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

title_alt: Whether the Sacraments ought to have been instituted

source_text:
<!-- page 11 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.
### *De Sacramentis in generali.*

### QUAESTIO I.
### *De Sacramentorum institutione.*

Circa primum sic proceditur. Quod Sacramenta non debuerunt institui, videtur:

1. *Primo* per hoc, quod non videtur decere Deum: quoniam maius est recreare et reparare quam creare[^1]: ergo si potentiam creandi Deus sibi soli reservavit, multo fortius videtur, quod potentiam reparandi: ergo videtur, quod solus Deus sit medicus et medicina: ergo nulla alia Sacramenta.

2. Item, natura inferior facit semper per pauciora, quanto potest bono modo; et in hoc est laudabilis, «quia in paucioribus via magis»[^2]: et hoc attribuendum est summae naturae: si ergo homo sufficienter reparatur per fidem et virtutes, ergo superfluum fuit dare Sacramenta.

3. Item, quod non *expediat aegroto*, videtur: quia tanto melius est aegroto, quanto plures et latiores habet vias veniendi ad salutem, et tanto est in maiori periculo, quanto est sibi via arctior[^3]; sed, institutis Sacramentis, non est alia via veniendi nisi per Sacramenta, prius autem erat omnis via, qua se disponebat aegrotus ad gratiam: ergo arctata est via per Sacramentorum institutionem.

4. Item, quamvis mandata servare non sit grave naturae sanae, tamen est grave naturae infirmae[^4]: ergo multiplicare mandata non est nisi aggravare sarcinam: ergo si sola moralia essent in praecepto, facilius deveniretur ad salutem: ergo instituere Sacramenta ulterius non fuit nisi viam salutis aggravare et impedire.

**Contra:**

1. Aliquo plus indiget aegrotus quam sanus[^5]: ergo aliquid plus oportuit dari homini curando ad perveniendum ad salutem, quam si non cecidisset; talia autem non sunt nisi Sacramenta, quia alias etiam habuisset gratiam et virtutes et dona: ergo etc.

2. Item, quia homo erat *ignorans*, fuit opportunum et conveniens dare documenta praeceptorum sive legalia[^6]: ergo cum esset *infirmus*, pari ratione et medicamenta sacramentalia.

3. Item, humana natura lapsa erat in anima et in corpore, et ad hoc, quod perfecte relevaretur, decuit, ut eam Deus assumeret totam[^7]: ergo si medicina debet respondere effectui reparationis, decuit, ut medicina haberet aliquid corporale et spirituale; sed talia sunt Sacramenta: ergo Sacramenta debuerunt institui.

<!-- page 12 -->

4. Item, «omnis religio, ut dicit Augustinus contra Faustum[^p12-1], habuit aliqua signa exteriora, in quibus convenirent, ut Deum colerent»; et hoc patet discurrendo in singulis, etiam in idololatris: si ergo Ecclesia debet habere signa sacrae religionis sibi convenientia, et huiusmodi sunt signa rei sacrae et sacrantia, decuit Deum instituere Sacramenta.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Sacramenta institui opportunum fuit necessitate congruitatis, non inevitabilitatis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod institutio Sacramentorum Deum decuit et nobis expediens fuit.

Decuit quippe Dei misericordiam et iustitiam et sapientiam, in quibus consideratur omnis Domini via. Decuit misericordiam, quia homo male gratiam servabat propter voluntatis vertibilitatem; ideo instituit Deus Sacramenta, ad quae homo recurrens gratiam recuperaret; et ita misericordiae magnae fuit haec instituere, maxime quia non solum ad remissionem culpae faciunt, verum etiam ad remissionem poenae. — Decuit etiam iustitiam[^p12-2], quia cum sit iustus, exigebat aliquam humiliationem, per quam homo se ad gratiam disponeret et Sacramenta suscipiendo quasi ex quodam pacto gratiam inveniret. — Decebat etiam sapientiam: summae enim sapientiae est in his invenire remedium, quae fuerunt occasio lapsus, ut, sicut homo per lignum cecidit, ita per lignum remedium salutis inveniret[^p12-3]. Sic quia homo occasionem lapsus a visibilibus sumserat, decuit divinam sapientiam in eisdem remedium invenire.

Expediens fuit a parte aegroti: quia erat caecus quoad rationalem, ideo data sunt ei Sacramenta visibilia ad *eruditionem*; erat *elatus* quoad irascibilem, ideo data sunt ei Sacramenta corporalia ad sui *humiliationem*; erat *fastiditus* quoad concupiscibilem, ut non saperent ei spiritualia, ideo Sacramenta sunt ei data ad *exercitationem*, ne forte in unius solius perceptione[^p12-4] vel spiritualium tantum contemplatione sibi posset fastidium generari et taedium. — Fuit igitur necessarium instituere Sacramenta necessitate congruitatis, non inevitabilitatis; quia «Deus potentiam suam Sacramentis non alligavit», sicut dicit Magister in littera[^p12-5].

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non communicavit potentiam creationis; dicendum, quod creatio est ex non-ente; ideo non est ibi necessaria potentia ad disponendum nec potentia ad informandum, sed solum potentia ad efficiendum: ideo etc. Sed quia iustificatio est alicuius entis melioratio, potest esse informans et disponens et efficiens. Informare Deo non convenit; ideo hoc dedit creaturae, ut gratiae; disponere nostrum est cum adiutorio Dei[^p12-6], sed efficere solius Dei: nulli ergo communicat potentiam *effectivam*, sed dat *informativam* gratiae et *dispositivam* Sacramentis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nobilitatis est operari per pauciora; dicendum, quod verum est, si aeque bene per pauciora res fit; et quia nostra reparatio non fit omnino secundum *potentiam agentis*, sed secundum *congruentiam recipientis*, quia est ibi misericordia et veritas[^p12-7]; ideo non tantum debuit esse iustificatio per *informationem*, quae est per virtutes, sed et per *praeparationem*, quae est per Sacramenta. — Vel aliter, ut dicit Hugo[^p12-8]: «Virtutes sunt arma ad impugnandum, Sacramenta ad defendendum». Unde Sacramenta adiuvant gratiam, et ideo non superfluunt; quod patet, quia gratia delet culpam, sed non absolvit a poena, Sacramentum baptismi adiunctum gratiae solvit a poena.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod esset facilior via; dicendum, quod etsi plures essent, tamen nulla ita bona, nulla ita utilis, nulla ita efficax et compendiosa[^p12-9]. Praeterea, homo eam nesciebat et ad inquirendum piger erat, ideo oportuit et expedivit, ut sibi ostenderetur et ad eam per praeceptum invitaretur, maxime quando homo indiget necessario effectu Sacramenti.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de mandatis, quod[^p12-10] sunt gravia naturae infirmae; dicendum, quod est

<!-- page 13 -->

onus onerans, et est onus allevians, sicut sunt pennae in avibus et currus in equis. Primum onus verum est quod gravat; secundum vero onus, etsi sit onus de se, non tamen onerat portantem. Sic et mandatum datum, per cuius portationem reparatur lapso virtus, etsi sit pondus, tamen, quia virtutem adiuvat, alleviat. Talia sunt Sacramenta, in quibus invenitur gratia, quae fortificat et facit mandata facilia.

english:
<!-- page 11 -->

### ARTICLE UNIQUE.
### *On the Sacraments in general.*

### QUESTION I.
### *On the institution of the Sacraments.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus. That the Sacraments ought not to have been instituted seems [to be the case]:

1. *First*, by this, that it does not seem to befit God: since to make anew and to repair is greater than to create[^1]: therefore if God reserved the power of creating to himself alone, it seems much more strongly that [he reserved] the power of repairing: therefore it seems that God alone is the physician and the medicine: therefore [there are] no other Sacraments.

2. Likewise, an inferior nature always acts through fewer [means], insofar as it can in a good manner; and in this it is praiseworthy, «because in fewer [means] there is the better way»[^2]: and this is to be attributed to the supreme nature: if therefore man is sufficiently repaired through faith and the virtues, then it was superfluous to give Sacraments.

