populum idololatrare: ergo ille qui adorat hostiam non consecratam, est idololatra nec excusatur propter ignorantiam: ergo pari ratione nec ille excusatur, qui adorat luciferum, credens esse Christum.

(*Quaestio incidens.*) Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quomodo illud ultimum habeat veritatem, quod sacerdos possit facere populum idololatrare. Tunc enim esset in potestate sacerdotis facere populum peccare, vellet nollet; quod absurdum est dicere.

> ### Conclusio.
> Qui simpliciter adorat Christi adversarium non excusatur a peccato propter ignorantiam, nec sufficit conditio habitualiter tantum apposita, quae tamen sufficit respectu adorationis in Sacramento altaris.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod honor latriae (*Latria exhibetur dupliciter.*) potest exhiberi adversario Christi dupliciter: aut simpliciter, aut sub conditione. Si simpliciter, dico, (*Conclusio 1.*) quod non potest esse sine peccato; offertur enim cultus latriae alteri[^8] quam Deo; et ideo est ibi peccatum idololatriae. Nec excusatur ratione ignorantiae. (*Triplex adiutorium.*) Habet enim triplex adiutorium, per quod potest errorem devitare. Primum est remedium praemonitionis sacrae Scripturae[^9], quae multoties dicit, quod multi in nomine Christi venturi sunt mendaciter. Secundum est remedium orationis internae, qua ad Deum debet homo recurrere, ut cor eius illuminet. Tertium est suspensio credulitatis suae. Non enim debet homo omni spiritui credere, sed probare, si ex Deo sunt[^10]. Qui enim cito credit in talibus, levis est corde, et fortassis etiam inflatus corde, dum ad tales visiones et revelationes idoneum se esse aestimat. — (*Corollarium.*) Unde tales apparitiones potius sunt formidandae quam desiderandae. Narratur[^11] enim de quodam sancto Patre, quod cum ei diabolus in specie Christi appareret, ille clausis oculis dixit, se in hac vita Christum nolle videre; ac diabolus, eius humilitate confusus, statim evanuit. Econtra de pluribus narratur, qui se ad visiones idoneos reputaverunt et desideraverunt, qui in multas insanias et errores praecipitati sunt.

Et ideo, si simpliciter adorat quis Christi adversarium, non excusatur a peccato, etiamsi credat, ipsum esse Christum. Si autem adoret sub conditione, (*Conditio apponitur dupliciter.*) hoc potest esse dupliciter: aut quia est illa conditio habitualiter, aut actualiter considerata sive apposita. (*Conclusio 2.*) Si actualiter; sic non adorat ipsum luciferum, sed magis Christum, quia non stat adoratio, nisi stante conditione; et ad eum refertur adoratio, ad quem refertur adorationis implicatio. (*Conclusio 3.*) Si autem illa conditio sit sub consideratione[^12] habituali, hoc modo non sufficit ad vitandum peccatum idololatriae respectu huius apparitionis sive transfigurationis, sufficit tamen respectu Sacramenti altaris. Nam talis transfiguratio est insolita, et ideo non debet ad eam praecipitanter sequi adoratio, sed cum maturitate et praevia oratione. — (*Conclusio 4.*) Sed consecratio hostiae est consueta, ideo sufficit, quod adorans in habitu hanc habeat conditionem, videlicet si consecratio debito modo facta est; unde pauci vel nulli fideles in hac adoratione peccant. Omnes enim accedunt cum conditione ista. — (*Ad quaestionem incidentem.*) Quod autem obiicitur, quod sacerdos facit eos idololatrare, hoc intelligitur, quantum in se est, quia per ipsum non remanet[^13]; scienter enim exhibet adorandum quod scit adorandum non esse. — Patet igitur, quod cultus latriae non potest exhiberi Christi adversario absque peccato idololatriae. Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**
(*Solutio oppositorum.*) *Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod ignorantia facti excusat, adhibita diligentia; dicendum, quod cum lucifer adoratur, nunquam debita diligentia adhibetur. Nam, sicut dictum est, triplex remedium potest contra hoc inveniri.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod emens cuprum, intendens emere aurum, non damnificatur; dicendum, quod intentio emendi aurum aut potest (*Notanda distinctio.*) esse solum in mente, aut in sermone. Si solum in mente, ut nulla praecedat mentio in sermone, non habet ius repetendi. Si autem in sermone fiat mentio de auro, fit circumventio ab alio; et quia contractus quantum ad verba et intentionem versatur circa aliam materiam, ideo non damnificatur, secundum iura. Ex hoc autem non sequitur, quod peccatum idololatriae non perpetretur adorando diabolum simpliciter, sed quod non perpetretur cum conditionis adiectione tacita, vel expressa.

*Ad 3.* Ad sequens, quod obiicitur de matrimonii consensu in errore personae, potest responderi similiter. — (*Aliter.*) Potest etiam dici, quod non est simile, quia sic non potest evitari error ille, sicut iste; habet enim homo ad vitandum hunc errorem adiutorium iuxta se.

<!-- page 213 -->

*Ad 4.* (*Notandum.*) Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod opus sequitur credulitatem et intentionem; dicendum, quod illud verum est in his quae non sunt mala secundum se; in aliis autem, sicut ostensum est in secundo libro[^14], non habet veritatem. Praeterea, ipsa credulitas, qua credit, hunc esse Christum, temeraria est, et ideo ad opus temerarium deducit, ut hunc quem videat, adoret. Quia enim in credulitate et in intentione non solum cadit Christus, sed etiam hic quem videt; ideo honoris exhibitio aliquo modo determinatur ad hunc. Ideo nec recta fuit intentio vel credulitas, nec recta est adoratio[^15].

---

english:
### Question VI. *Whether the worship of latria may be offered to Christ's adversary without sin.*

Sixth and last it is asked, whether the worship of latria may be offered to Christ's adversary without sin. And that it can, seems [to be the case].

1. (*To the contrary.*) Suppose that an angel of Satan should transfigure himself into an angel of light, as is said in the second [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter eleven[^1]; however much diligence one applies, it can [still] appear that it is Christ; but ignorance of fact, when diligence has been applied, excuses: therefore it seems that such a person would be excused from sin, if he should adore him.

2. Likewise, he who buys copper, intending to buy gold, is not harmed: therefore he who adores an angel of darkness, believing that he adores Christ, does not incur sin; the major proposition is made clear according to the rule of civil law[^2].

3. Likewise, a woman who consents to Peter, thinking she consents to Paul, is held as not consenting — for error of person impedes matrimony, according to what the laws say, and is treated of in the fourth book[^3] — therefore by parity of reasoning, he who adores Lucifer, thinking he has adored Christ, is held as if he had not adored.

4. Likewise, the work follows the intention and the belief[^4]: therefore if someone, believing Lucifer to be Christ, adores Lucifer, since his intention is borne toward Christ: if by adoring Christ he merits, no sin seems to be his.

**On the contrary:** (*The foundations.*) 1. An idolater, when he adores an idol, believes the idol to be God; and yet from this he is not said to adore God, but rather the idol, whence he commits the sin of idolatry: therefore by parity of reasoning, when someone adores Lucifer, believing him to be Christ, on account of [his] belief he does not escape the crime of idolatry.

2. Likewise, the devil transfigures himself into an angel of light[^5] for this reason, that he may be adored by man; but he would not do this, unless he saw that man sins in that adoration: therefore it does not seem that it is possible for the worship of latria to be offered to the devil without sin.

3. Likewise, latria is among those things that are necessary for salvation; but error or ignorance in those things that are necessary for salvation does not excuse from the whole[^6]: therefore it seems that he who adores the devil with the worship of latria is not excused from sin.

4. Likewise, in a certain Decretal[^7] it is said that a bad priest who does not consecrate and pretends to consecrate sins more

<!-- page 212 -->

than he who [really] consecrates, for the reason that he makes the people commit idolatry: therefore he who adores an unconsecrated host is an idolater and is not excused on account of ignorance: therefore by parity of reasoning neither is he excused who adores Lucifer, believing [him] to be Christ.

