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

source_text:
<!-- page 39 -->

### QUAESTIO II. *De forma sive de integritate circumcisionis.*

Secundo quaeritur de forma sive de integritate circumcisionis. Et dicit Hugo in libro de Sacramentis[^1], quod tria sunt, quae sunt de integritate eius, scilicet *sexus masculinus, membrum praeputii et dies octavus.*

1. Sed ostenditur, quod de integritate huius Sacramenti non debet esse *sexus:* quia remedium debet respondere morbo; sed in morbo non est sexus distinctio nec determinatio, quia communiter est in omni sexu: ergo nec in remedio debet esse distinctio.

2. Item, videtur, quod *membrum praeputii* non debeat esse de substantia Sacramenti: quia Sacramenta sunt in honestatem et decorem; sed illud membrum est verecundum et inhonestum: ergo nullo modo debet fieri circa illud membrum; aut si fit, quaero, quare magis circa illud quam circa aliud?

Item, quod *octavus dies* non sit de substantia Sacramenti, ostenditur:

1. Quia nec in baptismo nec in sacramentis legis naturae est determinatio temporis: ergo nec in Sacramentis legis scriptae debet esse[^2].

2. Item, si tempus illud est de necessitate, si post fiat, Sacramentum nullius est efficaciae: ergo nihil valuit Abrahae nec aliquibus de domo eius[^3]; et iterum, nihil valuit illis quos circumcidit Iosue; et iterum, nihil valebat proselytis. Et ex hoc sequitur, quod si aliquis negligebat diem octavum, quod nullo modo posset curari ab originali, quia nec per circumcisionem nec alio modo, quia non erat aliud remedium.

3. Item, si fuit de necessitate: ergo omnes illi viri, qui fuerunt in deserto, fuerunt transgressores, quia nullus eorum fuit circumcisus.

4. Item, si erat de substantia, tunc ergo non debebat praeveniri: ergo parvulum morientem ante octavum diem necesse erat damnari, quia masculus incircumcisus damnabatur[^4]; et ante non debebat circumcidi: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Quod sit de *necessitate,* probatur: quia circumcisio est Sacramentum necessitatis, quia cadit sub praecepto; sed omnia ista tria praecepta sunt, Genesis decimo septimo[^5][^6]: ergo omnia sunt de necessitate. Ibi enim dicitur: *Masculus,*

<!-- page 40 -->

*cuius praeputii caro circumcisa non fuerit, peribit* etc.; et iterum: *Infans octo dierum circumcidetur.*

2. Item, quod tempus sit de substantia, ostenditur: quia circumcisio significabat utramque circumcisionem, scilicet primam in anima a *culpa,* et secundam in corpore a *miseria,* quae futura erat in octava resurrectionis: ergo octavus dies erat de integritate significationis, ergo et de integritate Sacramenti[^1b].

3. Item, praeceptum de circumcisione est praeceptum *affirmativum,* quod obligat ad aliquod tempus, non ad omne, ergo determinato tempore in praecepto, obligat[^2b] ad illud: ergo cum in praecepto illo sit determinatio temporis, in quo instituitur circumcisio, tempus determinatum est de necessitate circumcisionis.

> ### CONCLUSIO.
>
> De necessitate circumcisionis simpliciter sunt sexus masculinus et membrum; tempus vero necessario observandum erat ob praeceptum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duo ex istis, scilicet *sexus* et *membrum,* sunt de necessitate circumcisionis simpliciter; sed *tempus* uno modo est de necessitate, alio modo non. Est enim in hoc Sacramento tria considerare, scilicet *efficaciam, significantiam* et *observantiam.* Quantum ad *efficaciam* nihil facit; quantum ad *significantiam* est de congruitate, quia expressius significat; quantum ad *observantiam* est de necessitate, quia cadit sub praecepto; unde peccat qui negligit observare.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod in morbo non est distinctio, ergo etc.: dicendum, quod circumcisio non tantum fuit in *remedium,* sed etiam in *signum distinctionis,* ut gens Iudaeorum ab aliis discerneretur, ex quo Christus debebat ab ea nasci[^3b]; et quia propagatio et genealogia attenditur penes mares: ideo illis data fuit, non mulieribus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod membrum illud non deberet esse, quia est verecundum: dicendum, quod membrum illud maxime conveniebat *significationi* circumcisionis et *efficaciae.* Circumcisio enim data fuit in *pactum,* sicut dicitur Genesis decimo septimo[^4b], et hoc pactum est certitudo, quod Christus ex gente illa esset nasciturus. Fuit etiam data in *remedium contra originale peccatum;* unde dicitur Genesis decimo septimo: *Masculus, cuius caro praeputii circumcisa non fuerit, peribit* etc. Fuit similiter data in *meritum obedientiae;* meruit enim Abraham et posteri eius sic Domino obediendo. Fuit etiam data in *signum repressionis concupiscentiae;* unde significat, quid sit agendum, sive a quo sit cessandum. — Et quia per praeputium est *generatio,* et sic convenit *pacto* generationis; est *originalis culpae*[^5b] *transfusio,* et sic convenit *remedio circumcisionis;* et in praeputio regnat *inobedientia* et *concupiscentia,* ab oppositis per ipsius significationem et ab ipso factam ablationem et meretur obedientia et significatur continentia. Ideo rectissime convenit[^6b]. — Quod ergo dicit, quod est membrum ignobile; dicendum, quod de sui natura est nobile, sed factum est ignobile propter culpam, unde per remedium nobilitatur; unde primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^7b] dicitur, quod *membris ignobilioribus abundantiorem honorem circumdamus;* et hoc intelligitur, dum passionibus et desideriis obviatur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de tempore, dicendum, sicut dictum est, quod quantum ad efficaciam nihil facit; unde aeque bene curabat circumcisio proselytos, ut etiam parvulos, est tamen congruentia quantum ad significationem.

1. Quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod *res* circumcisionis erat circumcisio a *culpa* et a *miseria*[^8b]. Circumcisio a *culpa* significabatur in actu et materia, sed circumcisio a *miseria* per actum et materiam non significabatur; et ideo congruum fuit *tempus* addere, per quod significaretur. Baptismus autem ratione immersionis et elevationis expresse significat mortem et resurrectionem; ideo non fuit congruum addere. Et sic *dies octavus* est de *bene esse* circumcisionis quantum ad *significantiam;* est tamen de necessitate quantum ad *observantiam,* quia cadit in praecepto[^9b]. — Et ratio huius fuit: quia Sacramentum illud fuit poenale; ideo oportuit observare tempus, quia, si ante octavum diem circumcideretur, propter teneritudinem posset perire; si ultra differretur, esset periculum propter mortem,

<!-- page 41 -->

et libenter differrent propter dolorem. Ideo voluit eis Dominus praefigere terminum.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si est de necessitate praecepti, non poterat differri nec praeveniri sine peccato; dicendum, quod circa hoc duplex fuit opinio: una quidem, quod praeveniri non poterat nec differri sine peccato, nisi interveniret Dei *auctoritas,* vel etiam *necessitas.* Et utraque fuit in viris, qui fuerunt in deserto incircumcisi, ut dicunt: *necessitas* propter periculum, quia ad motum nubis movebantur[^1c], et ideo circumcisionem servare non poterant; divina etiam *auctoritas* fuit dispensans, quia in deserto erant, in quo non poterant gentibus commisceri nec indigebant distingui. Rursus, Dominus voluit, ob *figuram* circumcisionem differri, ut una generalis circumcisio fieret in terra promissionis in signum illius quae futura erat in patria. Et isti dicunt, quodsi de parvulis timerent, quod tempus circumcisionis poterat et debebat praeveniri; alioquin puer damnabatur, sicut modo damnatur puer non baptizatus. — Sed haec positio, licet probabilis videatur, tamen mori repugnat Iudaeorum, quem nunc observant; et credibile est, quod a Patribus acceperunt. Nullum enim ante octavum diem circumcidunt. — Contrarietatem etiam habet in se ipsa: quia, si ob necessitatem infirmitatis poterat differri, cum parvulus erat in gravi infirmitate, non debebat secundum eos circumcidi, sed diutius exspectari; et iterum, si non poterat sine peccato differri, qualiter poterat praeveniri, ex quo Dominus illum[^2c] praefixerat?

Et ideo alia opinio est et probabilior, quod non debebant praevenire nec differre, nisi Dominus ipse dispensaret, alioquin peccabant. Et si tu obiicias, quod tunc puer damnaretur, quia scribitur: *Masculus, cuius caro* etc.; dicendum, quod secundum translationem Septuaginta habetur: *Cuius praeputii caro octava die circumcisa non fuerit;* et quamvis in nostra translatione non repetatur[^3c], tamen intelligitur repeti sub ea conditione, in qua fuit praeceptum. Et quia[^4c] non erant obligati, eodem remedio curabantur, quo mulieres. — Sed huic positioni occurrit difficultas: esto enim, quod parvulus ille mundatus illo remedio viveret usque ad octo dies[^5c], et tunc non circumcideretur, aut salvatur, aut non. Si non salvatur: ergo ex peccato patris amittit gratiam, aut eam non habuit; sed constat, quod propter peccatum patris non potest eam perdere: ergo nunquam habuit. — Si salvatur; et non est octavo die circumcisus: ergo non est verum, quod dicit Dominus: *Masculus, cuius caro* etc.