3. Likewise, it seems that [the Sacraments] *are not expedient for the sick man*: because so much the better is it for the sick man, the more numerous and broader the ways he has of coming to salvation, and so much the greater the danger he is in, the narrower the way is for him[^3]; but, the Sacraments having been instituted, there is no other way of coming [to salvation] except through the Sacraments, whereas before every way was [open], by which the sick man disposed himself for grace: therefore the way has been narrowed through the institution of the Sacraments.

4. Likewise, although to keep the commandments is not burdensome to a sound nature, yet it is burdensome to an infirm nature[^4]: therefore to multiply commandments is nothing but to make the load heavier: therefore if only the moral [precepts] were in the commandment, one would arrive at salvation more easily: therefore to institute Sacraments besides was nothing but to make the way of salvation heavier and to impede it.

**On the contrary:**

1. The sick man needs something more than the healthy[^5]: therefore something more had to be given to man to be cured, for arriving at salvation, than [had to be given him] if he had not fallen; but such things are nothing but Sacraments, since otherwise he would also have had grace and the virtues and the gifts: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, because man was *ignorant*, it was opportune and fitting to give documents of the precepts, that is, legal [precepts][^6]: therefore since he was *infirm*, by parity of reasoning [it was fitting to give him] sacramental medicines as well.

3. Likewise, human nature had fallen in soul and in body, and to the end that it be perfectly raised up again, it was fitting that God should assume it whole[^7]: therefore if the medicine ought to correspond to the effect of the reparation, it was fitting that the medicine should have something corporeal and something spiritual; but such are the Sacraments: therefore the Sacraments ought to have been instituted.

<!-- page 12 -->

4. Likewise, «every religion, as Augustine says *against Faustus*[^p12-1], has had certain exterior signs, in which [its adherents] would come together, that they might worship God»; and this is evident by going through each one [of them], even among idolaters: if therefore the Church ought to have signs of sacred religion fitting to itself, and signs of a sacred thing and sanctifying [signs] are of this kind, it was fitting for God to institute Sacraments.

### CONCLUSION.

> That the Sacraments be instituted was opportune by a necessity of fittingness, not of inevitability.

**I respond:** It must be said that the institution of the Sacraments both befitted God and was expedient for us.

It befitted indeed God's mercy and justice and wisdom, in which every way of the Lord is considered. It befitted [his] mercy, because man kept grace badly on account of the changeableness of [his] will; therefore God instituted the Sacraments, by recurring to which man might recover grace; and so it was [a work] of great mercy to institute these, especially because they avail not only for the remission of guilt, but also for the remission of punishment. — It befitted also [his] justice[^p12-2], because, since he is just, he required some humiliation, by which man might dispose himself for grace and, by receiving the Sacraments, might find grace as if by a certain pact. — It also befitted [his] wisdom: for it belongs to the highest wisdom to find a remedy in those things which were the occasion of the fall, so that, as man fell through wood, so through wood he might find the remedy of salvation[^p12-3]. Thus because man had taken the occasion of his fall from visible things, it befitted the divine wisdom to find the remedy in the same.

It was expedient on the part of the sick man: because he was blind as to the rational [faculty], therefore visible Sacraments were given him for *instruction*; he was puffed up as to the irascible [faculty], therefore corporeal Sacraments were given him for his *humiliation*; he was disgusted as to the concupiscible [faculty], so that spiritual things had no savor for him, therefore Sacraments were given him for *exercise*, lest perhaps in the perceiving of one thing only[^p12-4], or in the contemplation of spiritual things alone, disgust and weariness might be engendered in him. — It was therefore necessary to institute Sacraments by a necessity of fittingness, not of inevitability; because «God did not bind his power to the Sacraments», as the Master says in the text[^p12-5].

1. To that which is objected, that he did not communicate the power of creation; it must be said that creation is from non-being; therefore there is not required there a power for disposing nor a power for informing, but only a power for effecting: therefore etc. But because justification is the bettering of some being, it can be informing and disposing and effecting. To inform does not befit God; therefore this he gave to the creature, as to grace; to dispose is ours with the aid of God[^p12-6], but to effect is of God alone: to none therefore does he communicate the *effective* power, but he gives the *informative* [power] to grace and the *dispositive* [power] to the Sacraments.

2. To that which is objected, that it belongs to nobility to act through fewer [means]; it must be said that this is true, if the thing is done equally well through fewer; and because our reparation is not done wholly according to the *power of the agent*, but according to the *fittingness of the recipient*, since there is mercy and truth there[^p12-7]; therefore not only ought there to be justification through *information*, which is through the virtues, but also through *preparation*, which is through the Sacraments. — Or otherwise, as Hugh says[^p12-8]: «The virtues are weapons for attacking, the Sacraments for defending». Hence the Sacraments aid grace, and therefore they are not superfluous; which is evident, because grace blots out guilt, but does not absolve from punishment, [whereas] the Sacrament of baptism, joined to grace, releases from punishment.

3. To that which is objected, that there would be an easier way; it must be said that even if there were more [ways], yet none would be so good, none so useful, none so efficacious and compendious[^p12-9]. Moreover, man did not know it and was slothful in inquiring, therefore it was fitting and expedient that it be shown to him and that he be invited to it by a precept, especially when man necessarily needs the effect of the Sacrament.

4. To that which is objected concerning the commandments, that[^p12-10] they are burdensome to an infirm nature; it must be said that there is

<!-- page 13 -->

a burden that weighs down, and there is a burden that lightens, just as are feathers in birds and chariots [drawn by horses] in horses. The first burden truly is what weighs down; but the second burden, although it is a burden in itself, nevertheless does not weigh down the bearer. So too the commandment that is given, by the carrying of which virtue is restored to the fallen, although it is a weight, nevertheless, because it aids virtue, lightens [the load]. Such are the Sacraments, in which grace is found, which strengthens and makes the commandments easy.

la: Ut insinuat August., *in Ioan. Evang.* tr. 72. n. 3. Cfr. infra d. 8. a. 3 q. 1. fundam. 1. Quod autem Deus potentiam creandi sibi reservaverit, docet S. Bonav. II. Sent. d. 1. p. 1. n. 2. q. 2. — Inferius pro *potentiam reparandi* cod. 7. *potentiam recreandi.*

en: As Augustine intimates, *on the Gospel of John* tr. 72, n. 3. Cf. below d. 8, a. 3, q. 1, fundam. 1. That God reserved the power of creating to himself, St. Bonaventure teaches, II Sent., d. 1, p. 1, n. 2, q. 2. — Below, for *potentiam reparandi* (the power of repairing) codex 7 [reads] *potentiam recreandi* (the power of re-creating).

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Topic. c. 2. Cfr. III. Sent. Prolegom. pag. V col. 2. in fine. Cod. B addit *brevis*, edd. *eligibilis*, cod. K (I a secunda manu) legit *in paucioribus virtus magis apparet.* — De maiori, quae etiam est secundum Aristot. et in qua pro *semper* codd. 11 N Y aa *rem*, et pro *quanto* cod. Z *quanto plus*, vide tom. III. pag. 277, nota 1.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* II, c. 2. Cf. III Sent., Prolegomena, p. V, col. 2, at the end. Codex B adds *brevis* (the short), the editions *eligibilis* (the more eligible), codex K (and I, by a second hand) reads *in paucioribus virtus magis apparet* (in fewer [means] power appears the more). — On the major [premiss], which is also according to Aristotle, and in which for *semper* (always) codices 11, N, Y, aa [read] *rem*, and for *quanto* (the more) codex Z [reads] *quanto plus* (the more by far), see tome III, p. 277, note 1.

la: Respicitur Matth. 7, 14: *Arcta via est, quae ducit ad vitam.* — Paulo inferius voci *Sacramenta* cod. aa praemittit *ipsa*, et subinde post *erat* cod. Z addit *bona*.

en: Matthew 7:14 is regarded: *Narrow is the way which leads to life.* — A little below, codex aa prefixes *ipsa* (these very) to the word *Sacramenta*, and thereupon after *erat* codex Z adds *bona* (good).