(*An incidental question.*) Alongside this it is asked how that last [point] holds true, that a priest can make the people commit idolatry. For then it would be in the priest's power to make the people sin, whether he will or no; which it is absurd to say.

> ### Conclusion.
> He who simply adores Christ's adversary is not excused from sin on account of ignorance, nor does a condition merely habitually attached suffice — which nevertheless suffices with respect to adoration in the Sacrament of the altar.

**I respond:** It must be said that the honor of latria (*Latria is offered in two ways.*) can be offered to Christ's adversary in two ways: either simply, or under a condition. If simply, I say (*Conclusion 1.*) that it cannot be without sin; for the worship of latria is then offered to another[^8] than God; and therefore there is the sin of idolatry there. Nor is one excused by reason of ignorance. (*A threefold aid.*) For he has a threefold aid by which he can avoid the error. The first is the remedy of the forewarning of sacred Scripture[^9], which says many times that many will come falsely in the name of Christ. The second is the remedy of inward prayer, by which a man ought to have recourse to God, that He may illumine his heart. The third is the suspension of his own belief. For a man ought not to believe every spirit, but to test whether they are of God[^10]. For he who is quick to believe in such matters is light of heart, and perhaps even puffed up in heart, when he judges himself fit for such visions and revelations. — (*A corollary.*) Hence such apparitions are rather to be feared than to be desired. For it is related[^11] of a certain holy Father that, when the devil appeared to him in the appearance of Christ, he, with eyes closed, said that he did not wish to see Christ in this life; and the devil, confounded by his humility, immediately vanished. On the contrary, it is related of many who reckoned and desired themselves fit for visions, who were cast headlong into many follies and errors.

And therefore, if someone simply adores Christ's adversary, he is not excused from sin, even if he believes him to be Christ. But if he should adore under a condition, (*The condition is attached in two ways.*) this can be in two ways: either because that condition is considered or attached habitually, or actually. (*Conclusion 2.*) If actually; then he does not adore Lucifer himself, but rather Christ, because the adoration does not stand except while the condition stands; and the adoration is referred to him to whom the implication of the adoration is referred. (*Conclusion 3.*) But if that condition be under a habitual consideration[^12], in this way it does not suffice to avoid the sin of idolatry with respect to this apparition or transfiguration, yet it does suffice with respect to the Sacrament of the altar. For such a transfiguration is unwonted, and therefore adoration ought not to follow it precipitately, but with maturity and prior prayer. — (*Conclusion 4.*) But the consecration of the host is customary, therefore it suffices that the one adoring should have this condition habitually, namely that the consecration has been done in the due manner; whence few or no faithful sin in this adoration. For all approach with this condition. — (*To the incidental question.*) But as to what is objected, that the priest makes them commit idolatry, this is understood as far as in him lies, because through him it does not fail to occur[^13]; for knowingly he sets forth as to be adored what he knows is not to be adored. — It is clear, therefore, that the worship of latria cannot be offered to Christ's adversary without the sin of idolatry. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**
(*Solution of the contrary arguments.*) *To 1.* To that which is objected, that ignorance of fact excuses when diligence has been applied; it must be said that when Lucifer is adored, due diligence is never applied. For, as has been said, a threefold remedy can be found against this.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that one buying copper, intending to buy gold, is not harmed; it must be said that the intention of buying gold can (*A distinction to be noted.*) be either only in the mind, or in speech. If only in the mind, so that no mention precedes in speech, he has no right to reclaim. But if in speech mention is made of gold, a circumvention is made by the other party; and because the contract, as to the words and the intention, turns upon another matter, therefore he is not harmed, according to the laws. From this, however, it does not follow that the sin of idolatry is not perpetrated by adoring the devil simply, but [only] that it is not perpetrated with the addition of a condition, tacit or expressed.

*To 3.* To the next, which is objected concerning the matrimonial consent in error of person, it can be answered similarly. — (*Otherwise.*) It can also be said that it is not similar, because in this way that error cannot be avoided, as this one can; for a man has an aid at hand for avoiding this error.

<!-- page 213 -->

*To 4.* (*To be noted.*) To that which is objected, that the work follows the belief and the intention; it must be said that this is true in those things that are not evil in themselves; but in others, as was shown in the second book[^14], it does not hold true. Moreover, the belief itself, by which he believes this one to be Christ, is rash, and therefore leads to a rash work, namely that he should adore this one whom he sees. For since in the belief and in the intention not only Christ falls [under it], but also this one whom he sees; therefore the showing of honor is in some way determined to this one. Therefore neither was the intention or belief right, nor is the adoration right[^15].

---

la: Vers. 14. De ignorantia facti cfr. II. Sent. d. 22. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro *quantumcumque* edd. *quantamcumque.*

en: Verse 14. On ignorance of fact cf. II Sent., d. 22, a. 2, q. 3. — For *quantumcumque* ["however much"] the editions read *quantamcumque.*

la: Vide Iustinian., III. Instit. iuris civil. c. 23. seq. et IV. Cod. iuris civil. tit. 38, ubi iurisconsulti, agentes de emptione, tres ponunt conditiones ad emptionem requisitas, scilicet quod adsit res, pretium et consensus; et inferunt, quod error in substantiali rei qualitate, v. gr. si venditor de cupro et emptor de auro se agere putet, emptionem vitiet et nullam reddat. Generalis de hac re regula: « Error in materia in contractibus bonae fidei [ad quos pertinet emptio] vitiat contractum », occurrit in L. Si sterilis, § quamvis, ff. de actio. empt. nec non in L. Cum ab eo, § B. ff. de cont. empt. et in L. Si id quod aurum, ff. de verbo oblig. — Pro *secundum regulam* cod. W *per regulam.*

en: See Justinian, *Institutes of Civil Law* III, c. 23 ff., and *Codex of Civil Law* IV, title 38, where the jurists, treating of buying, set down three conditions required for a purchase, namely that there be a thing, a price, and consent; and they infer that an error in the substantial quality of the thing — e.g. if the seller thinks he is dealing in copper and the buyer in gold — vitiates the purchase and renders it null. The general rule on this matter, "An error in the matter, in contracts of good faith [to which buying belongs], vitiates the contract," occurs in *L. Si sterilis*, § *quamvis*, ff. *de actionibus empti*, and also in *L. Cum ab eo*, § B, ff. *de contrahenda emptione*, and in *L. Si id quod aurum*, ff. *de verborum obligationibus.* — For *secundum regulam* ["according to the rule"] cod. W *per regulam.*

la: Dist. 30. q. I. — Mox post *putans* cod. U inserit *se*. In fine arg. pro *adorasset* plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *adorasse.*

en: Dist. 30, q. 1. — Just after *putans* cod. U inserts *se*. At the end of the argument, for *adorasset* most codices and editions 1, 2 read *adorasse.*

la: Sive, ut Ambros., I. de Officiis, c. 30. n. 147. dicit: *Affectus tuus operi tuo nomen imponit.*

en: Or, as Ambrose says, *On the Duties* I, c. 30, n. 147: "Your disposition imposes the name upon your work."

la: Epist. II. Cor. 11, 14. — In edd. hoc argum. terminatur sic: *absque peccato idololatriae diabolum adorare.*

en: Epistle, II Cor. 11:14. — In the editions this argument ends thus: "to adore the devil without the sin of idolatry."