Propter hoc igitur respondendum, quod currente circumcisione, alia remedia non disponebant parvulum nisi cum hac conditione, quod ipse esset impossibilis[^6c] ad implendum mandatum de circumcisione: et ita propter impossibilitatem absolvebatur et si moriturus erat ante octavum diem, disponebant, et curabatur; sed victurus non curabatur, quousque mandatum esset totum impletum. Et hoc totum est probabile; et ideo hanc opinionem credo saniorem. — Si autem Dominus dispensaret, tunc secus esset; et ita dicunt factum esse circa viros, qui fuerunt in deserto. — Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod peccaverunt, quia ex contemptu dimiserunt[^7c]; sed tamen illud non est credibile, quod omnes ita mandatum Dei contemnerent.

Si autem obiicias similiter de parvulo, qui praeventus morte non baptizatur, utrum in fide parentum salvetur; dico, quod non, quia baptismus propter suam generalitatem et perfectionem et temporis indeterminationem alia remedia evacuavit; non sic autem circumcisio. — Huius autem positionis probabilitas habetur ex *auctoritate,* quia Proverbiorum quarto[^8c] dicit Salomon: *Unigenitus eram coram matre mea;* ubi dicitur in Glossa, quod filius Bersabee, alius parvulus, « non fuit nominatus, quia ante octavum diem est mortuus », et ita non fuit circumcisus. Habetur ex *ratione,* quia nullum animal offerebatur Domino ante octavum diem[^9c]. Habetur etiam ex *more Iudaeorum,* quem modo observant. Et ideo haec positio magis est tenenda[^10c].

---

english:
<!-- page 39 -->

### QUESTION II. *On the form, or the integrity, of circumcision.*

Secondly, the question is asked concerning the form, or the integrity, of circumcision. And Hugh says in the book *On the Sacraments*[^1] that there are three things which belong to its integrity, namely *the male sex, the member of the foreskin, and the eighth day.*

1. But it is shown that *sex* ought not to belong to the integrity of this Sacrament: because the remedy ought to correspond to the disease; but in disease there is no distinction or determination of sex, since it is common to every sex: therefore neither in the remedy ought there to be any distinction.

2. Likewise, it seems that *the member of the foreskin* ought not to belong to the substance of the Sacrament: because the Sacraments are for decency and seemliness; but that member is shameful and unseemly: therefore in no way ought anything to be done about that member; or if it is done, I ask, why rather about that one than about another?

Likewise, that *the eighth day* is not of the substance of the Sacrament is shown:

1. Because neither in baptism nor in the sacraments of the law of nature is there a determination of time: therefore neither in the Sacraments of the written law ought there to be[^2].

2. Likewise, if that time is of necessity, then if it is done afterward, the Sacrament is of no efficacy: therefore it was of no avail to Abraham nor to any of his household[^3]; and again, it was of no avail to those whom Joshua circumcised; and again, it was of no avail to proselytes. And from this it follows that if anyone neglected the eighth day, he could in no way be healed from original [sin], because neither by circumcision nor by any other means, since there was no other remedy.

3. Likewise, if it was of necessity: then all those men who were in the desert were transgressors, since none of them was circumcised.

4. Likewise, if it was of the substance, then it ought not to have been anticipated: therefore a little one dying before the eighth day would necessarily have to be damned, because an uncircumcised male was condemned[^4]; and before [the eighth day] he ought not to have been circumcised: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it is of *necessity* is proved: because circumcision is a Sacrament of necessity, since it falls under a precept; but all those three things are commanded, in Genesis seventeen[^5][^6]: therefore all are of necessity. For there it is said: *The male,*

<!-- page 40 -->

*the flesh of whose foreskin shall not have been circumcised, shall perish,* etc.; and again: *The infant of eight days shall be circumcised.*

2. Likewise, that the time is of the substance is shown: because circumcision signified both circumcisions, namely the first in the soul from *guilt,* and the second in the body from *misery,* which was to come at the eighth [day] of the resurrection: therefore the eighth day was of the integrity of the signification, therefore also of the integrity of the Sacrament[^1b].

3. Likewise, the precept concerning circumcision is an *affirmative* precept, which obliges for some time, not for every time; therefore, the time being determined in the precept, it obliges[^2b] for that [time]: therefore, since in that precept there is a determination of the time at which circumcision is instituted, the determined time is of the necessity of circumcision.

> ### CONCLUSION.
>
> Of the absolute necessity of circumcision are the male sex and the member; but the time had to be necessarily observed on account of the precept.

**I respond:** It must be said that two of these, namely *sex* and *the member,* are of the necessity of circumcision absolutely; but the *time* in one way is of necessity, in another way not. For in this Sacrament three things are to be considered, namely its *efficacy, signification,* and *observance.* As to *efficacy* it contributes nothing; as to *signification* it belongs to fittingness, because it signifies more expressly; as to *observance* it is of necessity, because it falls under a precept; hence he sins who neglects to observe it.

1. To that, then, which is objected first, that in disease there is no distinction, therefore etc.: it must be said that circumcision was not only for a *remedy,* but also for a *sign of distinction,* that the people of the Jews might be distinguished from others, from whom Christ was to be born[^3b]; and because propagation and genealogy are reckoned through the males: therefore it was given to them, not to the women.

2. To that which is objected, that that member ought not to be [the place of it], because it is shameful: it must be said that that member was most fitting for the *signification* of circumcision and for its *efficacy.* For circumcision was given as a *covenant,* as is said in Genesis seventeen[^4b], and this covenant is the assurance that Christ was to be born from that people. It was also given as a *remedy against original sin;* hence it is said in Genesis seventeen: *The male, the flesh of whose foreskin shall not have been circumcised, shall perish,* etc. It was likewise given as a *merit of obedience;* for Abraham and his posterity merited by thus obeying the Lord. It was also given as a *sign of the repression of concupiscence;* hence it signifies what is to be done, or from what one is to cease. — And because through the foreskin there is *generation,* and so it accords with the *covenant* of generation; it is the *transfusion of original guilt*[^5b], and so it accords with the *remedy of circumcision;* and in the foreskin there reign *disobedience* and *concupiscence,* and from the opposites, by its signification and by the removal made upon it, obedience is merited and continence is signified. Therefore it accords most rightly[^6b]. — As to what he says, that it is an ignoble member; it must be said that of its own nature it is noble, but it was made ignoble on account of guilt, whence through the remedy it is ennobled; hence in First Corinthians twelve[^7b] it is said that *upon the more ignoble members we bestow more abundant honor;* and this is understood [to hold] when the passions and desires are resisted.

To that which is asked concerning the time, it must be said, as has been said, that as to efficacy it contributes nothing; hence circumcision healed proselytes equally as well as little ones, yet there is a fittingness as to signification.

1. As to what is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that the *reality* of circumcision was circumcision from *guilt* and from *misery*[^8b]. Circumcision from *guilt* was signified in the act and the matter, but circumcision from *misery* was not signified through the act and the matter; and therefore it was fitting to add the *time,* by which it might be signified. But baptism, by reason of immersion and emergence, expressly signifies death and resurrection; therefore it was not fitting to add [a time]. And thus *the eighth day* belongs to the *well-being* of circumcision as to *signification;* yet it is of necessity as to *observance,* because it falls under a precept[^9b]. — And the reason for this was: that that Sacrament was penal; therefore it was necessary to observe the time, because, if [the child] were circumcised before the eighth day, on account of his tenderness he might perish; if it were deferred longer, there would be danger on account of death,

<!-- page 41 -->

and they would gladly defer it on account of the pain. Therefore the Lord willed to set a fixed term for them.

3. 4. To that which is objected, that if it is of the necessity of the precept, it could not be deferred nor anticipated without sin; it must be said that on this point there was a twofold opinion: one indeed, that it could not be anticipated nor deferred without sin, unless the *authority* of God intervened, or also *necessity.* And both were present in the men who were uncircumcised in the desert, as they say: *necessity* on account of the danger, because they were moved at the motion of the cloud[^1c], and therefore could not observe circumcision; the divine *authority* also was dispensing, because they were in the desert, where they could not mingle with the nations nor needed to be distinguished. Again, the Lord willed, for the sake of the *figure,* that circumcision be deferred, so that one general circumcision might be made in the land of promise as a sign of that which was to come in the fatherland. And these men say that if they feared concerning the little ones, the time of circumcision could and ought to be anticipated; otherwise the child was damned, just as now an unbaptized child is damned. — But this position, although it may seem probable, nevertheless is repugnant to the custom of the Jews, which they now observe; and it is credible that they received it from the Fathers. For they circumcise none before the eighth day. — It also has a contrariety within itself: because, if on account of the necessity of infirmity it could be deferred, when the little one was in grave infirmity, he ought not, according to them, to be circumcised, but to be awaited longer; and again, if it could not be deferred without sin, how could it be anticipated, since the Lord had fixed it[^2c]?