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 891, nota 4, ubi plura de hoc ex Bernardo allata sunt.

en: Cf. tome III, p. 891, note 4, where more on this is adduced from Bernard.

la: Matth. 9, 12: *Non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus.* — De ultima propositione arg., quae asserit, etiam in statu naturae non lapsae sine Sacramentis gratiam et virtutes donandas fuisse, cfr. etiam II. Sent. d. 29. per totam. — Inferius post *alias* cod. M addit *licet non cecidisset.* Finem arg. cod. O exhibet sic: *pari ratione medicamenta essent ei danda scilicet Sacramenta.*

en: Matthew 9:12: *The healthy have no need of a physician, but those who are ill.* — On the last proposition of the argument, which asserts that even in the state of unfallen nature grace and the virtues would have been given without the Sacraments, cf. also II Sent., d. 29, throughout. — Below, after *alias* (otherwise) codex M adds *licet non cecidisset* (although he had not fallen). Codex O gives the end of the argument thus: *by parity of reasoning medicines would have to be given to him, namely the Sacraments.*

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 814, nota 3. — Post *conveniens* in edd. additur *sibi*.

en: See tome III, p. 814, note 3. — After *conveniens* (fitting) in the editions *sibi* (for him) is added.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 2. a. 2. per totum. Ipsum arg. insinuat Hugo a S. Vict., *de Sacram.* p. IX. c. 2. et 6: *Quia enim totus homo corruptus erat, totum, quod hominis foris erat, ad Sacramentum sumendum erat, ut totum in Sacramento foris sanctificetur, et in toto virtus Sacramenti intus remedium operetur.* — Inferius pro *aliquid* plures codd. *aliquod*.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 2, a. 2, throughout. The argument itself Hugh of St. Victor intimates, *on the Sacraments* p. IX, c. 2 and 6: *For since the whole man was corrupted, the whole of what was outwardly of man had to be taken up into the Sacrament, that the whole might be sanctified outwardly in the Sacrament, and in the whole the power of the Sacrament might work the remedy inwardly.* — Below, for *aliquid* (something) several codices [read] *aliquod*.

la: Libr. XIX. c. 11: *In nullum autem nomen religionis seu verum seu falsum coagulari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel Sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligentur.* — Pro *exteriora* codd. A E I K aa *extrinseca*. Circa finem arg. pro *rei sacrae* Vat. *sacra*. — Cfr. lit. Magistri hic c. 2. 4.

en: Book XIX, c. 11: *But into no name of religion, whether true or false, can men be congealed, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible little-signs or of Sacraments.* — For *exteriora* (exterior) codices A, E, I, K, aa [read] *extrinseca* (extrinsic). Near the end of the argument, for *rei sacrae* (of a sacred thing) the Vatican [edition reads] *sacra* (sacred [signs]). — Cf. the Master's text here, c. 2, 4.

la: Codd. A E y aa *qua*. Inferius pro *etiam* edd. *denique*.

en: Codices A, E, y, aa [read] *qua* (whereby). Below, for *etiam* (also) the editions [read] *denique* (finally).

la: Praefatio de Cruce ex Missal. Rom.: *Qui in ligno vincebat, in ligno quoque vinceretur.* August., *de Vera Relig.* c. 24. n. 45: *Nam in quem locum quisque ceciderit, ibi debet incumbere, ut surgat.* — Mox plurimi codd. *Sed quia* pro *Sic quia*.

en: The Preface of the Cross from the Roman Missal: *That he who was conquering by the wood might also be conquered upon the wood.* Augustine, *On True Religion* c. 24, n. 45: *For into whatever place anyone has fallen, there he must lean, that he may rise.* — Shortly afterward very many codices [read] *Sed quia* (but because) for *Sic quia* (thus because).

la: Codd. A E L M O R S U (V primitus) X *praeceptione*. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 809, nota 12.

en: Codices A, E, L, M, O, R, S, U (V originally), X [read] *praeceptione* (by the precept). Cf. tome III, p. 809, note 12.

la: Hic c. 5. — Paulo ante pro *non inevitabilitatis* cod. E *non tamen inevitabilitatis*.

en: Here, c. 5. — A little before, for *non inevitabilitatis* (not of inevitability) codex E [reads] *non tamen inevitabilitatis* (yet not of inevitability).

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 3, 9: *Dei enim sumus adiutores.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2. — Verbo *disponere* codd. K aa addunt *vero*.

en: Epistle, 1 Corinthians 3:9: *For we are God's fellow-workers.* Cf. II Sent., d. 26, q. 2. — To the word *disponere* (to dispose) codices K, aa add *vero* (indeed).

la: Psalm. 24, 10: *Universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas.* Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 2. in corp., ubi verba haec exponuntur de reparatione generis humani.

en: Psalm 24:10: *All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth.* Cf. III Sent., d. 20, q. 2, in the body, where these words are expounded of the reparation of the human race.

la: Liber. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 8, ubi ait: *Tria ergo simul sunt, fides, Sacramentum et opus. In fide Christiano fortitudo tribuitur, in Sacramentis arma, in operibus bonis tela, contra diabolum pugnaturo.* Cfr. ibid. p. X. c. 9. — De ultima solutionis propositione cfr. infra d. 4. p. 1. n. 1. q. 2. — Inferius post *non absolvit a poena* cod. K addit *principaliter*.

en: Book I, *on the Sacraments* p. IX, c. 8, where he says: *Three things therefore are together: faith, the Sacrament, and work. In faith fortitude is granted to the Christian who is to fight against the devil, in the Sacraments [his] arms, in good works [his] missiles.* Cf. ibid. p. X, c. 9. — On the last proposition of the solution, cf. below d. 4, p. 1, n. 1, q. 2. — Below, after *non absolvit a poena* (does not absolve from punishment) codex K adds *principaliter* (principally).

la: Cfr. August., *de Vera Relig.* c. 17. n. 33. seqq. — Mox pro *eam* plures codd. *eas*, codd. A W cc *ens*. Subinde post *ostenderetur* codd. II Z addunt *via*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On True Religion* c. 17, n. 33 ff. — Shortly, for *eam* (it) several codices [read] *eas* (them), codices A, W, cc *ens*. Thereupon after *ostenderetur* (might be shown) codices II, Z add *via* (the way).

la: Codd. II K L V *quae*, codd. A E I *quod* … *quae*. Inferius pro *currus in equis* Vat. *rotae in curribus et vela in navibus*; sed vide tom. III. pag. 892, nota 2, verba Bernardi. Post pauca pro *reparatur* edd. *redditur*.

en: Codices II, K, L, V [read] *quae*, codices A, E, I *quod* … *quae*. Below, for *currus in equis* (chariots in horses) the Vatican [edition reads] *rotae in curribus et vela in navibus* (wheels in chariots and sails in ships); but see tome III, p. 892, note 2, the words of Bernard. After a few [words], for *reparatur* (is restored) the editions [read] *redditur* (is rendered).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Vocabulum *sacramenti*, quod multiplicem habet sensum, hic sumitur pro *signo rei sacrae, in quantum est sanctificans* (ut ait S. Thom. S. III. q. 60. a. 2.), vel ut alii dicunt, signum rei sacrae sacrans. Hinc S. Bonav. (Breviloq. p. VI. c. 1.) dicit, quod Sacramenta sunt signa sensibilia «ex naturali similitudine repraesentantia, ex adiuncta institutione significantia, ex superaddita benedictione sanctificantia et ad gratiam praeparantia, per quam curaretur et sanaretur anima nostra»; quod propriissime convenit Sacramentis novae legis. Cum novatores saeculi XVI. totam fere ecclesiasticam de re sacramentaria doctrinam evertere tentaverint; in Concilio Tridentino antiquitus tradita doctrina novis multisque plurium sessionum decretis vindicata et illustrata est. Errores contra doctrinam catholicam de Sacramentis *in genere*, de qua re tractatur in hac I. distinctione, confixi sunt 13 canonibus sessionis VII. De Sacramentis in genere diffusissime agit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 1-6; quae hic quasi in compendium, alio tamen ordine, redacta sunt.