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — De *maiori* cfr. infra a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 22, a. 2, q. 2 ff. — On the major [premise] cf. below, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Libr. III. Decret. Gregor. IX. tit. 41. de celebrat. Missarum, c. 7: *Gravius tamen videtur offendere qui sic fraudulenter illud praesumserit simulare; cum ille in solius misericordis Dei manum incidat. Ille vero non solum Deo, cui non veretur illudere, sed populo, quem decipit, se astringat.*

en: Book III of the *Decretals* of Gregory IX, title 41, *On the Celebration of Masses*, c. 7: "Yet he seems to offend more gravely who has thus fraudulently presumed to feign it; since the former falls into the hand of God who alone is merciful, whereas the latter binds himself fast not only against God, whom he does not fear to mock, but also against the people, whom he deceives."

la: Cod. F *nulli alteri.*

en: Cod. F *nulli alteri* ["to no other"].

la: Matth. 24, 5; Marc. 13, 6; Luc. 21, 8. — Paulo inferius pro *illuminet* edd. *illuminetur.*

en: Matt. 24:5; Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8. — A little below, for *illuminet* ["that He may illumine"] the editions read *illuminetur* ["that it may be illumined"].

la: Cfr. I. Ioan. 4, 1. — Testimonium, quod sequitur, habetur Eccli. 19, 4. — Post *probare* cod. U cum Vulgata supplet *spiritus*. Paulo inferius voci *apparitiones* edd. praemittunt *visiones vel*; cod. A pro *apparitiones* substituit *visiones.*

en: Cf. 1 John 4:1. — The testimony that follows is found in Sirach 19:4. — After *probare* ["to test"] cod. U, with the Vulgate, supplies *spiritus* ["the spirits"]. A little below, before the word *apparitiones* ["apparitions"] the editions place *visiones vel* ["visions or"]; cod. A substitutes *visiones* for *apparitiones.*

la: Libr. V. de Vitis Patrum, libell. 15. n. 70. (ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. tom. 73.). — Aliquanto inferius pro *reputaverunt* codd. G H I L N T V X aa *reputaverant*, et subinde pro *qui in multas* codd. I bb *quod in multas*, cod. H *qui etiam in multas*, edd. *quod ad multas.*

en: Book V of the *Lives of the Fathers*, little-book 15, n. 70 (Migne ed., *Patrologia Latina* vol. 73). — Somewhat below, for *reputaverunt* codd. G H I L N T V X aa read *reputaverant*, and thereupon for *qui in multas* codd. I bb *quod in multas*, cod. H *qui etiam in multas*, the editions *quod ad multas.*

la: Codd. A G H I L U V X aa erronee *conditione*. Paulo inferius pro *debet ad eam* non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 vitiose *debet ad eum.*

en: Codd. A G H I L U V X aa erroneously read *conditione*. A little below, for *debet ad eam* not a few codices and editions 1, 2 corruptly read *debet ad eum.*

la: Sive non impeditur (scil. idololatria): cfr. Du Cange, Glossar. etc., sub verbo *remanere*. — Cod. A omittit *quia per.*

en: Or it is not prevented (namely, the idolatry): cf. Du Cange, *Glossary* etc., under the word *remanere*. — Cod. A omits *quia per.*

la: Dist. 40. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox post *credit* edd. supplent *homo*. Pro *Praeterea, ipsa credulitas, qua* cod. A *Ipsa prima credulitas, quae*. Deinde pro *quem videat* Vat. *quem videt.*

en: Dist. 40, a. 1, q. 1. — Just after *credit* the editions supply *homo*. For *Praeterea, ipsa credulitas, qua* cod. A reads *Ipsa prima credulitas, quae*. Then for *quem videat* the Vatican [edition] reads *quem videt.*

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.211–213 (PDF 233–235; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 15034–15156. Running heads: p.211 recto `DIST. IX. ART. I. QUAEST. VI.`; p.212 verso `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.213 recto `DIST. IX. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` (the p.213 recto head names the *next* article's first quaestio, which opens at the foot of p.213-L after q6's reply 4 ends on p.213-R). The OCR is moderately garbled in the Respondeo/Solutio and footer bands (cascade-shattered + two-column bleed); per the VOL II OVERRIDE the PDF column bands are authoritative there.

**Alignment.** VERIFIED against raw: the opener (raw 15034) reads *Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae possit exhiberi Christi adversario absque peccato. Et quod sic, videtur* — the false-apparition case (*habitualiter* vs *actualiter* intention). This is QUAESTIO VI, the last of ARTICULUS I. After q6's reply 4 (ending *…nec recta est adoratio*) comes ARTICULUS II (raw ~15157).

**Page-split map.**
- p.211 (PDF 233): QUAESTIO VI header + 1-line title + opener + affirmative args 1–4 (*Ad oppositum* margin) + *Sed contra* args 1–4 (*Fundamenta* margin), arg.4 breaking mid-sentence at *…qui non conficit et si-|mulat* at the foot of p.211-R. Footer notes 2–8 (note 1 is q5's) → `[^1]`–`[^7]`.
- p.212 (PDF 234): *Sed contra* arg.4 tail + the incidental question (*Quaest. incidens* margin) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (margins *Latria exhibetur dupliciter*, *Conclusio 1*, *Triplex adiutorium*, *Corollarium*, *Conditio apponitur dupliciter*, *Conclusio 2*, *Conclusio 3*, *Conclusio 4*, *Ad quaestionem incidentem*) + Solutio oppositorum *Ad 1* / *Ad 2* (*Notanda distinctio*) / *Ad 3* (*Aliter*), ending *…adiutorium iuxta se* at the foot of p.212-R. Footer notes 1–6 → `[^8]`–`[^13]`.
- p.213 (PDF 235): reply *Ad 4* (*Notandum* margin), ending *…nec recta est adoratio²* on p.213-R, immediately before `ARTICULUS II.` Footer notes 1–2 → `[^14]`–`[^15]`.

**Apparatus count.** 15 continuous entries (`[^1]`–`[^15]`); 15 Latin body markers, 15 English body markers, 15 defs. Per-page footer split: p.211 nn.2–8 → 1–7; p.212 nn.1–6 → 8–13; p.213 nn.1–2 → 14–15.

**Marginal labels** are rendered inline in parentheses, not as anchors: *Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Latria exhibetur dupliciter*, *Conclusio 1–4*, *Triplex adiutorium*, *Corollarium*, *Conditio apponitur dupliciter*, *Ad quaestionem incidentem*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notanda distinctio*, *Aliter*, *Notandum*.

**Footer hand-off.**
- RECEIVED from `d9-a1-q5`: **none.** q5's footers were fully exhausted at p.211 note 1 (the *formam humanam¹* note on q5's Ad 6 tail). q6 opens its own p.211 footer sequence at note 2.
- FORWARDED to `d9-a2-q1`: **none.** q6's footers are fully exhausted at p.213 note 2 (`[^15]`, the *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* note on reply 4). The p.213 footer band notes 3+ (*Scil. iustitiae…* on q1's *est, et hoc est ipsius latriae*; *Ut insinuat Aristot. II. Ethic.…*; etc.) key ARTICULUS II QUAESTIO I's own arguments and open that question's fresh footer sequence.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. q6 carries no scholion of its own: reply 4 ends *…nec recta est adoratio²*, and the very next text on p.213-L is `ARTICULUS II.` with no intervening SCHOLION block. The forecast held — q5's standalone SCHOLION §II explicitly forward-covered this 6th question (the false-apparition moral case, *habitualiter*/*actualiter*), and q6's own p.213 footer note 2 (`[^15]`) reads *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion to the preceding question").

**[?] flags.** None.

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. 9, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 213 -->

### Articulus II. *De ipsa latria secundum illud quod est.*

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali, videlicet de ipsa latria secundum illud quod est. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum latria sit in genere virtutis.

Secundo, utrum sit virtus generalis, vel specialis.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum latria sit virtus cardinalis, vel theologica.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum sit virtus diversa a dulia.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum latria sit in genere virtutis.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum latria sit in genere virtutis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Reddere homini quod suum est, est actus virtutis (*Fundamenta*)[^1]: ergo si maioris vel aequalis dignitatis est Deo reddere quod suum est, erit igitur actus virtutis. Sed per latriam reddimus Deo quod suum est, scilicet reverentiam et honorem: ergo latria virtus est.

2. Item, circa opera laudabilia et difficilia maxime consistit virtus[^2]: sed colere Deum est actus huiusmodi, et hoc est ipsius latriae: ergo latria est virtus.

3. Item, virtus maxime necessaria est circa opera meritoria vitae aeternae[^3]; sed Deum colere et adorare est meritorium vitae aeternae, et hoc est ipsius latriae: ergo etc.