And therefore there is another and more probable opinion: that they ought neither to anticipate nor to defer, unless the Lord himself dispensed; otherwise they sinned. And if you object that then the child would be damned, because it is written: *The male, the flesh of whom* etc.; it must be said that according to the translation of the Seventy it reads: *Whose foreskin's flesh shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day;* and although in our translation it is not repeated[^3c], yet it is understood to be repeated under that condition under which it was commanded. And because[^4c] they were not obliged, they were healed by the same remedy as the women. — But a difficulty meets this position: for suppose that that little one, cleansed by that remedy, lived up to eight days[^5c], and then was not circumcised — either he is saved, or not. If he is not saved: then by the sin of the father he loses grace, or he did not have it; but it is established that on account of the sin of the father he cannot lose it: therefore he never had it. — If he is saved; and he is not circumcised on the eighth day: then it is not true what the Lord says: *The male, whose flesh* etc.

On account of this, therefore, it must be answered that, circumcision being in force, the other remedies did not dispose the little one except on this condition, that he himself was incapable[^6c] of fulfilling the mandate concerning circumcision: and so on account of the impossibility he was absolved, and if he was about to die before the eighth day, they would dispose [him], and he was healed; but one about to live was not healed, until the mandate was wholly fulfilled. And this whole [view] is probable; and therefore I believe this opinion the sounder. — But if the Lord dispensed, then it would be otherwise; and so they say it was done concerning the men who were in the desert. — Some, however, say that they sinned, because they omitted it out of contempt[^7c]; but yet that is not credible, that all should so despise the mandate of God.

But if you object likewise concerning the little one who, prevented by death, is not baptized, whether he is saved in the faith of his parents; I say no, because baptism, on account of its generality and perfection and the indeterminateness of its time, evacuated the other remedies; but not so circumcision. — Now the probability of this position is had from *authority,* because in Proverbs four[^8c] Solomon says: *I was the only-begotten before my mother;* where it is said in the Gloss that the son of Bathsheba, another little one, "was not named, because he died before the eighth day," and so he was not circumcised. It is had from *reason,* because no animal was offered to the Lord before the eighth day[^9c]. It is had also from the *custom of the Jews,* which they now observe. And therefore this position is rather to be held[^10c].

---

la: Libr. I. p. XII. c. 2.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*,] Book I, part XII, c. 2.

la: In edd. additur *determinatio temporis, videlicet dies octavus.*

en: In the editions there is added *the determination of time, namely the eighth day.*

la: Gen. 17, 23, ubi insinuatur, Abraham filium suum Ismael et omnes vernaculos domus suae circumcidisse. Iosue (5, 2. seqq.) circumcidit omnes qui praeceptum de circumcisione neglexerant. — Superius pro *de necessitate* cod. F *de integritate.*

en: Gen. 17:23, where it is intimated that Abraham circumcised his son Ishmael and all the home-born of his house. Joshua (5:2ff.) circumcised all who had neglected the precept concerning circumcision. — Above, for *of necessity* codex F [reads] *of integrity.*

la: Edd. supplent *determinatio temporis.*

en: The editions supply *the determination of time.*

la: Cfr. Gen. 17, 14, qui in seq. arg. allegatur. — Conclusionem arg. exhibent edd. sic: *ergo videtur, quod octavus dies non fuit de substantia circumcisionis.*

en: Cf. Gen. 17:14, which is cited in the following argument. — The editions give the conclusion of the argument thus: *therefore it seems that the eighth day was not of the substance of circumcision.*

la: Vers. 14, ubi Vulgata, quam edd. sequuntur, *delebitur* pro *peribit.* — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 12. — In fine arg. codd. R N aa subiungunt *ergo omnia sunt de necessitate,* edd. *ergo videtur, quod octavus dies sit de necessitate Sacramenti circumcisionis.*

en: Verse 14, where the Vulgate, which the editions follow, [reads] *shall be blotted out* for *shall perish.* — The following text is ibid. v. 12. — At the end of the argument codd. R N aa subjoin *therefore all are of necessity;* the editions [read] *therefore it seems that the eighth day is of the necessity of the Sacrament of circumcision.*

la: Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2: *Octonarius vero in sacra Scriptura aliquando tempus resurrectionis significat, quod post praesentem quae septem diebus currit vitam sequitur; aliquando tempus gratiae, in quo quasi post sabbatum Legis aeterna bona servientibus Deo promittuntur. Merito igitur prima illa circumcisio, quae Sacramentum erat illarum duarum* (cfr. supra pag. 38, nota 12.), *iussa est fieri* octavo *die, ut ostenderetur, quod in tempore gratiae corda circumcidenda erant per emundationem iniquitatis, et in tempore resurrectionis corpora per depositionem corruptionis.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 9. — Pro *Sacramenti* cod. Y *circumcisionis,* et pro *de integritate significationis* cod. R *de necessitate significationis.*

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, part XII, c. 2: *The number eight in sacred Scripture sometimes signifies the time of the resurrection, which follows the present life that runs in seven days; sometimes the time of grace, in which, as if after the sabbath of the Law, the eternal goods are promised to those who serve God. Rightly, therefore, that first circumcision, which was the Sacrament of those two* (cf. above p. 38, note 12), *was commanded to be done on the* eighth *day, that it might be shown that in the time of grace hearts were to be circumcised through the cleansing of iniquity, and in the time of the resurrection bodies through the laying-aside of corruption.* Cf. here the Master's text, c. 9. — For *of the Sacrament* codex Y [reads] *of circumcision,* and for *of the integrity of the signification* codex R [reads] *of the necessity of the signification.*

la: Ita bene cod. Z, in aliis *obligabat.*

en: Thus rightly codex Z; in the others, *it was obliging.*

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. ad q. 2. incid. Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2, censet, hoc ideo esse factum, ut videlicet ostenderetur, quod illa exterior circumcisio animabus [quae in s. Scriptura per masculinum sexum significantur] sanctificationem contulit, sed carni [per muliebrem sexum significatae] non abstulit corruptionem. — Cod. F *ex ea nasci.*

en: Cf. the preceding question, at the 2nd incidental question. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, part XII, c. 2, holds that this was done for this reason: that it might be shown that that exterior circumcision conferred sanctification upon souls [which in Scripture are signified by the male sex], but did not take away corruption from the flesh [signified by the female sex]. — Codex F [reads] *to be born from it.*

la: Vers. 10. et 13. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 14.

en: Verses 10 and 13. — The following text is ibid. v. 14.

la: Cod. F *est etiam originalis peccati.*

en: Codex F [reads] *is also [the transfusion] of original sin.*

la: Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 30. n. 5; Bernard., Serm. 2. in circumcis. Domini, n. 1. seq.; hic lit. Magistri, c. 9, et II. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 30, n. 5; Bernard, *Sermon* 2 *on the Circumcision of the Lord,* n. 1f.; here the Master's text, c. 9, and *Sentences* Book II, d. 31, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Vers. 23.

en: Verse 23.

la: Vide supra pag. 38. nota 12.

en: See above, p. 38, note 12.

la: Cod. E *sub praecepto.* Inferius post *si ultra* cod. F supplet *illum.*

en: Codex E [reads] *under a precept.* Lower down, after *if [it were deferred] longer,* codex F supplies *it.*

la: Cfr. Exod. 13, 21. seq. — Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 25, ex eo, quod circumcisio in deserto facta non sit, post transgressionem vero Iordanis iterum praecepta sit, concludit, finem circumcisionis fuisse, ut Iudaei ab aliis gentibus distinguerentur.

en: Cf. Exod. 13:21f. — [John] Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* IV, c. 25, from the fact that circumcision was not performed in the desert, but after the crossing of the Jordan was again commanded, concludes that the end of circumcision was that the Jews might be distinguished from the other nations.