**II.** Quid sit Sacramentum, docetur infra q. 2, dub. 1-3, et Breviloq. loc. cit., ubi etiam ipsa I. quaestio breviter et optime solvitur, et rationes afferuntur, quare Deus Sacramenta instituerit. Quaestio autem haec intelligenda est de statu naturae lapsae; sed infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. 2. etiam de aliis statibus agitur, de quibus ceteri commentatores Lombardi hoc loco tractare solent. De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 1. m. 2. a. 2. 3. — Scot., hic q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 4-5. (de singulis statibus); S. III. q. 61. a. 1. 3. 4; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 56. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. 3. 4. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

**III.** Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem constat, quod Sacramenta sint signa, et quidem triplici modo, scilicet signa memorativa, demonstrativa, prognostica (hic ad 4; Breviloq. p. VI. c. 2; S. Thom., S. loc. cit. q. 60. a. 3.). — Disputant tamen theologi de *obiecto* significationis, si agitur de Sacramentis in genere, id est tum veteris tum novae legis. Quidam enim dicunt, quod semper significent veram sanctitatem internam, sive praesentem et a Sacramento conferendam, sive futuram et per aliud efficiendam. Hoc tenet S. Thom. (loc. cit. a. 1. 2.); unde ita sentientibus causalitas respectu significati non est de essentiali ratione Sacramenti in genere; immo ipsa possunt esse signa pura rei sacrae hominem sanctificantis. Hinc sequitur, Sacramenta tum novae tum veteris legis convenire in ratione univoca. Scot. autem (hic q. 2. n. 9. seq.) concedit quidem, ad rationem omnium Sacramentorum proprie sumtorum spectare ut significent internam sanctitatem, sed insuper requirit, ut eandem causent. Ex quo sequitur, quod secundum ipsum Sacramenta veteris legis (excepta circumcisione aliove remedio contra originale peccatum) non fuerint Sacramenta nisi improprie et secundum analogiam. — Alii autem recentiores cum Cano, Bellarmino et etiam Suarez distinguunt imperfectam sive legalem sanctitatem a perfecta et interna; et primi illi docent, quod omnia Sacramenta vel unam, vel alteram sanctitatem simul significent et conferant; Suarez vero ponit, ea significare quidem semper sanctitatem veram, simul autem requiri, quod conferant aliquam sanctitatem, saltem legalem. — S. Bonav. (hic et infra q. 5, ubi approbat sententiam Hugonis) convenit cum S. Thoma et Scoto in assignanda significatione Sacramentorum veteris legis, quae sententia etiam in Decreto ad Armenos insinuatur (cfr. scholion ad q. 3.), sed aliquam etiam causalitatem respectu sanctitatis legalis omnibus tribuit, ut patet ex praenotatis locis et hic dub. 1-3. Idem docet Alex. Hal. Vulgatum est adagium theologicum, quod Sacramenta legis veteris fecerint hominem sacrum, novae vero faciant eundem sanctum.

**IV.** De hac 2. quaestione: Alexander Hal., loc. cit. q. 1. m. 1. q. 3. m. 3. a. 2, q. 5. m. 3. a. 1. § 3. — Scot. in utroque Scripto, hic q. 2, nec non q. 3. n. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. et 6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The word *sacrament*, which has a manifold sense, is here taken for the *sign of a sacred thing, insofar as it is sanctifying* (as St. Thomas says, *Summa* III, q. 60, a. 2), or, as others say, the sign of a sacred thing that sanctifies. Hence St. Bonaventure (*Breviloquium* p. VI, c. 1) says that the Sacraments are sensible signs «representing by a natural likeness, signifying by an adjoined institution, sanctifying by a superadded blessing and preparing for grace, by which our soul might be cured and healed»; which most properly befits the Sacraments of the new law. Since the innovators of the sixteenth century attempted to overturn nearly the whole ecclesiastical doctrine on sacramental matters, in the Council of Trent the anciently handed-down doctrine was vindicated and illustrated by new and many decrees of several sessions. The errors against the Catholic doctrine on the Sacraments *in general*, of which matter there is treatment in this first distinction, were transfixed by 13 canons of Session VII. Alexander of Hales treats most extensively of the Sacraments in general, *Summa* p. IV, q. 1–6; which things are here reduced as if into a compendium, though in another order.

**II.** What a Sacrament is, is taught below in q. 2, dub. 1–3, and in the *Breviloquium* loc. cit., where also this first question is briefly and excellently resolved, and reasons are adduced why God instituted the Sacraments. But this question is to be understood of the state of fallen nature; but below in d. 2, a. 1, q. 1, 2 there is also treatment of the other states, concerning which the other commentators on Lombard are wont to treat in this place. On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 1, m. 2, a. 2, 3. — Scotus, here q. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiunc. 4–5 (on the individual states); *Summa* III, q. 61, a. 1, 3, 4; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 56. — B. Albert, here a. 1, 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2, 3, 4. — Durandus, on this and the following q., here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

**III.** As to the following (2nd) question, it is agreed that the Sacraments are signs, and indeed in a threefold mode, namely commemorative, demonstrative, prognostic signs (here ad 4; *Breviloquium* p. VI, c. 2; St. Thomas, *Summa* loc. cit. q. 60, a. 3). — Theologians dispute, however, concerning the *object* of the signification, if there is question of the Sacraments in general, that is, both of the old and of the new law. For some say that they always signify true internal holiness, whether present and to be conferred by the Sacrament, or future and to be effected through something else. This St. Thomas holds (loc. cit. a. 1, 2); whence for those who so judge, causality with respect to the thing signified is not of the essential character of a Sacrament in general; indeed they can be pure signs of the sacred thing that sanctifies man. Hence it follows that the Sacraments both of the new and of the old law agree in a univocal account. But Scotus (here q. 2, n. 9 seq.) concedes indeed that it belongs to the account of all Sacraments properly so taken that they signify internal holiness, but he further requires that they cause the same. From which it follows that according to him the Sacraments of the old law (except circumcision or another remedy against original sin) were not Sacraments save improperly and according to analogy. — But other more recent [authors], with Cano, Bellarmine and also Suarez, distinguish an imperfect or legal holiness from a perfect and internal one; and the former teach that all the Sacraments signify and confer either the one or the other holiness together; but Suarez holds that they indeed always signify true holiness, yet that it is at the same time required that they confer some holiness, at least legal. — St. Bonaventure (here and below in q. 5, where he approves the opinion of Hugh) agrees with St. Thomas and Scotus in assigning the signification of the Sacraments of the old law, which opinion is also insinuated in the *Decree for the Armenians* (cf. the scholion at q. 3), but he attributes some causality also with respect to legal holiness to all [of them], as is evident from the places noted above and here in dub. 1–3. Alexander of Hales teaches the same. There is a common theological adage, that the Sacraments of the old law made man sacred, but those of the new make the same man holy.

**IV.** On this 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 1, m. 1, q. 3, m. 3, a. 2, q. 5, m. 3, a. 1, § 3. — Scotus in both *Scripta*, here q. 2, and also q. 3, n. 8. — B. Albert, here a. 6, 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1 and 6.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.11–13 (PDF pp.31–33; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 1832–2103) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is **Distinction I, Part I, Articulus Unicus, Quaestio I** — *On the institution of the Sacraments*. Per the locked Vol II chunking convention, the short `ARTICULUS UNICUS / De Sacramentis in generali` opener that precedes `QUAESTIO I` is **folded into this q1** (no standalone article-opener chunk); the heading is included above.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L1832 `Circa primum sic proceditur. Quod Sacramenta non debuerunt institui, videtur` follows `ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I / De Sacramentorum institutione` (raw L1827–1831) and matches `title_la`. No q-swap.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.11** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. — 11"): the *videtur* args 1–4 (L-column) + the continuation of arg 4 and *Contra* args 1–3 (R-column). Footer note-series **1–7** (L-column notes 1–4: August. *in Ioan.* / Aristot. *Topic.* / Matth. 7,14 / Bernard tom. III; R-column notes 5–7: Matth. 9,12 / tom. III p.814 / Hugo *de Sacram.* p. IX).
- **p.12** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 12"): *videtur* arg 4 (omnis religio), CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (the threefold *Decuit* + threefold *Expediens*), and Ad obiecta 1–4 (the reply to obj. 4 carries over to p.13). Footer note-series **1–10** (L-column notes 1–6: August. *contra Faustum* XIX,11 / codd. *qua* / Praefatio de Cruce + August. *de Vera Relig.* 24 / codd. *praeceptione* / hic c.5 / 1 Cor. 3,9; R-column notes 7–10: Ps. 24,10 / Hugo *de Sacram.* I p. IX c.8 / August. *de Vera Relig.* 17 / codd. *quae* + Vat. variant *rotae in curribus*).
- **p.13** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. — 13"): the tail of the reply to obj. 4 (*onus onerans / allevians*) closes the body, then the **SCHOLION (I–IV)** fills both columns; **QUAESTIO II** (*De Sacramentorum significatione*) begins at the foot of the L-column → next chunk `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q2`. p.13's footer note-series belongs to q2, **not** to this chunk — so q1 has no p.13 apparatus.