4. Item, circa opera praecepti maxime habet esse virtus; sed Deum colere et adorare est in praecepto[^4]: ergo circa hoc maxime habet esse virtus; et hoc est ipsius latriae: ergo etc.

**Sed contra** (*Ad oppositum*): 1. Augustinus, decimo de Civitate Dei[^5]: « Latria semper, aut frequenter dicitur servitus, quae pertinet ad colendum Deum »; sed omnis virtus, ut virtus est, consistit in libera voluntate: ergo nulla virtus est servitus. Sed latria est servitus: ergo latria non est virtus.

2. Item, latria communiter definitur: « Latria est cultus soli Deo debitus et exhibitus », et accipitur ex verbis Augustini, ibidem[^6]; sed cultus non est habitus, sed usus: si ergo latria est cultus, non est virtus sive habitus, sed motus.

3. Item, latria est idem quod pietas, ut dicit Augustinus in decimo de Civitate Dei[^7]: « Pietas proprie cultus Dei dici solet, quam Graeci *theosebiam* vocant »; sed pietas continetur inter habitus donorum: ergo videtur, quod latria potius sit donum quam virtutis habitus.

4. Item, latriae est Deum revereri; sed donum timoris facit nos revereri Deum — est enim timor reverentiae[^8] — ergo videtur, quod aut latria superfluit, aut est idem quod timor: ergo latria non est virtus.

<!-- page 214 -->

> ### Conclusio.
> Latria, intellecta pro habitu, est habitus virtutis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod latria, ut vult Augustinus[^9], nominat illud quo colitur Deus; quo autem colitur Deus, hoc potest intelligi dupliciter (*Cultus Dei intelligitur dupliciter*): aut sicut actu, aut sicut habitu. Ideo nomen latriae aequivoce dicitur et aliquando stat pro habitu, aliquando pro actu. Secundum autem quod stat pro habitu ipsius animae, habilitante ipsam ad cultum Dei, sic est habitus virtutis, in quantum est circa bonum et difficile et meritorium et ad salutem necessarium; et circa huiusmodi opera praecipue consistit virtutis habitus (*Conclusio*). — Et ideo sunt concedendae rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Ad obiecta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod latria est servitus; dicendum, quod est servitus, qua servitur homini, et est servitus, qua servitur Deo (*Solutio oppositorum. Quadruplex servitus*); et iterum, est servitus necessitatis, et est servitus, quae est ex mera voluntate. Dicendum ergo, quod servitus illa, quae fit homini ex necessitate (*Notandum*), aliquo modo derogat hominis libertati; et ideo non habet in se excellentiam virtutis. Servitus, quae ex mera voluntate fit Deo, ponit hominem in statu altiori, et tanto magis facit hominem liberum, quanto magis elongat hominem a peccato[^10]. Et talis est servitus latriae. Et ideo nihil impedit talis servitus, latriam habere rationem virtutis completae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod latria est cultus soli Deo debitus (*Notandum*); dicendum, quod habitus saepe definiuntur per actus et notificantur[^11]; sed hoc non est praedicatione essentiali, sed causali; et ideo non sequitur, quod latria, si sit cultus, quod non sit habitus. — Posset tamen dici, ut prius, quod latria aliquando accipitur pro actu, aliquando pro habitu (*Alia solutio*), sicut hoc frequenter reperitur in habitibus et actibus animae, quae habent unum nomen commune. Unde Philosophus[^12] aliquando accipit nomen intellectus pro habitu, aliquando pro potentia; similiter Anselmus, voluntatem; eodem modo Augustinus et alii doctores utuntur nomine latriae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod latria idem est quod pietas; dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus decimo de Civitate Dei[^13], pietas dicitur tripliciter (*Pietas dicitur tripliciter*). Uno modo pietas idem est quod *theosebia*, et sic idem est quod cultus Dei; alio modo dicitur pietas officium parentibus exhibitum; tertio modo dicitur pietas misericordia, quae proximis in operibus exhibetur. De his autem dicitur secundum prius et posterius et secundum quandam rationem analogiae, secundum quod dicitur ibidem, quia in omnibus est cultus Dei; principaliter tamen dicitur de cultu divino, id est de illa virtute, qua colitur Deus. Et sic patet, quod pietas secundum diversas acceptiones potest esse idem quod latria et differre a latria. — Cum autem dicitur, quod pietas est donum, aequivocatur pietatis nomen. Ibi enim non accipitur pietas pro virtute illa, qua colitur Deus[^14].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod revereri Deum est ipsius timoris; dicendum, quod reverentia reperitur tam in honore quam in timore, quia in timore est resilitio in propriam parvitatem; in honore vero est testificatio vel exhibitio alicuius testificantis et profitentis ipsam maiestatem. Reverentia autem, quae est latriae, potius est honoris quam timoris. — Et sic patet, quomodo differt a timore, et quare etiam latria non est donum, sicut timor (*Notandum*). Magis enim habet rationem virtutis, cum latria consistat in exhibitione, timor in resilitione; et sic latria plus consistit in actione, timor in passione. Et haec est una differentia donorum ad virtutes, ut inferius[^15] patefiet.

english:
### Article II. *On latria itself according to what it is.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the second principal point, namely, concerning latria itself according to what it is. And concerning this, four things are asked.

First it is asked, whether latria is in the genus of virtue.

Second, whether it is a general virtue, or a special one.

Third it is asked, whether latria is a cardinal virtue, or a theological one.

Fourth it is asked, whether it is a virtue distinct from dulia.

### Question I. *Whether latria is in the genus of virtue.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether latria is in the genus of virtue. And that it is, seems [to be the case]:

1. To render to a man what is his own is an act of virtue (*Fundamenta*)[^1]: therefore, if it is of greater or equal dignity to render to God what is His own, then it will be an act of virtue. But through latria we render to God what is His own, namely reverence and honor: therefore latria is a virtue.

2. Likewise, virtue consists especially about works praiseworthy and difficult[^2]: but to worship God is an act of this kind, and this belongs to latria itself: therefore latria is a virtue.

3. Likewise, virtue is most necessary about works meritorious of eternal life[^3]; but to worship and adore God is meritorious of eternal life, and this belongs to latria itself: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, virtue has its being especially about works of precept; but to worship and adore God is under a precept[^4]: therefore about this virtue most of all has its being; and this belongs to latria itself: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary** (*Ad oppositum*): 1. Augustine, in the tenth book of the City of God[^5]: « Latria, always, or frequently, is called the service which pertains to the worship of God »; but every virtue, insofar as it is a virtue, consists in free will: therefore no virtue is a service. But latria is a service: therefore latria is not a virtue.

2. Likewise, latria is commonly defined: « Latria is the worship owed and rendered to God alone », and it is taken from the words of Augustine, in the same place[^6]; but worship is not a habit, but a use: if therefore latria is worship, it is not a virtue or a habit, but a motion.

3. Likewise, latria is the same as piety, as Augustine says in the tenth book of the City of God[^7]: « Piety is properly wont to be called the worship of God, which the Greeks call *theosebia* »; but piety is contained among the habits of the gifts: therefore it seems that latria is rather a gift than a habit of virtue.

4. Likewise, it belongs to latria to revere God; but the gift of fear makes us revere God — for fear is [the fear] of reverence[^8] — therefore it seems that either latria is superfluous, or it is the same as fear: therefore latria is not a virtue.

> ### Conclusion.
> Latria, understood as a habit, is a habit of virtue.

**I respond:** It must be said that latria, as Augustine holds[^9], names that by which God is worshipped; and that by which God is worshipped can be understood in two ways (*Worship of God is understood in two ways*): either as in act, or as in habit. Therefore the name *latria* is said equivocally and sometimes stands for the habit, sometimes for the act. But according as it stands for the habit of the soul itself, disposing it to the worship of God, it is thus a habit of virtue, inasmuch as it is concerned with the good and the difficult and the meritorious and the necessary for salvation; and it is about works of this kind that the habit of virtue especially consists (*Conclusion*). — And therefore the reasons which show this are to be conceded.