la: Supple *diem,* vel cum cod. F (P a secunda manu) *terminum.*

en: Supply *the day,* or, with codex F (P by a second hand), *the term.*

la: Scilicet *octava die.*

en: Namely *on the eighth day.*

la: Simul audi cum cod. Z *pueri.* Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. et 10. — Mox post *mulieres* Vat. addit *fide et oblatione.* Subinde pro *positioni* non pauci codd. *opinioni.*

en: At the same time read, with codex Z, *of the boy.* Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, part XII, c. 2, and here the Master's text, cc. 8 and 10. — Soon after *women* the Vatican edition adds *by faith and oblation.* Then for *position* not a few codices [read] *opinion.*

la: Codd. K aa *octavum diem.*

en: Codices K aa [read] *the eighth day.*

la: Secundum Du Cange, Glossarium etc, *impossibilis* significat idem ac *impotens.* Vat. substituit *impossibilitatus.* Aliquanto inferius pro *opinionem* cod. F *positionem.*

en: According to Du Cange, *Glossary* etc., *impossibilis* signifies the same as *impotens* [incapable]. The Vatican edition substitutes *impossibilitatus.* Somewhat lower down, for *opinion* codex F [reads] *position.*

la: Ut etiam August., Qq. in Iosue, q. 6. insinuat. Cfr. de hoc Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 4. a. 2. § 2.

en: As also Augustine, *Questions on Joshua,* q. 6, intimates. Cf. on this Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV, q. 4, m. 4, a. 2, § 2.

la: Vers. 3. Glossa, quae sumta est ex Beda, in Prov. 4, 4, exhibetur ut ordinaria a Strabo et Lyrano his verbis: *Quare autem Salomon se* unigenitum coram matre *nominat, quem fratrem uterinum praecessisse Scriptura testatur, nisi quia ille mox natus sine nomine, quasi nunquam esset, de vita decessit?* — Post *alius parvulus* Vat. addit *quem habuit ante Salomonem.* Superius pro *evacuavit,* quod praestant codd. F H (I a secunda manu), codd. E G Iv aa bb *evacuat,* alii cum edd. *evacuaverat.*

en: Verse 3. The Gloss, which is taken from Bede on Prov. 4:4, is presented as the *Ordinary* [Gloss] by Strabo and Lyra in these words: *But why does Solomon name himself* only-begotten before his mother, *whom Scripture attests a uterine brother to have preceded, unless because that one, soon born without a name, as if he had never been, departed from life?* — After *another little one* the Vatican edition adds *whom she had before Solomon.* Above, for *evacuated,* which codd. F H present (I by a second hand), codd. E G Iv aa bb [read] *evacuates,* others with the editions *had evacuated.*

la: Lev. 22, 27: *Bos, ovis et capra... die autem octavo et deinceps offerri poterunt Domino.*

en: Lev. 22:27: *An ox, a sheep, and a goat... but from the eighth day and thereafter they may be offered to the Lord.*

la: Vide scholion 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 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p039-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p040-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p041-{L,R}-*`; split_x = 1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 4779–5072), which cascade-shatters the two-column *videtur* / *Sed contra* / Respondeo / *Ad obiecta* and every footer. Printed pp. 39–41 = PDF pp. 59–61 (offset pdf = printed + 20). This is Part II, Article II, Question II — the SECOND of Article II's three questions on circumcision (*De forma sive de integritate circumcisionis*).

**Alignment VERIFIED.** The QUAESTIO II heading (raw L4779, foot of printed p.39) and the body opener *Secundo quaeritur de forma sive de integritate circumcisionis* key to the article's second listed question (the form/integrity: male sex, member, eighth day). No q-swap — the following QUAESTIO III *De efficacia circumcisionis* (raw L5073, printed p.42, *Tertio quaeritur de efficacia circumcisionis*) is the distinct third question.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.39** (PDF 59; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II." sitting over q1's scholion tail in the upper portion): QUAESTIO II opens in the lower-left column (title + Hugo's three constituents) and runs into the upper-right column. Body here = the *videtur* args (sex arg 1; member arg 2; eighth-day sub-args 1–4) + the opening of *Sed contra* arg 1 (which spills onto p.40). Footer note-series **1–6** (left col nn.1–4, right col nn.5–6) — all claimed here → [^1]–[^6]. (q1 forwarded NOTHING; q1's scholion §III tail in the upper-right carried no footnote markers. q2 claims ALL p.39 footers from QUAESTIO II's body onward, exactly as the hand-off directed.)
- **p.40** (PDF 60; running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): *Sed contra* arg 1 tail + args 2–3, CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO, and *Ad obiecta* replies (sex, member/Notandum, the de-tempore replies and the *Ad argg. pro parte negativa* reply on baptism), spilling onto p.41. Footer note-series **1–9** (left col nn.1–3 with n.3 spilling into the right col; right col nn.4–9) → [^1b]–[^9b].
- **p.41** (PDF 61; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II."): the *Ad 3.4.* reply (twofold opinion on anticipating/deferring; the *Difficultas* + *Solutio auctoris*; the *Quaestio incidens* on the death-prevented infant; the *Rationes 3 pro 2. opinione*) — q2 closes at the foot of the right column (catchword "6"/sig. G6) before QUAESTIO III begins on p.42. Footer note-series **1–10** (left col nn.1–6, right col nn.7–10) → [^1c]–[^10c].

**Marker numbering.** To keep the three per-page footer sequences distinct, p.39's notes use plain markers [^1]–[^6], p.40's use `b`-suffixed [^1b]–[^9b], and p.41's use `c`-suffixed [^1c]–[^10c]. Marker pairing: Latin body = English body = defs (25 defs total).

**Scholion scope (finding).** `has_scholion: false` — VERIFIED. There is **no SCHOLION header in q2's raw range (L4779–5072)**; the only scholion reference is q2's own footer p.41 n.10 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` = [^10c]), pointing explicitly back to the preceding question. The single **article-master SCHOLION for Article II lives in `bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-a2-q1`** (printed lower p.38 → p.39, §§I–III); per a2-q1's report, **§II treats this q2** (the eighth-day determination as an adjoined precept, not of the essence). q2 therefore correctly carries no scholion of its own, mirroring the Article I pattern (q1 held the article-master scholion; q2/q3 defer to its §II/§III). No scholion was invented here.

**Hand-off picked up ← `d1-p2-a2-q1`:** a2-q1 forwarded NOTHING (its scholion §III closed in the upper-right column of p.39 with no footnote markers). q1 instructed: "a2-q2 should claim ALL p.39 footers from QUAESTIO II's body onward (the visible p.39 footers nn.5–6 are q2's *Sed contra* notes)." Honored: q2 opens its own per-page band at **p.39 note 1** and claims p.39 nn.1–6 (incl. the *Sed contra* nn.5–6), p.40 nn.1–9, p.41 nn.1–10. Did NOT re-claim pp.37–38 footers (a2-q1's [^1]–[^10], [^1b]–[^12b]).

**Hand-off forwarded → `d1-p2-a2-q3`:** NOTHING — q2 closes cleanly at the foot of p.41's right column (catchword "6"/sig. G6); the printed page p.42 begins with the QUAESTIO III heading (*De efficacia circumcisionis*, raw L5073) and starts its own per-page footer bands. q2 claims all p.41 footers nn.1–10 (the last, [^10c] = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, falls under QUAESTIO II's text). a2-q3 should open its own band at p.42 note 1 and should NOT re-claim any p.41 footer.

**J4 Class B repair (2026-07-17): orphaned def [^6] placed.** `[^6]`'s apparatus text (*Vers. 14, ubi Vulgata... delebitur pro peribit. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 12...*) had no anchor in either body. Extracted p.39 at 450 dpi (`extract-pages.py --volume vol4 --pages 39-41`), colcropped at split_x=1880, and read the right-column footer band (`vol4-p039-R-2.png`): the printed page shows the superscript numeral **⁶** immediately after *septimo* in "...praecepta sunt, Genesis decimo septimo⁶: ergo omnia..." — confirmed at 2× zoom, unambiguous glyph. Content match is exact: def [^6] discusses the Gen. 17:14 Vulgate variant (*delebitur* vs. the printed *peribit*, quoted two sentences later) and notes "*Seq. textus est ibid. v. 12*" (the next-quoted clause, *Infans octo dierum circumcidetur*, is v.12) — both point to the citation clause at *Genesis decimo septimo*. Added `[^6]` immediately after the existing `[^5]` at that lemma in both Latin and English, per the confirmed print position. No other text changed.

**Anomaly found, NOT fixed (out of this task's scope — flag for a future Class A/positional-audit pass):** the same zoom also shows the printed superscript **⁵** sitting one clause earlier, on *damnabatur* ("...masculus incircumcisus damnabatur⁵; et ante non debebat circumcidi..."), matching def [^5]'s content ("*Cfr. Gen. 17, 14, qui in seq. arg. allegatur*" — forward-referencing the citation to come). But the chunk's pre-existing (not introduced by this repair) anchors have `[^4]` on *damnabatur* and `[^5]` on *septimo* — i.e. anchors 4 and 5 appear shifted one position early relative to the print, with `[^4]`'s actual printed slot (superscript "4", presumably in the p.39 left column, un-inspected this pass) not verified. This did not register as a Class B orphan (anchors 1–5 were already present in both bodies, satisfying the set-membership check) and is outside this task's authorization to move/relabel existing markers. Recommend a dedicated pass re-verifying `[^1]`–`[^5]` anchor positions against the full p.39 columns before this chunk is considered fully positionally clean.