**Scholion present (I–IV)**, placed LAST in each language block per the parser gotcha. The scholion is the Quaracchi editors' survey (Trent canons; the Thomas/Scotus/Suarez dispute on the object of sacramental signification; parallel-author register for both q.1 and the forthcoming q.2). It carries no keyed footnote markers (unkeyed editorial prose), so no `[^N]` anchors appear in it.

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-divisio`.** The divisio forwarded: "the ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I opener (raw L1827–L1832, printed p.11) folds into q1; q1's body and its p.11 footer notes belong to this chunk, not to the divisio." Captured: the opener heading is folded in above; p.11's full footer series (notes 1–7) is rendered here as [^1]–[^7]; p.11's *Tractatio*-keyed divisio footers stayed with the divisio chunk, as expected (different note-series — the divisio held p.10's footers; q1 holds p.11's).

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q2`:** QUAESTIO II (*De Sacramentorum significatione*) opens at the foot of printed p.13's L-column (raw L~2103 ff.); its body and **printed p.13's footer note-series** (notes keyed to the q2 *Fundamenta*: Hic c. 2 / Hugo *de Sacram.* I p. IX c. 2, etc., visible in the p.13 L-2 / R bands) belong to q2, not here. The scholion section III/IV here already anticipate q2's content (signum memorativum/demonstrativum/prognosticum; the object-of-signification dispute) but remain q1's scholion per the source layout.

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla, and scripture citations resolved cleanly against the PDF bands. (One routine ambiguity noted, not flagged: the running-head OCR renders QUAEST. II as "QUAEST. H." on p.13 — a known digit/letter mangle, resolved to "II" by context and the +20 offset.)


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

title_alt:
De Sacramentorum significatione
On the signification of the Sacraments

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 13 -->

### Quaestio II. *De Sacramentorum significatione.*

Secundo quaeritur de Sacramentis quantum ad significationem; et quod significatio sit de essentia sive integritate Sacramenti, ostenditur:

1. *Primo* per definitionem sive notificationem, quam Magister ponit in littera[^1]: «Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum».

2. Item, Hugo in libro de Sacramentis[^2]: «Sacramentum est materiale elementum ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione significans»: ergo Sacramentum *esse* suum habet ex institutione et est institutum ad significandum: ergo significare est ei essentiale.

3. Item, Sacramenta instituta sunt «ad nostram eruditionem», secundum quod Hugo[^3] dicit, et Magister tangit in littera; sed non ad eruditionem corporalium: ergo ad eruditionem spiritualium. Sed Sacramenta sunt corporalia et non ducunt in spiritualia nisi in ratione significandi, quia offerendo se sensibus aliud faciunt in cognitionem venire: ergo etc.

<!-- page 14 -->

4. Item, Sacramentum est elementum; aut ergo purum elementum corporale, aut etiam simul cum hoc dicit aliquid spirituale. Non *purum corporale*, hoc constat: ergo cum hoc dicit aliquid *spirituale*. Illud ergo spirituale aut unitur ei secundum *veritatem*, aut secundum *intentionem*; sed non secundum *veritatem* — illud constat, cum non sit capax sicut infra[^4] probabitur — ergo secundum *intentionem*. Sed uniri secundum intentionem est uniri, sicut signatum unitur signo: ergo de Sacramentorum integritate est ipsa significatio.

**Contra:**
1. Sacramenta principaliter sunt instituta ad curandum; sed ad hoc, quod aliqua medicina sit curativa, nihil facit, quod curationem significet, sed sufficit solum, quod curet: ergo Sacramentum potest esse perfecta medicina etiam sine significatione: ergo significatio non est de integritate Sacramenti.

2. Item, si Sacramentum est medicina, Sacramentum aliquo modo est causa; sed causa non est signum effectus, immo magis signatum[^5]: ergo Sacramenti potius est significari quam significare.

3. Item, si signum est de integritate Sacramenti; ergo quod non significat non est Sacramentum, et quod non significat huic, ei cui non significat, non est Sacramentum; sed Sacramentum baptismi nihil significat parvulo: ergo parvulo non est Sacramentum: ergo dum parvulus recipit baptismum, non recipit Sacramentum. Sed hoc est absurdum[^6]: ergo signum non est de integritate Sacramenti.

4. Item, si signum, aut ergo *demonstrativum*, aut *prognosticum*, aut *rememorativum*; non potest esse nisi *demonstrativum*, quoniam efficit quod figurat, vel saltem, si non efficit, cum signum et signatum sint relativa, sunt simul natura: ergo si signum est praesens, et signatum[^7]. Sed *demonstrativum* non est, ut videtur, quia, si hoc — cum demonstret inesse gratiam, et non insit — tunc videtur esse falsum signum: ergo et falsum Sacramentum.

5. Item, si signum est, aut est *naturale*, aut *voluntarium*[^8]. Si *naturale*: ergo Sacramenta sunt a natura; et si hoc — cum illud quod est naturale, sit idem apud omnes — tunc ergo et Sacramentum; quod certum est esse falsum. Si *voluntarium*: ergo cum voluntaria augeantur et minuantur tota die, sicut patet in dictionibus, ergo pari ratione videtur, quod Sacramenta possint mutari pro voto. — Si tu dicas, quod sunt signa voluntaria, quia[^9] a voluntate divina; sed talia sunt cetera creata, et omne quod est sub caelo: ergo non debent dici propter hoc signa voluntaria; aut si hoc, tunc pari ratione cetera alia creata.

### Conclusio.

> Significatio est de essentia Sacramentorum.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sacramentalis medicina de sua integritate habet significationem, et haec communis est et essentialis omnibus Sacramentis.

Ratio autem huius, ut credo, haec est: quoniam sacramentalis medicina est *sufficiens*[^10] medicamen; quoniam igitur homo lapsus non tantum lapsus est in pronitatem concupiscentiae, sed etiam in caecitatem ignorantiae: ideo, ut in utroque curetur per Sacramentum, non tantum debet habere Sacramentum quid *gratuitum*, sed etiam *mysticum*[^11], et ita figurativum et significativum. — Rursus, quia est sufficiens medicina de se, fert secum suum *praeparatorium*. Unde sicut medicina corporalis non prodest, nisi praeparetur suscipiens, sic necesse est fieri spiritualiter; et quoniam fides disponit hominem, ut ei sint salutifera Sacramenta; et motus fidei excitatur per exhibitionem signi, ut requirat signatum; et per hoc homo disponitur ad curationem: ideo tanquam medicina efficax et sufficiens sacramentalis medicina habet significationem de sua integritate; et ita, essentialiter loquendo, Sacramentum est signum.

1. Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum argumentum, quod obiicit de medicina corporali: quoniam non est simile, ut iam patet.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod causa non est signum effectus: dicendum, quod illud verum est, quando habitudo signandi consequitur habitudinem causandi; in Sacramentis autem antecedit. — Vel aliter dicendum, quod hoc verum est in his quae habent vere ac proprie rationem causae et effectus; vera

<!-- page 15 -->

enim causa natura prior est[^12], et ideo a sensibus nostris remotior; et quia significatio est per id quod est nobis propinquum, ideo significamus causam per effectum, non e converso. Sed hoc non est verum in proposito. Quia enim Sacramentum non habet vere rationem causae, nec gratia rationem effectus[^13]; ideo gratia sublimior est et a sensibus nostris remotior, et corporale nobis est propinquius: ideo recte per illud gratia significatur, non e converso. Propositio vero illa locum habet in vera causa.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sacramentum non significat parvulo; dicendum, quod signum duplicem habet comparationem: et ad illud quod significat, et ad illud cui significat; et prima est essentialis et habet ipsam semper in actu, secundam autem habet in habitu; et a prima dicitur *signum*, non a secunda. Unde circulus super tabernam[^14] semper est signum, etiam si nullus aspiciat; sic Sacramentum semper signum est, quamvis nullus cognoscat. Sed tamen adhuc non solvitur, quia, quamvis sit signum, non tamen significat *huic*. Ideo dicendum, quod sicut parvulo sufficit fides aliena[^15], ita sufficit, quod significetur ipsi parvulo in alio: unde quamvis non significet ei in se, significat tamen in alio.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quo genere signi continetur; dicendum, quod aliqua Sacramenta significaverunt quod *futurum* erat, ut legalia; aliqua quod *praeteritum*, ut Sacramenta nostra, quae significant passionem praeteritam, sicut dicit Glossa super illud ad Romanos sexto[^16]: *Consepulti estis* etc.: «Quidquid gestum est in cruce Christi, in his non tantum dictis, sed etiam gestis figuratur»; loquitur de Sacramentis. Sunt etiam signa *demonstrativa*, quia significant quod donant; unde duplicem habent significationem, *propriam* scilicet et *allegoricam*: propriam respectu *praesentis*, sed allegoricam respectu *praeteriti*. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod signum et signatum simul sunt natura; dicendum, quod verum est sub ratione *signi*, non autem oportet, quod simul sub ratione *rei substratae*[^17], quoniam haec intentio signorum non ponit, nisi apud rem esse animam. — Similiter, quod obiicitur, quod si sunt demonstrativa, tunc sunt falsa; dicendum, quod signum duplicem habet veritatem, ut dicit Anselmus[^18]: unam ab *institutione*, aliam ab *usu*. Ab institutione, quia imposita est ad hoc significandum; et haec veritas non potest permutari. Alia veritas est secundum *usum*, scilicet quando significat illud, ad quod est instituta per usum, et hanc veritatem amittit. Signum igitur sacramentale quantum ad primam semper est verum; similiter quantum ad secundam semper est verum, quantum est ex parte sui sive etiam dantis, sed impeditur solum a parte suscipientis: ideo Sacramentum non falsificatur, sed male recipiens falsus et fictus iudicatur.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est naturale nec voluntarium; dicendum, quod Sacramentum *habilitatem* ad significandum habet ex natura, sed *actualitatem* habet ex institutione. Unde Hugo[^19] dicit, quod «tria sunt in Sacramento: *similitudo* ex creatione, *significatio* ex institutione, *sanctificatio* ex benedictione. Prima est indita per Creatorem, secunda adiuncta per Salvatorem, tertia administrata per dispensatorem». — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod est Deo voluntarium nobis est naturale; dicendum, quod verum est, si det rei illud non solum, ut in ea sit, sed etiam ut sit ab ea, ita quod sit a principiis subiecti; et quia talis ratio non est in Sacramentis, ideo vere et proprie sunt voluntaria. — Et sic patet, quod sunt signa, et qualiter significant[^20].

---

english:
### Question II. *On the signification of the Sacraments.*

In the second place inquiry is made concerning the Sacraments with respect to signification; and that signification belongs to the essence or integrity of a Sacrament is shown as follows:

1. *First*, by the definition or description which the Master sets down in the text[^1]: "A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing."

2. Likewise, Hugh in the book *On the Sacraments*[^2]: "A Sacrament is a material element representing by likeness, signifying by institution": therefore a Sacrament has its *being* from institution and is instituted in order to signify: therefore to signify is essential to it.

3. Likewise, the Sacraments were instituted "for our instruction," as Hugh[^3] says, and the Master touches upon in the text; but not for the instruction of corporeal things: therefore for the instruction of spiritual things. But the Sacraments are corporeal and do not lead into spiritual things except by way of signifying, because by offering themselves to the senses they cause something else to come into knowledge: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a Sacrament is an element; either therefore a pure corporeal element, or one that together with this also says something spiritual. Not *purely corporeal*, this is established: therefore together with this it says something *spiritual*. That spiritual thing, therefore, is either united to it according to *truth*, or according to *intention*; but not according to *truth* — this is established, since it is not capable of it, as will be proved below[^4] — therefore according to *intention*. But to be united according to intention is to be united as the thing signified is united to the sign: therefore signification itself belongs to the integrity of the Sacraments.

**On the contrary:**
1. The Sacraments are principally instituted for healing; but for some medicine to be curative, the fact that it signifies the cure contributes nothing, but it suffices only that it cure: therefore a Sacrament can be a perfect medicine even without signification: therefore signification does not belong to the integrity of a Sacrament.

2. Likewise, if a Sacrament is a medicine, a Sacrament is in some way a cause; but a cause is not the sign of an effect, but rather the thing signified[^5]: therefore it belongs to a Sacrament rather to be signified than to signify.

3. Likewise, if a sign belongs to the integrity of a Sacrament; therefore what does not signify is not a Sacrament, and what does not signify to someone, to the one to whom it does not signify, is not a Sacrament; but the Sacrament of baptism signifies nothing to an infant: therefore to an infant it is not a Sacrament: therefore while an infant receives baptism, he does not receive a Sacrament. But this is absurd[^6]: therefore a sign does not belong to the integrity of a Sacrament.

4. Likewise, if it is a sign, then it is either *demonstrative*, or *prognostic*, or *commemorative*; it cannot be anything but *demonstrative*, since it effects what it figures, or at least, if it does not effect it, since sign and thing signified are relatives, they are simultaneous by nature: therefore if the sign is present, so also is the thing signified[^7]. But it is not *demonstrative*, as it seems, because, if it were this — since it would demonstrate grace to be present, and yet it not be present — then it would seem to be a false sign: therefore also a false Sacrament.

5. Likewise, if it is a sign, it is either *natural* or *voluntary*[^8]. If *natural*: therefore the Sacraments are from nature; and if this — since what is natural is the same among all — then therefore the Sacrament also is; which is certainly false. If *voluntary*: therefore, since voluntary things are increased and diminished all day long, as is evident in expressions, therefore by the same reasoning it seems that the Sacraments can be changed at will. — If you should say that they are voluntary signs because[^9] they are from the divine will; but so too are the other created things, and everything that is under heaven: therefore on this account they ought not to be called voluntary signs; or if so, then by the same reasoning the other created things also.

### Conclusion.

> Signification belongs to the essence of the Sacraments.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that sacramental medicine has signification of its integrity, and this is common and essential to all the Sacraments.

Now the reason for this, as I believe, is this: that sacramental medicine is a *sufficient*[^10] remedy; since therefore fallen man has fallen not only into the proneness of concupiscence, but also into the blindness of ignorance: therefore, in order that he be healed in both by the Sacrament, the Sacrament ought to have not only something *gratuitous*, but also something *mystical*[^11], and thus figurative and significative. — Again, since it is a sufficient medicine of itself, it carries with it its own *preparatory*. Hence, just as bodily medicine does not profit unless the recipient is prepared, so it is necessary that it be done spiritually; and since faith disposes a man, so that the Sacraments are salutary to him; and the movement of faith is aroused through the exhibition of the sign, so that it seeks the thing signified; and through this a man is disposed to healing: therefore, as an efficacious and sufficient medicine, sacramental medicine has signification of its integrity; and thus, speaking essentially, a Sacrament is a sign.

1. And through this is evident the response to the first argument, which objects concerning bodily medicine: since it is not similar, as is now evident.