**To the objections:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that latria is a service; it must be said that there is a service by which one serves a man, and there is a service by which one serves God (*Solution of the opposing arguments. Fourfold service*); and again, there is a service of necessity, and there is a service which is from mere will. It must be said, therefore, that that service which is rendered to a man out of necessity (*Note*) in some way derogates from man's liberty; and therefore it does not have in itself the excellence of virtue. The service which is rendered to God out of mere will places man in a higher state, and makes man so much the more free as it removes man further from sin[^10]. And such is the service of latria. And therefore such a service in no way prevents latria from having the character of a complete virtue.

2. To that which is objected, that latria is the worship owed to God alone (*Note*); it must be said that habits are often defined and made known through acts[^11]; but this is not by essential predication, but by causal; and therefore it does not follow that latria, if it be worship, is not a habit. — Yet it could be said, as before, that latria is taken sometimes for the act, sometimes for the habit (*Another solution*), as this is frequently found in the habits and acts of the soul, which have one common name. Hence the Philosopher[^12] sometimes takes the name *intellect* for the habit, sometimes for the potency; similarly Anselm [takes] the *will*; in the same way Augustine and other doctors use the name *latria*.

3. To that which is objected, that latria is the same as piety; it must be said that, as Augustine says in the tenth book of the City of God[^13], piety is said in three ways (*Piety is said in three ways*). In one way piety is the same as *theosebia*, and thus it is the same as the worship of God; in another way piety is called the office shown to parents; in a third way piety is called the mercy which is shown to one's neighbors in works. And of these it is said according to prior and posterior and according to a certain account of analogy, according as it is said in the same place, because in all of them there is the worship of God; yet it is said principally of the divine worship, that is, of that virtue by which God is worshipped. And thus it is plain that piety, according to its diverse acceptations, can be the same as latria and can differ from latria. — But when it is said that piety is a gift, the name of piety is used equivocally. For there piety is not taken for that virtue by which God is worshipped[^14].

4. To that which is objected, that to revere God belongs to fear; it must be said that reverence is found both in honor and in fear, because in fear there is a recoiling into one's own smallness; but in honor there is a testifying or exhibiting on the part of one who testifies to and professes that majesty. But the reverence which belongs to latria is rather of honor than of fear. — And thus it is plain how it differs from fear, and why also latria is not a gift, as fear is (*Note*). For it has rather the character of a virtue, since latria consists in exhibition, fear in recoiling; and thus latria consists more in action, fear in passion. And this is one difference of the gifts from the virtues, as will be made plain below[^15].

la: Scil. iustitiae. Cfr. infra q. 3. et d. 33. q. 4.

en: Namely, of justice. Cf. below, q. 3, and d. 33, q. 4.

la: Ut insinuat Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 572, nota 2.

en: As Aristotle suggests, *Ethics* II, c. 3. Cf. vol. II, p. 572, note 2.

la: Nam, ut in Augusl., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 21. n. 3. habetur, virtutes sunt artes bene vivendi et ad immortalem felicitatem perveniendi. Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 12 seq.

en: For, as is held in Augustine, *City of God* XXII, c. 21, n. 3, the virtues are arts of living well and of attaining to immortal happiness. Cf. Aristotle, *Ethics* I, c. 12 ff.

la: Exod. 31, 14; Deuter. 5, 9. — Maior, in qua pro *habet esse* cod. bb substituit *se habet*, convenit cum illo Aristot., II. Ethic. c. I: *Legum latores enim cives assuefaciendo bonos reddunt; haecque est uniuscuiusque legum latoris voluntas.* — Pro *adorare* cod. K *honorare.*

en: Exod. 31:14; Deut. 5:9. — The major, in which codex bb substitutes *se habet* for *habet esse*, agrees with that [saying] of Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 1: *For lawgivers make the citizens good by habituating them; and this is the will of every lawgiver.* — For *adorare* codex K reads *honorare.*

la: Cap. 1. n. 2: Λατρεία vero... aut semper, aut tam frequenter, ut pene semper, ea dicitur servitus etc. — De minori cfr. infra d. 23. a. I. q. 2. in corp.

en: Chapter 1, n. 2: « *Latreia*, indeed... either always, or so frequently as to be almost always, is called that service, etc. » — On the minor, cf. below, d. 23, a. I, q. 2, in the body.

la: Libr. X. de Civ. Dei, c. I. n. 2. seq.; cfr. V. c. 15; VI. c. I; VII. c. 32; XIX. c. 17. — Quod virtus sit habitus, docet Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 5. — De conclusione cfr. Avicenna, Metaph. tr. 10. c. 3, ubi agitur de cultu Dei et ubi inter alia haec proferuntur: *Hae autem actiones sunt quasi divina obsequia, quae iniunguntur hominibus; omnino enim oportet hic esse aliqua, quibus excitentur homines; excitantia autem sunt vel motus vel privationes motuum ducentes ad motus. Motus vero sunt ut orationes, privationes vero motuum sunt ut ieiunium etc.*

en: Book X of the *City of God*, c. 1, n. 2 ff.; cf. V, c. 15; VI, c. 1; VII, c. 32; XIX, c. 17. — That virtue is a habit, Aristotle teaches, *Ethics* II, c. 5. — On the conclusion, cf. Avicenna, *Metaphysics* tr. 10, c. 3, where he treats of the worship of God and where among other things these things are set forth: *But these actions are, as it were, divine services, which are enjoined upon men; for there must by all means be here certain things by which men are roused; and the things that rouse are either motions or privations of motions leading to motions. Motions are, as it were, prayers; privations of motions are, as it were, fasting, etc.*

la: Cap. I. n. 3. In testimonio allato textus origin. pro *theosebiam* exhibet εὐσέβειαν. Advertit tamen August. ibid., quod ad significandum cultum Dei etiam Graeci, « ut distinctio certior appareret, non εὐσέβειαν, quod ex bono cultu, sed θεοσέβειαν, quod ex Dei cultu compositum resonat, dicere maluerunt ». — Quoad minorem vide Isai. II, 2, ubi dona Spiritus sancti recensentur.

en: Chapter 1, n. 3. In the testimony cited, the original text gives *eusebeian* for *theosebiam*. Augustine notes, however, in the same place, that to signify the worship of God the Greeks also, « that the distinction might appear more certain, preferred to say, not *eusebeian*, which sounds as composed from 'good worship', but *theosebeian*, which sounds as composed from 'worship of God' ». — As to the minor, see Isaiah 11:2, where the gifts of the Holy Spirit are enumerated.

la: Cfr. infra d. 31. p. II. per totam.

en: Cf. below, d. 31, p. II, throughout.

la: Vide hic argg. — De distinctione habitus et actus vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 2. 8. et 24. (c. I. seq.). — Mox pro *potest intelligi* cod. N *potest esse.*

en: See the arguments here. — On the distinction of habit and act, see Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, texts 2, 8, and 24 (c. 1 ff.). — Shortly after, for *potest intelligi* codex N reads *potest esse.*

la: Cfr. Ioan. 8, 32. seqq.; Rom. 6, 18. seqq. — Paulo superius post *Servitus* codd. U bb subiiciunt *autem*, pro quo in codd. I N aa a secunda manu substitutum est *vero.*

en: Cf. John 8:32 ff.; Rom. 6:18 ff. — A little above, after *Servitus*, codices U bb add *autem*, for which in codices I N aa, by a second hand, *vero* has been substituted.

la: Aristot., IV. Ethic. c. 2: *Habitus operationibus definitur et iis quorum habitus est.* — De praedicatione essentiali et causali vide supra d. 7. a. I. q. I.