**[?] flags:** none. The OCR cascade-shatter of the two-column body, *Sed contra,* Respondeo, *Ad obiecta,* and all footers was fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all readings are legible. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (*fonna*→*forma*, *integrUate*→*integritate*, *quaeritar*→*quaeritur*, *qnae*→*quae*, *integrilate*→*integritate*, *delwt*→*debet*, *necessilate*→*necessitate*, *valuit*→*valuit*, *raodo*→*modo*, *necese*→*necesse*, *mascuUis*→*masculus*, *necessilaie*→*necessitate*, *significabat*→*significabat*, *resurrectionis*→*resurrectionis*, *obligat*→*obligat*, *sinipliciter*→*simpliciter*, *bcet*→*licet*, *sBxus*→*sexus*, *enira*→*enim*, *significantiam*→*significantiam*, *Circumci-sio*→*Circumcisio*, *unde primae*→*primae*, *duodecimo*→*duodecimo*, *aha*→*alia*, *cuxa*→*circa*, *aniraal*→*animal*, *raulieribus*→*mulieribus*, *mori*→*mori* [= *more*/custom, retained as *mori* per Quaracchi], *teneritudinem*→*teneritudinem*, *circuracisio*→*circumcisio*, etc.).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

title_alt:
De efficacia circumcisionis
On the efficacy of circumcision

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 42 -->

### QUAESTIO III. *De efficacia circumcisionis.*

Tertio quaeritur de efficacia circumcisionis, et quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum circumcisionis sit gratiae collativum. Et quod non:

1. Dicit Magister Hoc ipsum in littera[^1]. Dicit Glossa ad Romanos quarto super illud: *Signaculum fidei accepit;* Glossa: « In circumcisione tantum peccata remittebantur, sed non gratia per eam praestabatur ».

2. Item, hoc videtur *ratione,* quia in Sacramento aeque vel amplius se extendit ratio significandi quam efficiendi; sed ratio significandi in circumcisione solum est in ablatione[^2]: ergo et efficacia.

3. Item, sicut se habet culpa ad gratiae amotionem, sic gratia ad remotionem culpae; sed Deus, cum homo peccat, subtrahit gratiam, nec tamen facit culpam[^3]: ergo *a simili* possibile est, quod aliquod remedium removeat culpam, quod tamen non dat gratiam: ergo si hoc est possibile, et concordat ratio et auctoritas, in circumcisione non datur gratia.

4. Item, si Deus esset dator formarum, virtus particularis agentis esset solum in abiiciendo, non in ponendo[^4]: ergo cum Deus sit dator gratiae, virtus circumcisionis solum erit in amovendo oppositum gratiae.

2. Item, accidens corrumpitur dupliciter: aut propter corruptionem subiecti, aut propter inductionem contrarii[^7]: ergo si circumcisio aufert culpam, cum non corrumpat subiectum, de necessitate inducit contrarium; sed hoc est gratia: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod culpa non est accidens, sed privatio; idem sequitur, quia privatio non removetur ab aliquo nisi per positionem habitus: ergo si culpa est privatio gratiae, nunquam delebitur, nisi ponatur gratia.

3. Item, peccatum dicit *non esse moris*[^8]; sed impossibile est, quod Deus auferat alicui *non esse* naturae nisi dando *esse,* immo non est intelligibile: ergo impossibile et non intelligibile est, quod auferat *non esse* moris nisi dando *esse;* sed *non esse* moris est per culpam, *esse* per gratiam: ergo etc. *Si dicas,* quod non est simile, quia *esse* et *non esse* sunt immediata; non sic culpa et gratia[^9]; *contra* hoc est, quia privatio et habitus circa suum susceptibile sunt immediata, sicut affirmatio et negatio: ergo impossibile est privare unum, quin ponatur reliquum.

4. Item, si circumcisio delet culpam, et gratia delet; aut ergo circumcisio delet per gratiam, aut e converso, aut utrumque simul; sed constat, quod non utrumque simul, quia, cum non sint idem in substantia, non habent eandem operationem immediatam[^10]. Item, non gratia per circumcisionem, quia, si non esset circumcisio, gratia per se sufficienter deleret culpam tanquam immediata causa: ergo circumcisio delet per gratiam: ergo per prius ordinatur circumcisio ad gratiam quam ad culpam delendam.

**Contra:** 1. Quod in circumcisione detur gratia, ostenditur: quia eadem vi est corruptio unius oppositi et generatio alterius[^5], et eadem vi, qua receditur ab uno oppositorum, acceditur ad reliquum: ergo cum gratia et culpa sint opposita, eadem vi, qua deletur culpa, confertur gratia: ergo si circumcisio est ad delendam culpam, necesse est, in ea conferri gratiam. *Si dicas,* quod hoc non tenet in moribus; hoc nihil est, quia Ambrosius[^6] dicit, quod « egressus vitii est virtutis ingressus ».

<!-- page 43 -->

> ### CONCLUSIO.
>
> In circumcisione conferebatur gratia, sed tantum parvula respectu magnae gratiae, quae datur in baptismo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc diversi diversimode senserunt.

Quorundam enim positio fuit, quod originale, ut est culpa, est concupiscentia cum debito non concupiscendi; et non ideo est culpa, quia *concupiscentia* — haec enim est in iustificatis — sed ideo, quia est *cum debito non concupiscendi.* Cum ergo deletur culpa originalis, quia deletur quantum ad reatum et remanet quantum ad actum[^1b], dicunt, quod solvitur *debitum,* id est, non imputatur; et tunc igitur remanet concupiscentia actu *poena.* Hoc igitur est quod dicunt, *originale deleri,* id est, debitum non concupiscendi non imputari; et hoc quidem sine alicuius gratiae collatione fieri potest et fit in circumcisione. — Sed haec responsio non potest stare duplici ratione: una quidem, quia, si Deus non imputat hoc debitum ipsi animae, quod prius imputabat; aut ergo aliqua innovatio facta est circa *animam,* aut mutatio circa *Deum;* non mutatio circa *Deum,* ergo innovatio circa *animam:* ergo aut aliquid est ab ea *ablatum,* aut *positum.* Si *ablatum,* aut *bonum,* aut *malum;* non *bonum,* ergo *malum;* non malum poenae tantum, ergo *culpae:* ergo si culpa est privatio, quae non aufertur, nisi aliquid ibi ponatur; necesse est, aliquid *poni.* Sed nihil ponitur in anima, quod expellat culpam, nisi gratia[^2b]. — Alia ratio est: quia, si *debitum* tantum non imputaretur, et gratia non daretur; cum nullus possit videre Deum, quin habuerit gratiam[^3b], tunc ergo iustus ab originali peccato mundatus per circumcisionem, si moriatur, cum non habuerit gratiam, non videbit Deum: ergo eandem poenam habebit, ac si haberet originale.

Alia positio magis ultra processit et dixit, quod in circumcisione *dabatur gratia,* et *delebatur culpa;* sed *culpa delebatur* vi circumcisionis, *gratia non dabatur* vi eius, sed ex liberalitate Dei, qui non delet culpam, quin decoret animam et gratam sibi faciat; quamvis *posset* aliter facere, quia secundum naturam medium est inter culpam et gratiam, scilicet ipsa *innocentia,* et delere culpam, hoc est addere innocentiam; sed Deus nunquam reddit innocentiam, quin superaddat gratiam. Et per hoc respondent ad obiecta de contrarietate et de habitu et privatione, quia *gratia* non est directe et immediate habitus oppositus *culpae,* sed *innocentia.* Ad illud autem *innocentiam,* secundum quod est privatio culpae, ordinatur circumcisio disponens ex parte suscipientis, sed gratia ex parte agentis. — Sed haec positio non potest stare duplici ratione: prima quidem, quia, si *innocentia* esset medium secundum naturam inter culpam et gratiam, prius naturaliter restitueretur *innocentia,* et expelleretur *culpa,* quam infunderetur *gratia;* sed hoc est manifeste falsum, quia tunc gratia non deleret culpam. Si enim delet, prius naturaliter infunditur[^4b], quam culpa deleatur. — Alia ratio est, quia, etsi Deus posset delere culpam sine gratia, non tamen decrevit delere nisi per gratiam[^5b]: ergo si dat virtutem Sacramento consonantem suo decreto, non dat virtutem ad culpam delendam, nisi disponendo ad gratiam.