2. To that which is objected, that a cause is not the sign of an effect: it must be said that this is true when the relation of signifying follows the relation of causing; but in the Sacraments it precedes. — Or otherwise it must be said that this is true in those things which have truly and properly the character of cause and effect; for a true

cause is prior by nature[^12], and therefore more remote from our senses; and because signification is through that which is near to us, we therefore signify the cause through the effect, not the reverse. But this is not true in the matter at hand. For since the Sacrament does not truly have the character of cause, nor grace the character of effect[^13]; therefore grace is more sublime and more remote from our senses, and the corporeal is nearer to us: therefore rightly is grace signified through it, not the reverse. But that proposition holds in the case of a true cause.

3. To that which is objected, that a Sacrament does not signify to an infant; it must be said that a sign has a twofold relation: both to that which it signifies, and to that to whom it signifies; and the first is essential and has it always in act, but the second it has in habit; and from the first it is called a *sign*, not from the second. Hence the hoop over a tavern[^14] is always a sign, even if no one looks at it; so a Sacrament is always a sign, although no one knows it. But still it is not yet resolved, because, although it is a sign, nevertheless it does not signify *to this one*. Therefore it must be said that, just as another's faith suffices for the infant[^15], so it suffices that it be signified to the infant himself in another: hence although it does not signify to him in itself, it nevertheless signifies in another.

4. To that which is objected, under which genus of sign it is contained; it must be said that some Sacraments signified what was *future*, as the legal ones; some what was *past*, as our Sacraments, which signify the past Passion, as the Gloss says upon that text to the Romans, chapter six[^16]: *You are buried together* etc.: "Whatever was done on the cross of Christ is figured in these things not only as spoken, but also as enacted"; it speaks of the Sacraments. They are also *demonstrative* signs, because they signify what they give; hence they have a twofold signification, namely *proper* and *allegorical*: proper with respect to the *present*, but allegorical with respect to the *past*. — As to what is therefore objected, that sign and thing signified are simultaneous by nature; it must be said that this is true under the character of *sign*, but it is not necessary that they be simultaneous under the character of the *underlying thing*[^17], since this intention of signs does not posit it, except that the soul be present to the thing. — Likewise, as to what is objected, that if they are demonstrative, then they are false; it must be said that a sign has a twofold truth, as Anselm says[^18]: one from *institution*, the other from *use*. From institution, because it is imposed for signifying this; and this truth cannot be changed. The other truth is according to *use*, namely when it signifies that for which it was instituted, through use, and this truth it loses. The sacramental sign therefore, as to the first, is always true; likewise as to the second it is always true, so far as it is on the part of itself or even of the giver, but it is impeded only on the part of the recipient: therefore the Sacrament is not falsified, but the one who receives badly is judged false and feigned.

5. To that which is objected, that it is neither natural nor voluntary; it must be said that a Sacrament has the *aptitude* for signifying from nature, but it has the *actuality* from institution. Hence Hugh[^19] says that "there are three things in a Sacrament: *likeness* from creation, *signification* from institution, *sanctification* from benediction. The first is bestowed by the Creator, the second adjoined by the Savior, the third administered by the dispenser." — As to what is therefore objected, that what is voluntary to God is natural to us; it must be said that this is true, if He gives the thing that not only so that it be in it, but also that it be from it, so that it be from the principles of the subject; and because such a ground is not in the Sacraments, therefore they are truly and properly voluntary. — And thus it is evident that they are signs, and in what manner they signify[^20].

---

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2.

la: Libr. I. p. IX. c. 2. — Cod. B cum textu originali post *materiale* addit *vel corporale foris visibiliter* [textus originalis *sensibiliter*] *propositum*, et in fine *ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritualem gratiam*. In fine arg. pro *essentiale* cod. II *naturale*. — Notamus hic semel pro seqq., quod codd. passim inter se dissentiunt in usu verborum *signare, signatum, signatio* et *significare, significatum, significatio*. Nos pro opportunitate has formas eligemus.

en: Book I, p. IX, c. 2. — Codex B, with the original text, after *material* adds *or corporeal, set forth outwardly in a visible way* [the original text: *in a sensible way*], and at the end *containing by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace*. At the end of the argument, for *essential* codex II reads *natural*. — We note here once for what follows, that the codices throughout disagree among themselves in the use of the words *to signate, signated, signation* and *to signify, signified, signification*. We for convenience shall choose these forms.

la: Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1. et I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 3. — De Magistro vide hic c. 5. — In fine arg. respicitur definitio signi ab August. data et a Magistro hic in lit. c. 3. allata.

en: *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 4, c. 1, and *On the Sacraments*, Book I, p. IX, c. 3. — Concerning the Master, see here c. 5. — At the end of the argument is regarded the definition of a sign given by Augustine and cited by the Master here in the text, c. 3.

la: Quaest. 4. — Inferius post *est* codd. omittunt *uniri*.

en: Question 4. — Below, after *est*, the codices omit *uniri*.

la: Aristot., de Divinat. per somnum c. 1: Dico autem causam quidem, ut lunam defectus solis, et laborem febris; signum vero defectus stellam subintrare, asperitatem vero linguae febriendi.

en: Aristotle, *On Divination through Sleep*, c. 1: "I call a cause, for instance, the moon of an eclipse of the sun, and exertion of a fever; but a sign, for instance, a star's slipping under [the moon] of the eclipse, and roughness of the tongue of being feverish."

la: Cfr. infra d. 4. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Superius pro *huic* cod. aa *hoc*.

en: Cf. below, d. 4, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — Above, for *huic* codex aa reads *hoc*.

la: Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 4: Omne etenim signum tantum quid sit ostendit, non vero efficit quod designat. — Aristot., de Praedicam. c. De his quae ad aliquid (relativis) ait: Videntur autem ipsa ad aliquid simul esse natura etc. — In principio arg. post *Item, si* edd. supplent *Sacramentum est*, codd. K aa *est*.

en: Boethius, *On the Consolation*, Book V, prose 4: "For every sign shows only that a thing is, but does not effect what it designates." — Aristotle, *Categories*, in the chapter "On those things which are toward something" (relatives), says: "Relatives seem to be simultaneous by nature," etc. — At the beginning of the argument, after *Item, si* the editions supply *Sacramentum est*, codices K aa *est*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Infra respiciuntur verba Boeth., de Divisione: Nam quod apud omnes idem est naturae est etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 818, nota 1. — Aliquanto inferius post *in dictionibus*, pro quo ed. 1 *inductionibus*, Vat. addit *vel terminis*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — Below are regarded the words of Boethius, *On Division*: "For what is the same among all is of nature," etc. Cf. tom. III, p. 818, note 1. — Somewhat further below, after *in dictionibus*, for which ed. 1 reads *inductionibus*, the Vatican edition adds *or terms*.

la: Edd. supplent *sunt*, et subinde pro *sed talia sunt* substituunt *sed cum talia sint*, cod. I contra, *sed talia sunt*.

en: The editions supply *sunt*, and accordingly for *sed talia sunt* substitute *sed cum talia sint*; codex I, on the contrary, *sed talia sunt*.

la: Cod. X bene *efficax et sufficiens*.

en: Codex X well [reads] *efficacious and sufficient*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.

en: Cf. below, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, in the body.

la: Edd. supplent *effectu*. — Aristot., II. Poster. c. 17. (c. 14.): Causa enim prius est eo, cuius est causa. Et 1. Phys. text. 2. (c. 1.): Innata autem est ex notioribus *nobis* via et manifestioribus ad manifestiora naturae et notiora; non enim sunt eadem et nobis nota et simpliciter. Quapropter necesse est ad hunc modum procedere ex immanifestioribus quidem naturae, nobis autem manifestioribus ad manifestiora naturae et notiora.

en: The editions supply *effectu*. — Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* II, c. 17 (c. 14): "For a cause is prior to that of which it is the cause." And *Physics* I, text 2 (c. 1): "The way is by nature from the things more knowable *to us* and more manifest, toward the things more manifest and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not knowable both to us and without qualification. Wherefore it is necessary to proceed in this manner, from the things less manifest by nature but more manifest to us, toward the things more manifest and knowable by nature."

la: Cfr. infra q. 1. — Inferius pro *et corporale* edd. *et etiam quia corporale*. Eaedem edd. in fine solut. addunt *sicut est sol et luna*. Pro *Propositio vero* codd. E K L M X aa *Propositio igitur*.