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* IV, c. 2: *A habit is defined by its operations and by the things of which it is a habit.* — On essential and causal predication, see above, d. 7, a. I, q. I.

la: Libr. II. de Anima, text. 21. (c. 2.) et III. text. 2. seqq., text. 18. seqq. text. 39. nec non text. 46. seqq. (c. 4. seq., c. 8. seqq.). — De Anselmo, qui mox memoratur, vide tom. II. pag. 601, nota 6.

en: *On the Soul*, Book II, text 21 (c. 2) and Book III, texts 2 ff., texts 18 ff., text 39, and also texts 46 ff. (c. 4 f., c. 8 ff.). — On Anselm, who is mentioned shortly after, see vol. II, p. 601, note 6.

la: Cap. 1. n. 3: « Pietas quoque proprie Dei cultus intelligi solet... Haec tamen et erga parentes officiose haberi dicitur. More autem vulgi hoc nomen etiam in operibus misericordiae frequentatur; quod ideo arbitror evenisse, quia haec fieri praecipua Deus mandat eaque sibi vel pro sacrificiis vel prae sacrificiis placere testatur ».

en: Chapter 1, n. 3: « Piety also is properly wont to be understood as the worship of God... Yet this is also said to be observed dutifully toward parents. But in the usage of the common people this name is frequently applied even to works of mercy; which I judge to have come about because God commands these especially to be done, and testifies that they please Him either in place of sacrifices or in preference to sacrifices ».

la: Cfr. infra d. 33. q. 6. — Paulo superius post *aequivocatur* cod. bb subdit *ibi*, quam lectionem non pauci alii codd. perperam commutarunt in *aequivocatur impietatis*; superius etiam pro *id est*, quod multi codd. omittunt, cod. K *scilicet*, codd. A U e.l.

en: Cf. below, d. 33, q. 6. — A little above, after *aequivocatur*, codex bb adds *ibi*, which reading not a few other codices wrongly changed into *aequivocatur impietatis*; above, too, for *id est*, which many codices omit, codex K reads *scilicet*, [as do] codices A U *et alibi*.

la: Dist. 34. p. I. a. I. q. I. — Pro *patefiet* codd. K bb *patebit.* Aliquanto superius pro *parvitatem* Vat. *vilitatem.*

en: D. 34, p. I, a. I, q. I. — For *patefiet* codices K bb read *patebit.* Somewhat above, for *parvitatem* the Vatican edition reads *vilitatem.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Nomen *latria* tripliciter intelligitur: primo pro cultu Deo praestito per exteriorem actum sive servitutem (ita in I. arg. ad oppos.), et tunc non est virtus, sed materia virtutis; secundo pro actu interiore, tertio pro habitu, ut exponitur cum sententia communi in corp.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. I. a. I. § 3. — Scot. tangit plura de hac et seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. I; S. II. II. q. 81. a. 2. 3, q. 84. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. I. — Aegid. R., hic q. I. a. I. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth. et Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The name *latria* is understood in three ways: first for the worship rendered to God through an exterior act or service (so in the first argument to the contrary), and then it is not a virtue, but the matter of virtue; second for the interior act; third for the habit, as is expounded with the common opinion in the body [of the response].

**II.** Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 30, m. I, a. I, § 3. — Scotus treats many things concerning this and the following questions in both Writings, here in a single question. — St. Thomas, here q. I, a. I, quaestiuncula I; S. II–II, q. 81, a. 2, 3, q. 84, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. I, quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. I. — Giles of Rome, here q. I, a. I. — Durandus, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian and Biel, concerning this and the following questions, here in a single question.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.213–214 (PDF 235–236; `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{213,214}-{L,R}-*.png`), read Left column top→bottom then Right, per the VOL II/III OCR-priority inversion. The IA djvu OCR (raw lines 15157–15284) served as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing only; the two-column cascade interleave was reflowed column-by-column. Offset pdf = printed + 22. Running heads: p.213 recto `DIST. IX. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`; p.214 verso `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; next page p.215 recto `DIST. IX. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`. The short ARTICULUS II opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali… Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor*) + the four-question list is folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention (no standalone d9-a2-divisio chunk).

**Page-split map.**
- p.213 (foot): tail of q6's *Ad 4* reply (held in q6, not here) → ARTICULUS II header + rubric + four-question list → QUAESTIO I header + title + opener + arguments 1–4 + *Sed contra* 1–4 (the *Ad oppositum* / *Fundamenta* marginal labels sit here). Body arg.4 *…ergo latria non est virtus* closes the page. Footers: q1 markers `[^1]`–`[^8]` = p.213 footer notes **3–10** (notes 3,4,5 Left; 6,7 Left; 8,9,10 Right).
- p.214: CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + replies *Ad 1–4* + SCHOLION (I–II). Marginal labels *Cultus Dei intelligitur dupliciter*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Quadruplex servitus*, *Notandum* (×3 across the page), *Alia solutio*, *Pietas dicitur tripliciter* — all rendered inline in parens, not as anchors. Footers: q1 markers `[^9]`–`[^15]` = p.214 footer notes **1–7** (1–4 Left; 5–7 Right). The SCHOLION carries no footnote markers (it is reference matter).

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED (from d9-a1-q6, commit b14236c).** p.213 footer notes 1 (*Dist. 40. a. I. q. I.*) and 2 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) belong to q6 (its `[^14]`/`[^15]`); confirmed eyes-on. q1 begins the p.213 sequence at note 3 (*Scil. iustitiae*). Verified against q6's apparatus.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED (to d9-a2-q2).** None — both p.213 and p.214 footer sequences are fully consumed by q1. The next chunk (q2) opens cleanly on a fresh printed page: p.215 (running head `DIST. IX. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`, raw 15285), with its own per-page footer restart. No shared-page footer carries forward.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. SCHOLION present after q1's replies, two paragraphs (I: the threefold sense of *latria* — exterior act/matter-of-virtue, interior act, habit; II: the parallel-author register: Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Aquinas, Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Giles of Rome, Durandus, Dionysius the Carthusian, Biel). Note II remarks that several authors treat this and the following questions (q2/q3/q4) together "in a single question" — so q2–q4 are expected to be shorter and may individually lack a free-standing scholion; do not treat a missing scholion in q2–q4 as an error.

**Alignment.** VERIFIED: opener *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum latria sit in genere virtutis* — concerns whether latria is in the **genus of virtue**, the correct q1 (not q2 *generalis/specialis*, q3 *cardinalis/theologica*, or q4 *diversa a dulia*). **Conclusion AFFIRMATIVE:** *Latria, intellecta pro habitu, est habitus virtutis.*

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the column bands; Greek terms (Λατρεία, εὐσέβειαν, θεοσέβειαν) read clean at 450 dpi.


title: Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 215 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum latria sit virtus generalis, vel specialis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum latria sit virtus generalis, vel specialis. Et quod sit *specialis*, videtur.

1. Virtus, quae habet obiectum speciale, est virtus specialis[^1] (*Fundamenta*); sed latria est huiusmodi: ergo est virtus specialis.

2. Item, circa actum specialem consistit virtus specialis; sed adoratio est actus specialis: ergo circa ipsum consistit virtus specialis; haec autem est latria: ergo etc.

3. Item, sicut difficile est credere in summam veritatem, sic et honorare summam maiestatem: si ergo habemus virtutem specialem, qua credimus in primam veritatem, scilicet fidem[^2], sic et, qua honoramus summam maiestatem; haec autem non est nisi latria: ergo latria est virtus specialis.

4. Item, latria et idololatria sunt opposita; sed idololatria est vitium speciale: ergo *ab oppositis* latria est virtus specialis[^3].

**Sed contra:** (*Ad oppositum*) 1. Augustinus in Enchiridio[^4]: «Si quaeritur: quo modo colitur Deus? respondeo: fide et spe et caritate»; sed virtus, qua colitur Deus, est ipsa latria: ergo latria comprehendit in se fidem et spem et caritatem: ergo latria non est virtus specialis, sed *generalis*.

2. Item, Augustinus, decimi de Civitate Dei sexto capitulo[^5]: «Verum sacrificium est omne opus, quod geritur, ut sancta societate iungamur Deo»; sed sacrificium est cultus soli Deo debitus, sicut ibidem dicit Augustinus; hoc autem est ipsius latriae offerre: ergo videtur, quod omne opus bonum sit latriae: ergo latria est virtus *generalis*.