Tertia positio est, quod in circumcisione *delebatur culpa,* et *conferebatur gratia,* et ad utrumque ordinabatur circumcisio; sed gratia quosdam effectus habet *privativos,* quosdam *positivos;* et circumcisio non ordinabatur[^6b] primo et per se nisi quantum ad effectus *privativos;* et ideo solum significabat *ablationem.* Sed quia effectus *privativi* non sunt sine *positivis,* ex consequenti erant ibi effectus *positivi;* et quia ex consequenti, non oportebat eos significari[^7b]. Exemplum autem manifestum est in conversione panis in corpus Christi, in quo est consequenter caro et sanguis, sed tamen non significatur ibi. Effectus autem gratiae *positivi* sunt sicut habilitare ad bona opera, *privativi,* sicut removere culpam. — Sed ista positio non potest stare duplici ratione: prima quidem, quia, si vi circumcisionis ponitur gratia in anima et potentiis, quia delet culpam, quae in his est; cum poni gratiam in anima non sit

<!-- page 44 -->

aliud quam *gratificari,* et in potentiis quam *potentias habilitari:* ergo non separantur nec secundum rem nec secundum intellectum: ergo impossibile est ponere vel intelligere, quod circumcisio habeat vim ad unum, quin etiam habeat ad reliquum[^1c]. — Alia ratio est, quia effectus *positivi* aliqui secundum rem idem sunt cum *privativis,* quia, sicut lumen materiale nunquam delet tenebras nisi illuminando aëra, sic nec lumen[^2c] gratiae tenebras peccati.

Quarta positio fuit, quod in circumcisione dabatur gratia, sed tamen parvula respectu eius quae datur in baptismo. Et ratio huius videbitur in sequenti distinctione[^3c], cum de profectu Sacramentorum disputabitur. Et quia gratia quantumcumque parva plenum effectum habet ad delendum omnem culpam mortalem, sed semiplenum ad habilitandum animas et perficiendum; ideo circumcisio dicitur ordinari ad effectum *ablationis culpae,* non quia ipsum solum habeat, sed quia solum habet completum. Et quia Sacramentum non omne significat, quod facit, sed quod plenius et perfectius facit; ideo in circumcisione solum est signum *ablationis* principaliter.

Et per hoc patent auctoritates et obiecta:

1. quia nec Glossa nec Magister voluerunt negare, quod nullo modo daretur gratia habilitans, sed quod ita parum habilitans et ita parum reprimens concupiscentiam, quod solum merebatur dici deletiva culpae, non habilitativa potentiae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de significatione, patet responsio, quod illud debet Sacramentum significare quod plene et perfecte facit, non omne quod facit ex consequenti sive imperfecte.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus subtrahit gratiam et non facit culpam, ergo etc.; dicendum, quod Deus dicitur subtrahere gratiam, non quia perimat datam, sed quia ultra non apponit; sed homo per culpam perimit datam, et ita non conveniunt in effectu Deus et culpa[^4c].

4. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod illud nihil valet, quia, sicut solus Deus dat gratiam, ita solus delet oppositum; unde Isaiae quadragesimo tertio[^5c]: *Ego sum, qui deleo iniquitates* etc. Praeterea, si positio illa esset vera, nunquam agens particulare aliquid abiiceret[^6c].

---

english:
<!-- page 42 -->

### QUESTION III. *On the efficacy of circumcision.*

Thirdly, the question is asked concerning the efficacy of circumcision, and it is asked whether the Sacrament of circumcision is conferrative of grace. And that it is not:

1. The Master says this same thing in the text[^1]. The Gloss on Romans four, on that text *He received the sign of faith,* says: "In circumcision only sins were remitted, but grace was not bestowed through it."

2. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by *reason,* because in a Sacrament the account of signifying extends equally as far as, or further than, the account of effecting; but the account of signifying in circumcision lies only in removal[^2]: therefore so does its efficacy.

3. Likewise, as guilt stands to the withdrawal of grace, so grace stands to the removal of guilt; but God, when a man sins, withdraws grace, and yet does not make guilt[^3]: therefore *by a parallel* it is possible that some remedy should remove guilt which nevertheless does not give grace: therefore if this is possible, and reason and authority agree, in circumcision grace is not given.

4. Likewise, if God were the giver of forms, the power of the particular agent would lie only in casting out, not in positing[^4]: therefore since God is the giver of grace, the power of circumcision will lie only in removing the opposite of grace.

2. Likewise, an accident is corrupted in two ways: either through the corruption of the subject, or through the introduction of the contrary[^7]: therefore if circumcision takes away guilt, since it does not corrupt the subject, of necessity it introduces the contrary; but this [contrary] is grace: therefore etc. If you say that guilt is not an accident, but a privation; the same follows, because a privation is not removed from anything except through the positing of a habit: therefore if guilt is the privation of grace, it will never be blotted out unless grace be posited.

3. Likewise, sin signifies a *non-being of morals*[^8]; but it is impossible that God should take away from anyone the *non-being* of nature except by giving *being*—indeed it is not intelligible: therefore it is impossible and unintelligible that he should take away the *non-being* of morals except by giving *being;* but the *non-being* of morals is through guilt, and *being* through grace: therefore etc. *If you say* that it is not parallel, because *being* and *non-being* are immediate, but not so guilt and grace[^9]; *against* this is that privation and habit, with respect to their subject of inherence, are immediate, just as affirmation and negation: therefore it is impossible to deprive of the one without the other being posited.

4. Likewise, if circumcision blots out guilt, grace also blots it out; either, then, circumcision blots out through grace, or conversely, or both at once; but it is established that not both at once, because, since they are not the same in substance, they do not have the same immediate operation[^10]. Likewise, grace [does] not [act] through circumcision, because, if there were no circumcision, grace by itself would sufficiently blot out guilt as the immediate cause: therefore circumcision blots out through grace: therefore circumcision is ordered prior toward grace than toward the blotting-out of guilt.

**On the contrary:** 1. That in circumcision grace is given is shown: because by the same power there is the corruption of one opposite and the generation of the other[^5], and by the same power by which one departs from one of the opposites, one approaches the other: therefore since grace and guilt are opposites, by the same power by which guilt is blotted out, grace is conferred: therefore if circumcision is for the blotting-out of guilt, it is necessary that in it grace be conferred. *If you say* that this does not hold in morals; this is nothing, because Ambrose[^6] says that "the going-out of vice is the entrance of virtue."

<!-- page 43 -->

> ### CONCLUSION.
>
> In circumcision grace was conferred, but only a small [grace] in comparison with the great grace which is given in baptism.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this point different men have held different views.

For the position of some was that original [sin], as it is guilt, is concupiscence with the debt of not coveting; and it is not guilt because of *concupiscence*—for this is [also] in the justified—but because it is *with the debt of not coveting.* When, therefore, original guilt is blotted out, since it is blotted out as to liability and remains as to act[^1b], they say that the *debt* is discharged, that is, not imputed; and so then concupiscence remains, in act a *penalty.* This, then, is what they say *original [sin] is blotted out* means, that is, the debt of not coveting is not imputed; and this indeed can be done, and is done in circumcision, without the conferral of any grace. — But this answer cannot stand, for two reasons: one indeed, because, if God does not impute to the soul itself this debt which before he imputed; then either some innovation has been made about the *soul,* or a change about *God;* not a change about *God,* therefore an innovation about the *soul:* therefore either something has been *removed* from it, or *posited.* If *removed,* either a *good* or an *evil;* not a *good,* therefore an *evil;* not an evil of penalty only, therefore of *guilt:* therefore if guilt is a privation, which is not taken away unless something be posited there; it is necessary that something be *posited.* But nothing is posited in the soul which expels guilt, except grace[^2b]. — The other reason is: that, if only the *debt* were not imputed, and grace were not given; since no one can see God who has not had grace[^3b], then a just man cleansed from original sin through circumcision, if he die, since he has not had grace, will not see God: therefore he will have the same penalty as if he had original [sin].

Another position went somewhat further, and said that in circumcision *grace was given,* and *guilt was blotted out;* but *guilt was blotted out* by the power of circumcision, [while] *grace was not given* by its power, but from the liberality of God, who does not blot out guilt without adorning the soul and making it pleasing to himself; although he *could* do otherwise, because according to nature there is a mean between guilt and grace, namely *innocence* itself, and to blot out guilt is to add innocence; but God never restores innocence without superadding grace. And by this they answer the objections about contrariety and about habit and privation, because *grace* is not directly and immediately the habit opposed to *guilt,* but *innocence* is. And to that *innocence,* insofar as it is the privation of guilt, circumcision is ordered, disposing on the part of the recipient, but grace on the part of the agent. — But this position cannot stand, for two reasons: the first indeed, because, if *innocence* were a mean according to nature between guilt and grace, *innocence* would be naturally restored, and *guilt* expelled, prior to *grace* being infused; but this is manifestly false, because then grace would not blot out guilt. For if it blots it out, it is naturally infused first[^4b], before guilt is blotted out. — The other reason is, that, although God could blot out guilt without grace, nevertheless he decreed to blot it out only through grace[^5b]: therefore if he gives to the Sacrament a power consonant with his decree, he does not give a power for blotting out guilt except by disposing toward grace.