en: Cf. below, q. 1. — Below, for *et corporale* the editions read *et etiam quia corporale*. The same editions at the end of the solution add *as are the sun and moon*. For *Propositio vero* codices E K L M X aa read *Propositio igitur*.

la: Vide infra p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 4. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Exemplum de *circulo* iam occurrit in Hug. a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1. — Post *Unde* cod. Z addit *sicut*.

en: See below, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 4, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — The example of the *hoop* already occurs in Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 4, c. 1. — After *Unde* codex Z adds *sicut*.

la: Vers. 4. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex August., Enchirid. c. 53. n. 14: Quidquid igitur gestum est in cruce Christi, in sepultura, in resurrectione tertio die, in ascensione in caelum, in sede ad dexteram Patris, ita gestum est, ut his rebus non mystice tantum dictis, sed etiam gestis configuraretur vita christiana, quae hic geritur. — Inferius pro *quod donant*, *quod exhibent* codd. G I Vbb, alii cum edd. *quod donatur*.

en: Verse 4. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra, is taken from Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 53, n. 14: "Whatever therefore was done on the cross of Christ, in the burial, in the resurrection on the third day, in the ascension into heaven, in the seat at the right hand of the Father, was so done that by these things — said not only mystically but also enacted — the Christian life that is led here might be configured." — Below, for *quod donant*, codices G I Vbb [read] *quod exhibent*, others with the editions *quod donatur*.

la: Ed. 1 *significatae*, Vat. autem addit *id est denominatae*.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] *significatae*, but the Vatican edition adds *that is, denominated*.

la: Dialog. de Veritate c. 2. ubi solvens hanc quaestionem utrum enuntiatio vera et recta sit, cum significat esse quod non est, ait: «Vera quidem non solet dici, cum significat esse quod non est; veritatem tamen et rectitudinem habet, quia facit quod debet: Sed cum significat esse quod est, dupliciter facit quod debet, quoniam significat et quod accepit significare et ad quod facta est... Alia igitur est rectitudo et veritas enuntiationis, quia significat ad quod significandum facta est, alia vero, quia significat quod accepit significare. Quippe ista immutabilis est ipsi orationi, illa vero mutabilis; hanc namque semper habet, illam vero non semper; istam enim naturaliter habet, illam vero accidentaliter et secundum usum» etc. In fine capituli notatur, quod praedicta ratio veritatis consideranda est *in omnibus signis*. — Inferius pro *imposita et instituta* Vat. *impositum et institutum*.

en: *Dialogue on Truth*, c. 2, where, in resolving this question — whether an utterance is true and right when it signifies to be what is not — he says: "It is not indeed wont to be called true when it signifies to be what is not; yet it has truth and rightness, because it does what it ought: But when it signifies to be what is, it does what it ought in two ways, since it signifies both what it received to signify and that for which it was made... There is therefore one rightness and truth of an utterance, because it signifies that for the signifying of which it was made, and another, because it signifies what it received to signify. Indeed the former is unchangeable to the utterance itself, but the latter changeable; for it always has the former, but not always the latter; for it has the former naturally, but the latter accidentally and according to use," etc. At the end of the chapter it is noted that the aforesaid account of truth is to be considered *in all signs*. — Below, for *imposita et instituta* the Vatican edition [reads] *impositum et institutum*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq.

en: Cf. below, d. 4, p. I, a. 2, q. 2 and following.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2.

en: *On the Sacraments*, Book I, p. IX, c. 2.

la: Vide scolion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.13–15 (PDF pp.33–35; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 2104–2316) as the base for clean *videtur/Contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is **Distinction I, Part I, Articulus Unicus, Quaestio II** — *On the signification of the Sacraments*. The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo, the *Ad obiecta*, and every footer, so the PDF column-band read is authoritative for those regions per the override; the OCR supplied marker spacing only.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L2104 `Secundo quaeritur de Sacramentis quantum ad significationem; et quod significatio sit de essentia sive integritate Sacramenti, ostenditur` follows `QUAESTIO II / De Sacramentorum significatione` (raw L2102 ff.) and matches `title_la`. No q-swap. The q1 hand-off (q2 opens at the foot of printed p.13's L-column) is confirmed eyes-on against the p.13 L-2 / R-2 bands.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.13** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. — 13"): q2 opener + *Fundamenta* args 1–3 occupy the **foot** of the L-column and the foot of the R-column (the upper two-thirds of p.13 hold q1's body-tail and the q1 SCHOLION). Footer note-series **1–3** (Hic c. 2 / Libr. I p. IX c. 2 + codex-B variants + the *signare/significare* spelling notice / Sum. Sent. tr. 4 c. 1). Rendered here as [^1]–[^3]. **This is the p.13 footer hand-off picked up from q1** (q1's Notes explicitly forwarded p.13's footer note-series to q2; q1 carried no p.13 apparatus).
- **p.14** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 14"): *Fundamentum* arg 4, Contra args 1–5, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (Ratio 1 + Ratio 2), and the *Solutio oppositorum* replies 1, 2 (reply 2 carries over to p.15). Footer note-series **1–8** → [^4]–[^11] (Quaest. 4 / Aristot. *de Divinat.* / d.4 cross-ref / Boeth. *de Consol.* + Aristot. *Praedicam.* + supply note / Magistri c.4 + Boeth. *de Divisione* / edd. *sunt* supply / Cod. X *efficax* / d.3 cross-ref).
- **p.15** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. — 15"): the tail of reply 2 (*causa natura prior est*), replies 3, 4, 5, ending the body at *Et sic patet, quod sunt signa, et qualiter significant*. Footer note-series **1–9** → [^12]–[^20] (Aristot. *Poster.*/*Phys.* / q.1 cross-ref + *et corporale* variants / d.4 cross-ref + Hug. *circulus* / August. *Enchirid.* Gloss / Ed.1 *significatae* / Anselm *Dialog. de Veritate* / d.4 cross-ref / Hug. *de Sacram.* / **Vide scolion ad praecedentem quaest.**).

**Apparatus count = 20** (p.13: 3; p.14: 8; p.15: 9), all keyed to body markers in both languages. The per-page footer-split map above documents the three restart-series merged into one consecutive [^N] run.

**Scholion: ABSENT.** q2 has no scholion of its own; footer [^20] (the last note of p.15, keyed to the body's closing *qualiter significant*) is literally "Vide scolion ad praecedentem quaest." ("See the scholion to the preceding question"). This matches the locked Vol II convention (a quaestio with no scholion is normal when the sibling's scholion says *pro quaest. seq.*) and the explicit forward in q1's Notes (q1's scholion III/IV already survey q2's *signum memorativum/demonstrativum/prognosticum* and the object-of-signification dispute). `has_scholion: false`.

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q1`:** q1 forwarded (a) the q2 opener location (foot of printed p.13 L-column) and (b) printed **p.13's footer note-series** as belonging to q2, not q1. Both captured: the opener heading is set above; p.13 notes 1–3 are rendered as [^1]–[^3]; q1 correctly carried no p.13 apparatus. q1's scholion remains q1's per the source layout (confirmed not duplicated here).

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q3`:** QUAESTIO III (*De Sacramentorum continentia*) opens at raw L2320 (after the printed p.16 running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 16" at raw L2317). q2's body ends cleanly on printed p.15 at *Et sic patet, quod sunt signa, et qualiter significant* — there is **no mid-page body splice into p.16**; p.16 belongs entirely to q3. q3 therefore carries printed **p.16's** footer note-series in full; q2 claims no p.16 apparatus.

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla (B, II, K, aa, X, Z, E, L, M, G, I, Vbb), scripture/authority citations (Hugh *de Sacram.*, *Summa Sententiarum*, Aristotle *de Divinatione/Posteriora/Physica/Praedicamenta*, Boethius *de Consolatione/de Divisione*, Augustine *Enchiridion*, Anselm *de Veritate*, Gloss on Rom. 6) resolved cleanly against the PDF bands. The running head OCR renders QUAEST. II as "QUAEST. II. — Ib" (digit-mangle of 15→Ib) on p.15; resolved to "15" by the +20 offset and running-head text.

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