3. Item, quicumque obedit Deo, servit Deo[^6]; sed servitus soli Deo debita est latria: ergo omnis actus, quo Deo obedimus, est actus latriae: igitur latria se extendit ad actum omnis virtutis et praecepti: igitur non est virtus specialis, sed *generalis*.

4. Item, quaecumque facit quis ad gloriam Dei, facit ad cultum Dei; sed omnia quaecumque bene facimus, facimus ad gloriam Dei, ut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios decimo[^7]: *Omnia in gloriam Dei facite*: ergo omne opus laudabile est opus latriae: igitur latria videtur esse *generalis* habitus ad omnes virtutes.

> ### Conclusio.
> Latria, quatenus respicit Deum non solum sub ratione finis et obiecti, sed etiam sub ratione honorabilis, est virtus specialis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod latria nominat habitum, nominat etiam cultum Dei, ad quem ille habitus ordinatur[^8]. Cultus autem Dei potest accipi tripliciter: generaliter et proprie et magis proprie (*Cultus Dei dicitur tripliciter*). Uno modo dicitur cultus actus directus in Deum sub ratione finis; sic est omnis virtutis. Alio modo dicitur cultus Dei actus in Deum directus non solum ratione finis, sed etiam obiecti; sic est virtutum theologicarum. Tertio modo cultus Dei dicitur magis proprie actus directus in Deum non solum sub ratione finis et obiecti, sed etiam sub ratione honorabilis; et talis actus est actus adorationis; et sic est virtutis specialis, et hoc modo est ipsius latriae (*Conclusio*). — Sicut enim idololatria non dicitur quodcumque peccatum, sed illud quo creatura adoratur; sic latria non dicitur quicumque habitus, sed ille, secundum quem cultus adorationis[^9] exhibetur. — Et ideo concedendum est, quod latria est specialis virtus, propter hoc quod ad ipsam spectat cultus Dei, secundum quod dicitur magis proprie, videlicet pro ipsa adoratione. Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:**

*Ad 2.* Ad[^10] illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod sacrificium offertur Deo in quolibet bono opere (*Solutio oppositorum*); dicendum, quod sicut cultus Dei multipliciter dicitur, sic et sacrificium. Est enim sacrificium bonae operationis, et sacrificium devotae orationis, et sacrificium immolationis (*Triplex sacrificium*). Primum est virtutum omnium; secundum virtutum theologicarum; tertium spectat ad ipsam latriam. Ipsius enim latriae est sacrificium offerre Deo;

<!-- page 216 -->

et hoc sacrificium soli Deo debetur, sicut dicit Augustinus, et latria dicit cultum soli Deo debitum.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus colitur fide, spe et caritate; dicendum, quod cultus Dei non accipitur[^11] ita stricte, sicut in definitione latriae, ut praetactum est; et ideo non sequitur, quod latria sit generalis virtus ad tres virtutes theologicas.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis qui obedit Deo, servit Deo; dicendum, quod verum est; ex hoc tamen non sequitur, quod omnis obedientia sit latria, quia obedientia non solum dicit servitutem debitam ipsi Deo, sed etiam servitutem his qui sunt loco Dei, ut praelatis. Latria autem dicit servitutem soli Deo debitam; et ideo ratio illa non valet, sed peccat secundum consequens[^12].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia quaecumque fiunt ad gloriam Dei, fiunt ad cultum Dei; patet responsio per iam dicta, quoniam cultus accipitur ibi generaliter pro actu ordinato in Deum tanquam in finem, in definitione autem latriae accipitur magis proprie, secundum quod dictum est.

english:
### Question II. *Whether latria is a general virtue or a special one.*

Secondly it is asked whether latria is a general virtue or a special one. And that it is *special* seems to be the case.

1. A virtue which has a special object is a special virtue[^1] (*Foundations*); but latria is of this kind: therefore it is a special virtue.

2. Likewise, a special virtue consists about a special act; but adoration is a special act: therefore a special virtue consists about it; but this is latria: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, just as it is difficult to believe in the highest truth, so also to honor the highest majesty: if therefore we have a special virtue by which we believe in the first truth, namely faith[^2], so also one by which we honor the highest majesty; but this is none other than latria: therefore latria is a special virtue.

4. Likewise, latria and idolatry are opposites; but idolatry is a special vice: therefore *from opposites* latria is a special virtue[^3].

**On the contrary:** (*To the opposite*) 1. Augustine in the Enchiridion[^4]: «If it is asked, in what manner is God worshipped? I answer: by faith and hope and charity»; but the virtue by which God is worshipped is latria itself: therefore latria comprehends within itself faith and hope and charity: therefore latria is not a special virtue, but a *general* one.

2. Likewise, Augustine, in the sixth chapter of the tenth book of the City of God[^5]: «A true sacrifice is every work which is done in order that we may be joined to God in a holy society»; but a sacrifice is the worship owed to God alone, as Augustine says in the same place; but to offer this belongs to latria itself: therefore it seems that every good work belongs to latria: therefore latria is a *general* virtue.

3. Likewise, whoever obeys God, serves God[^6]; but the servitude owed to God alone is latria: therefore every act by which we obey God is an act of latria: therefore latria extends itself to the act of every virtue and precept: therefore it is not a special virtue, but a *general* one.

4. Likewise, whatever anyone does for the glory of God, he does for the worship of God; but whatever we do well, we do for the glory of God, as the Apostle says in the tenth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians[^7]: *Do all things for the glory of God*: therefore every praiseworthy work is a work of latria: therefore latria seems to be a *general* habit toward all the virtues.

> ### Conclusion.
> Latria, inasmuch as it regards God not only under the aspect of end and object, but also under the aspect of the honorable, is a special virtue.

**I respond:** It must be said that latria names a habit, and also names the worship of God, to which that habit is ordered[^8]. Now the worship of God can be taken in three ways: generally, and properly, and more properly (*The worship of God is said in three ways*). In one way worship is called an act directed toward God under the aspect of end; thus it belongs to every virtue. In another way the worship of God is called an act directed toward God not only by reason of the end, but also of the object; thus it belongs to the theological virtues. In a third way the worship of God is called, more properly, an act directed toward God not only under the aspect of end and object, but also under the aspect of the honorable; and such an act is the act of adoration; and thus it belongs to a special virtue, and in this way it belongs to latria itself (*Conclusion*). — For just as idolatry is not said of any sin whatever, but of that by which a creature is adored; so latria is not said of any habit whatever, but of that according to which the worship of adoration[^9] is rendered. — And therefore it must be granted that latria is a special virtue, on account of the fact that the worship of God belongs to it, according as it is said more properly, namely for adoration itself. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

**Replies to the arguments for the negative part:**

*To 2.* To[^10] that which is objected to the contrary, that a sacrifice is offered to God in every good work (*Solution of the opposing arguments*); it must be said that just as the worship of God is said in many ways, so also is sacrifice. For there is a sacrifice of good action, and a sacrifice of devout prayer, and a sacrifice of immolation (*Threefold sacrifice*). The first belongs to all the virtues; the second to the theological virtues; the third pertains to latria itself. For it belongs to latria to offer sacrifice to God;

and this sacrifice is owed to God alone, as Augustine says, and latria signifies the worship owed to God alone.

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that God is worshipped by faith, hope, and charity; it must be said that the worship of God is not taken[^11] so strictly as in the definition of latria, as has been touched upon; and therefore it does not follow that latria is a virtue general to the three theological virtues.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that everyone who obeys God serves God; it must be said that this is true; yet from this it does not follow that all obedience is latria, because obedience signifies not only the servitude owed to God himself, but also the servitude owed to those who are in the place of God, such as prelates. But latria signifies the servitude owed to God alone; and therefore that argument does not hold, but errs by way of the consequent[^12].