The third position is that in circumcision *guilt was blotted out,* and *grace was conferred,* and circumcision was ordered toward both; but grace has some *privative* effects, some *positive;* and circumcision was not ordered[^6b] first and per se except as to the *privative* effects; and therefore it signified only *removal.* But because the *privative* effects are not without the *positive,* the *positive* effects were there as a consequence; and because [they were there only] as a consequence, it was not necessary that they be signified[^7b]. And the manifest example is in the conversion of bread into the body of Christ, in which there is consequently flesh and blood, but yet it is not signified there. Now the *positive* effects of grace are such as to enable for good works, the *privative* such as to remove guilt. — But this position cannot stand, for two reasons: the first indeed, because, if by the power of circumcision grace is posited in the soul and its powers, since it blots out the guilt which is in these; since to posit grace in the soul is nothing

<!-- page 44 -->

other than to *be gratified,* and [to posit it] in the powers nothing other than for the *powers to be enabled:* therefore they are not separated either in reality or in understanding: therefore it is impossible to posit or to understand that circumcision should have power toward the one without having it also toward the other[^1c]. — The other reason is, that some *positive* effects are in reality the same as the *privative,* because, just as material light never blots out darkness except by illuminating the air, so neither does the light[^2c] of grace [blot out] the darkness of sin [except by enabling the soul].

The fourth position was that in circumcision grace was given, but yet a small one in comparison with that which is given in baptism. And the reason for this will be seen in the following distinction[^3c], when the advancement of the Sacraments is discussed. And because grace, however small, has a full effect for blotting out all mortal guilt, but a half-full effect for enabling and perfecting souls; therefore circumcision is said to be ordered toward the effect of the *removal of guilt,* not because it has that alone, but because it has that alone in complete [measure]. And because a Sacrament does not signify everything that it does, but what it does more fully and more perfectly; therefore in circumcision there is a sign chiefly of *removal* only.

And by this the authorities and objections are made clear:

1. because neither the Gloss nor the Master willed to deny that enabling grace was given in any way at all, but [held] that it enabled so little and so little repressed concupiscence, that it merited only to be called blotting-out of guilt, not enabling of the power.

2. To that which is objected concerning signification, the answer is clear: that the Sacrament ought to signify that which it does fully and perfectly, not everything which it does as a consequence or imperfectly.

3. To that which is objected, that God withdraws grace and does not make guilt, therefore etc.; it must be said that God is said to withdraw grace, not because he destroys what was given, but because he no longer adds [more]; but a man through guilt destroys what was given, and so God and guilt do not coincide in the effect[^4c].

4. To the last [objection] it must be said that it has no force, because, just as God alone gives grace, so he alone blots out the opposite; hence in Isaiah forty-three[^5c]: *I am he that blots out iniquities,* etc. Moreover, if that position were true, a particular agent would never cast anything out[^6c].

---

la: Hic c. 9. — Seq. textus est Rom. 4, 11, et Glossa exhibetur a Petro Lombardo in hunc loc.

en: Here, c. 9. — The following text is Rom. 4:11, and the Gloss is presented by Peter Lombard on this passage.

la: Vide supra q. 1.

en: See above, q. 1.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. — In codd. M O, finito hoc arg., duo alia subiiciuntur: *Item, si conferretur in circumcisione gratia, et auferretur culpa, tunc non excederetur a baptismo, et hinc Sacramenta veteris legis novis aequipararentur.* — Item, si temporis illius Sacramenta contulerunt gratiam, sicut huius temporis Sacramenta, quare nunc dicitur tempus gratiae potius quam tunc?

en: Cf. *Sentences* Book II, d. 37, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1. — In codd. M O, when this argument is finished, two others are subjoined: *Likewise, if grace were conferred in circumcision, and guilt taken away, then it would not be surpassed by baptism, and hence the Sacraments of the old law would be made equal to the new.* — Likewise, if the Sacraments of that time conferred grace, just as the Sacraments of this time, why is the present rather than then called the time of grace?

la: Respicitur opinio Avicennae, qua distinguitur duplex principium formarum, scil. *praeparans* i. e. quod praeviis permutationibus materiam disponit, et *perficiens* i. e. quod tribuit formam constituentem, hocque « est extra naturalia » et vocatur « dator formarum ». Vide eius I. Sufficientiae c. 5. et 10, nec non Metaph. tr. 9. c. 5, cuius in tom. II. pag. 198, nota 3. mentionem fecimus. — Pro *particularis,* quod habent codd. A B C E F H P Q Z bb, cod. K *secundi,* alii codd. et ed. 1 perperam *primi,* Vat. *primarii.*

en: Reference is made to the opinion of Avicenna, by which a twofold principle of forms is distinguished, namely the *preparing* one, i.e. that which disposes the matter by prior changes, and the *perfecting* one, i.e. that which bestows the constituting form, and this "is outside the natural [agents]" and is called the "giver of forms." See his *Sufficientia* I, cc. 5 and 10, as well as *Metaphysics* tr. 9, c. 5, of which we made mention in tom. II, p. 198, note 3. — For *particular,* which codd. A B C E F H P Q Z bb have, cod. K [reads] *of the second,* other codd. and ed. 1 wrongly *of the first,* the Vatican edition *primary.*

la: Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 17. (c. 3.): Huius corruptio alterius est generatio, et huius generatio alterius est corruptio. Cfr. etiam III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. arg. 1. ad oppos., ubi affertur exemplum de pondere, per quod corpus recedit ab una differentia positionis et accedit ad alteram. In huius arg. solutione negatur *similitudo* exempli et docetur, quod non valeat in *voluntariis,* sive, ut hic dicitur, *in moribus.* — Mox pro *vi* cod. M (I a secunda manu) *via.*

en: Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 17 (c. 3): the corruption of the one is the generation of the other, and the generation of the one is the corruption of the other. Cf. also *Sentences* Book III, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1, arg. 1 at the objections, where the example of weight is brought forward, by which a body departs from one differentia of position and approaches another. In the solution of that argument the *parallel* of the example is denied, and it is taught that it does not hold in *voluntary matters,* or, as is said here, *in morals.* — Soon after, for *power* cod. M (I by a second hand) [reads] *way.*

la: Libr. II. de Cain et Abel, c. 4. n. 16: *Egressus enim malitiae virtutis operatur ingressum.* — Pro *est ingressus* cod. G *operatur ingressum.* Non pauci codd. *Boethius dicit* (cfr. III. de Consolat. prosa 4. et in Categorias sive Praedicam. Aristot. c. *de Oppositis*), cod. bb *Hilarius dicit.*

en: *On Cain and Abel* Book II, c. 4, n. 16: *For the going-out of malice works the entrance of virtue.* — For *is the entrance* cod. G [reads] *works the entrance.* Not a few codd. [read] *Boethius says* (cf. *On Consolation* III, prose 4, and on Aristotle's *Categories* or *Predicaments,* c. *On Opposites*), cod. bb *Hilary says.*

la: Secundum Aristot., de quo vide tom. II. pag. 192, nota 7. — Inferius pro *sed hoc* plures codd. *sed haec.* Subinde pro *accidens* cod. Z *habitus aliquis.*

en: According to Aristotle, on whom see tom. II, p. 192, note 7. — Lower down, for *but this* several codd. [read] *but these.* Then for *accident* cod. Z [reads] *some habit.*

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 640, nota 8. et ibid. d. 35. dub. 6.

en: See tom. II, p. 640, note 8, and ibid. d. 35, dub. 6.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. q. 4. ad 6. — De subnexis vide Aristot. de Praedicam. c. *de Oppositis.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* Book III, d. 36, q. 4, ad 6. — On what is subjoined see Aristotle, *On the Predicaments,* c. *On Opposites.*

la: Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 14: *Quorum enim substantia est eadem, horum et... actio* [ἐνέργεια] *eadem; quorum autem diversa substantia, horum et diversa... actio.*

en: [John] Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III, c. 14: *For those whose substance is the same, of these the... operation* [ἐνέργεια] *is also the same; but those whose substance is diverse, of these the... operation is also diverse.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Post pauca verbis *non imputatur* codd. E G K N Y Z aa bb praemittunt *illud debitum.* Inferius pro *non concupiscendi,* quod habent codd. F H (K a secunda manu), alii codd. cum edd. perperam *concupiscendi.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* Book II, d. 30, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 32, a. 1, q. 1f. — After a little, before the words *is not imputed,* codd. E G K N Y Z aa bb prefix *that debt.* Lower down, for *of not coveting,* which codd. F H present (K by a second hand), the other codd. with the editions wrongly [read] *of coveting.*

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 26. q. 1. — Ante verba *aliquid poni* cod. Z (bb a secunda manu) repetit *ibi.*

en: See *Sentences* Book II, d. 26, q. 1. — Before the words *something be posited,* cod. Z (bb by a second hand) repeats *there.*

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3, et III. Sent. d. 14. a. 1. q. 1. et 3. — De seq. propos. cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1.

en: As was shown in *Sentences* Book II, d. 23, a. 2, q. 3, and Book III, d. 14, a. 1, qq. 1 and 3. — On the following proposition cf. *Sentences* Book II, d. 33, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Cod. cc supplet *gratia.* Ed. 1 legit: *Si enim deleret prius innocentia, quam culpa deleretur,* Vat.: *Sic enim prius naturaliter deleretur culpa per innocentiam, quam gratia infunderetur.* Nostra lectio praebetur a codd., quorum tamen aliqui male omittunt *delet* et incongrue substituunt *infundatur* pro *infunditur.* — De hac ratione vide infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cod. cc supplies *grace.* Ed. 1 reads: *For if innocence blotted out [guilt] before guilt were blotted out,* the Vatican edition: *For thus guilt would be blotted out naturally first through innocence, before grace were infused.* Our reading is given by the codices, some of which however wrongly omit *blots out* and incongruously substitute *be infused* for *is infused.* — On this reasoning see below, d. 17, part I, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 7. a. 4. § 1: *Etsi innocentia sit medium inter gratiam et culpam, habito respectu ad statum naturae conditae, non tamen est medium, habito respectu ad statum lapsus* etc. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. et d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6.