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that whatever things are done for the glory of God are done for the worship of God; the response is clear from what has already been said, since worship is there taken generally for an act ordered toward God as toward an end, but in the definition of latria it is taken more properly, according as has been said.

la: De principiis, secundum quae virtutum differentia attenditur, ut sunt obiectum, actus etc. cfr. infra d. 33. q. 2. — Post *obiectum speciale* cod. O addit *scilicet Deum, quia ei soli debetur*.

en: On the principles according to which the difference of the virtues is determined, such as object, act, etc., cf. below, d. 33, q. 2. — After *a special object* codex O adds *namely God, because it is owed to him alone*.

la: De qua vide infra d. 23. a. I. q. I. — Paulo ante pro *si ergo* cod. bb *sicut ergo*.

en: On which see below, d. 23, a. I, q. I. — A little before, for *if therefore* codex bb has *just as therefore*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., V. Ethic. c. I. seq., ubi simile arg. de iustitia instituitur et etiam docetur, quod «saepe quidem contrarius habitus ex contrario... agnoscitur».

en: Cf. Aristotle, Ethics V, c. 1 f., where a similar argument is set up concerning justice, and it is also taught that «often indeed a contrary habit is recognized from its contrary».

la: Cap. 2. seq. n. I.

en: Chapter 2 f., n. 1.

la: In originali legitur sic: «Verum... quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo». Pro *sancta societate* edd. 1, 2 cum bene multis codd. *facta societate*. — Altera quae memoratur Augustini sententia habetur loc. cit. c. 5, et sic sonat: *Sacrificium certe nullus hominum est, qui audeat dicere deberi nisi Deo. Multa denique de cultu divino usurpata sunt, quae honoribus deferrentur humanis... quis vero sacrificandum censuit, nisi ei quem Deum aut scivit aut putavit aut finxit?*

en: In the original it reads thus: «A true [sacrifice]... which is done, that we may cleave to God in a holy society». For *holy society* editions 1, 2 with a good many codices read *a society made*. — The other saying of Augustine that is mentioned is found in the cited place, c. 5, and runs thus: *Certainly there is no one among men who would dare to say that sacrifice is owed except to God. Finally, many things drawn from divine worship have been usurped to be given as human honors... but who judged that one ought to sacrifice, except to him whom he either knew or supposed or feigned to be God?*

la: Rom. 6, 16: *Nescitis, quoniam cui exhibetis vos servos ad obediendum, servi estis eius cui obeditis* etc.? — Quantum ad secundam conclusionem respiciantur illa verba Luc. 17, 10: *Sic et vos, cum feceritis quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite: Servi inutiles sumus* etc.

en: Rom. 6:16: *Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey*, etc.? — As regards the second conclusion, let those words of Luke 17:10 be considered: *So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants*, etc.

la: Vers. 31.

en: Verse 31.

la: Cfr. q. praeced. in corp. — Mox pro *potest accipi* cod. f. habet *accipitur*, et dein post *dicitur cultus* codd. A S U subiiciunt *Dei*. Paulo inferius post *sed etiam obiecti* cod. O addit *immediate*.

en: Cf. the preceding question, in the body. — Shortly after, for *can be taken* codex f has *is taken*, and then after *the worship is called* codices A S U add *of God*. A little below, after *but also of the object* codex O adds *immediately*.

la: Vat. hic inserit *Deo*.

en: The Vatican edition here inserts *to God*.

la: Nota, quod secundum codd. ordo solutionum 1. et 2. mutatur.

en: Note that, according to the codices, the order of solutions 1 and 2 is changed.

la: Vat. addit *ibi ab Augustino*.

en: The Vatican edition adds *there, by Augustine*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 99, nota 7.

en: Cf. above, p. 99, note 7. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** In conclusione omnes consentiunt; sed in ea probanda a diversis diversae distinctiones adhibentur. Ita S. Thomas (hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 2; cfr. S. II. II. q. 81. a. I.) quatuor modos distinguit, quibus intelligi possit virtus generalis, scilicet primo, quatenus est quoad suam essentiam quasi universalis; secundo, quatenus ab ea dependent aliae virtutes, quibus est quasi causa; tertio, quatenus operatur circa actus omnium virtutum movendo per imperium; quarto, quatenus ad eam concurrunt aliae virtutes, ut ipsa sit quasi totum integrale, comprehendens multa. Idem resolvit, quod secundum duos priores modos latria sit virtus specialis; secundum duos alios modos autem possit dici generalis. — Praeter S. Thomam cfr. B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2.

**II.** In conclusionibus sequentis (3.) quaestionis antiqui magistri consentiunt. De ea tractant: S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. 4; cfr. S. II. II. q. 81. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. 5. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3. 4. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. I.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In the conclusion all agree; but in proving it different distinctions are employed by different authors. Thus St. Thomas (here q. I, a. I, subquestion 2; cf. Summa II-II, q. 81, a. I) distinguishes four ways in which a general virtue can be understood, namely: first, inasmuch as it is, with respect to its essence, as it were universal; second, inasmuch as other virtues depend upon it, to which it is as it were a cause; third, inasmuch as it operates about the acts of all the virtues by moving them through command; fourth, inasmuch as other virtues concur toward it, so that it is as it were an integral whole, comprehending many things. He likewise resolves that according to the two former ways latria is a special virtue; but according to the two other ways it can be called general. — Besides St. Thomas, cf. Blessed Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, subquestion 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 2.

**II.** In the conclusions of the following (3rd) question the ancient masters agree. On it treat: St. Thomas, in the cited place, subquestions 3 and 4; cf. Summa II-II, q. 81, a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the cited place, subquestions 4 and 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, in the cited place, q. 3 and 4. — Giles of Rome, in the cited place, a. I.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.215–216 (PDF 237–238) per the Vol II/III OCR-priority inversion, cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 15288–15381. The raw OCR was relatively clean for this quaestio (single-column-style flow read accurately), so the PDF chiefly confirmed the Respondeo, the per-page footer notes, and the scholion. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Running heads.** p.215 recto `DIST. IX. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`; p.216 verso `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`. (p.216 recto, off this chunk, reads `DIST. IX. ART. II. QUAEST. III.`)

**Page-split map.**
- p.215: QUAESTIO II header + title + opener + arguments 1–4 (*Fundamenta* margin) + *Sed contra* 1–4 (*Ad oppositum* margin) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (margins *Cultus Dei dicitur tripliciter*, *Conclusio*) + reply *Ad 2* opening (margins *Solutio oppositorum*, *Triplex sacrificium*). Footer notes 1–10 (rendered as [^1]–[^10]).
- p.216 (top): tail of reply *Ad 2* + replies *Ad 1*, *Ad 3*, *Ad 4* + SCHOLION §I–II. Footer notes belonging to q2 are p.216 notes 1 and 2 (rendered [^11]–[^12]); p.216 footer notes 3, 4, 5… belong to QUAESTIO III, which also opens lower on p.216.

**Apparatus.** 12 entries total, renumbered continuous 1–12 across the chunk (Quaracchi restarts per page: 1–10 on p.215, 1–2 on p.216). Reply order: per footer note [^10], the codices swap solutions 1 and 2; the printed text places the reply to *Sed contra* 2 first (still on p.215), then replies 1, 3, 4 on p.216 — preserved as printed and labelled with *Ad N.*

**Scholion.** Distinct, free-standing q2 SCHOLION present (§I–II), `has_scholion: true`. This is contrary to the loose forecast carried from q1's scholion §II (which noted Scotus treats q2–q4 together); here Bonaventure's q2 has its own two-paragraph scholion. §II of this scholion previews the conclusions of the *following (3rd) question*.

**Footer hand-off.**
- RECEIVED: none. q2 opens fresh at the top of p.215; q1 (commit a1965af) forwarded no footer.
- FORWARDED to d9-a2-q3: p.216 footer notes 3 (`Num. 2. (alias c. 4.)`), 4 (`Cap. I. n. I. — De altero Augusti testimonio…`), 5 (`Libr. III. Comment. in Gen. … Rabanus…`) and any subsequent p.216 notes belong to QUAESTIO III's opening arguments, which begin lower on p.216.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF column bands.