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV, q. 4, m. 7, a. 4, § 1: *Although innocence is a mean between grace and guilt, regard being had to the state of created nature, nevertheless it is not a mean, regard being had to the state of the fall,* etc. Cf. *Sentences* Book II, d. 28, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6, and d. 29, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6.

la: Cod. F (V a secunda manu) addit *ad gratiam.* Mox plures codd. et ed. 1 *significat* pro *significabat.*

en: Cod. F (V by a second hand) adds *toward grace.* Soon, several codd. and ed. 1 [read] *signifies* for *signified.*

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 7. a. 4. § 1. supplet *Sacramento circumcisionis.* Vat., interpunctione mutata, *et quia ex consequenti non oportebat eos significari, ideo ablationem culpae privativum effectum solum significabat. Exemplum* etc.

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV, q. 4, m. 7, a. 4, § 1, supplies *to the Sacrament of circumcision.* The Vatican edition, with the punctuation changed: *and because as a consequence it was not necessary that they be signified, therefore it signified only the privative effect, the removal of guilt. The example* etc.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 26. q. 5. et d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. — Superius post *non* [cod. R *nihil*] *sit aliud* cod. Z prosequitur *quam eam gratificari, et gratiam in potentiis.*

en: See *Sentences* Book II, d. 26, q. 5, and d. 27, a. 1, q. 1. — Above, after *not* [cod. R *nothing*] *be other,* cod. Z continues *than to gratify it, and grace in the powers.*

la: Cod. U addit *spirituale, scilicet lumen.*

en: Cod. U adds *spiritual, namely light.*

la: Art. 1. q. 2. — Inferius pro *animas* cod. G *animam,* edd. *potentias animae.* Immediate post pro *et perficiendum* plures codd. *et proficiendum,* codd. I V *et ad proficiendum,* cod. A et edd. *ad proficiendum.*

en: Article 1, q. 2. — Lower down, for *souls* cod. G [reads] *soul,* the editions *the powers of the soul.* Immediately after, for *and perfecting* several codd. [read] *and advancing,* codd. I V *and for advancing,* cod. A and the editions *for advancing.*

la: Vers. 25. — Inferius pro *particulare* Vat. *principale.*

en: Verse 25. — Lower down, for *particular* the Vatican edition [reads] *principal.*

en: See the scholion to the 4th[?] question of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p042-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p043-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p044-{L,R}-*`; split_x = 1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 5073–5319), which cascade-shatters the two-column *videtur* / *Contra* / Respondeo (the four *positiones*) / *Ad obiecta* and every footer. Printed pp. 42–44 = PDF pp. 62–64 (offset pdf = printed + 20). This is Part II, Article II, Question III — the THIRD and LAST of Article II's three questions on circumcision (*De efficacia circumcisionis*). This chunk **CLOSES Pars II, Article II**; the next chunk is the Pars II `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` opening at raw L5320.

**Span correction (finding).** The dispatch brief estimated q3 at ~pp.42–43 (raw 5073–5319). Verified span is **pp.42–44**: q3's opener is at the foot of printed p.42 (running head "42 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.", raw L5073); the *videtur*/objection arguments and *Contra* fill p.42; the CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO (positions 1–3) fill p.43 (running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 43", raw L5160); and the **Quarta positio** + the entire *Ad obiecta* (replies 1–4) spill into the **top-left and top-right of p.44** (running head "44 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.", raw L5258), closing at "…signum *ablationis* principaliter" / reply 4 "…aliquid abiiceret[^6c]" immediately above the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (raw L5320). frontmatter `printed_pages: [42,43,44]`, `pdf_pages: [62,63,64]` reflect the corrected span.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** The QUAESTIO III heading (raw L5073, printed p.42) and the body opener *Tertio quaeritur de efficacia circumcisionis, et quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum circumcisionis sit gratiae collativum* key to the article's third listed question (efficacy: whether circumcision confers grace). No q-swap — q2 (*De forma sive de integritate*) is distinct and closed at the foot of p.41; the following `DUB. I` (raw L5320, *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…*) is the Pars II dubia, not a fourth quaestio.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.42** (PDF 62; running head "42 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): QUAESTIO III opens in the lower-left column (title + *Tertio quaeritur* + the *Ad oppositum / Quod non* args 1–4) and runs into the right column (objection args 2–4) and the lower-left *Contra* arg 1. Footer note-series **1–10** (left col nn.1–5, right col nn.6–10) — all claimed here → [^1]–[^10]. (Numbered-arg order in the print is interleaved across columns: left-col *Quod non* nn.1–4 carry markers [^1]–[^4]; the *Contra* carries [^5]–[^6]; right-col objection args 2–4 carry [^7]–[^10]. The reflow above restores reading order: *Quod non* 1–4, then right-col objections 2–4, then *Contra* — matching the OCR raw order and the print's marker numbering.)
- **p.43** (PDF 63; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 43"): CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO, and the **first three** *positiones* (their statement + the twofold refutation of each), the third position spilling onto p.44. Footer note-series **1–7** (left col nn.1–4, right col nn.5–7) → [^1b]–[^7b].
- **p.44** (PDF 64; running head "44 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): the tail of the third position's refutation, the **Quarta positio** (the author's own: small grace given), and the full *Ad obiecta* (replies 1–4) — q3 closes at the top of the right column ("…aliquid abiiceret") immediately above the DUBIA header. Footer note-series **1–6** belong to q3 (left col nn.1–4 = reliquum¹, lumen², sequenti distinctione³, Deus-et-culpa⁴; right col nn.5–6 = Isaiae-43⁵, abiiceret/scholion-redirect⁶) → [^1c]–[^6c]. **The same printed p.44 carries DUB. I's footers nn.7–10** (efficaciora⁷, originalis⁸, etc.) — those are NOT claimed here; they belong to the forthcoming Pars II dubia chunk (see hand-off forwarded).

**Marker numbering.** To keep the three per-page footer sequences distinct, p.42's notes use plain markers [^1]–[^10], p.43's use `b`-suffixed [^1b]–[^7b], and p.44's use `c`-suffixed [^1c]–[^6c]. Marker pairing: Latin body = English body = defs (23 defs total).

**Scholion scope (finding).** `has_scholion: false` — VERIFIED. There is **no SCHOLION header in q3's raw range (L5073–5319)**. Two scholion references confirm q3 defers its scholion: (a) q2's own p.41 footer n.10 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) sits on the page before this question; and (b) **q3's own p.44 footer n.6 = [^6c]** reads `Vide scholion ad … huius articuli quaest.` — an explicit redirect to the article-master scholion. The single **article-master SCHOLION for Article II lives in `bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-a2-q1`** (printed lower p.38 → p.39, §§I–III); per the dispatch brief and a2-q1's master scholion, **§III treats this q3** (the efficacy of circumcision / conferral of grace). q3 therefore correctly carries no scholion of its own, mirroring the established Article-II pattern (q1 holds the article-master scholion; q2 → §II, q3 → §III). No scholion was invented here.

**[?] flag.** [^6c]: the OCR footer reads `Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.` ("…to the 4th question of this article") but Article II has only **three** questions; the "4." is most likely an OCR digit-mangle of a different numeral (the scholion-bearing question, i.e. q1's article-master scholion §III), or refers to a section/§ number within the scholion. Rendered literally as printed with the En. flagged; the redirect's *referent* (the a2-q1 master scholion §III) is established independently from the q-structure. Low impact — does not affect body text. Flagged for the d.10 polish-blocker 600 dpi pass.

**Hand-off picked up ← `d1-p2-a2-q2`:** q2 forwarded NOTHING — it closed cleanly at the foot of p.41's right column; printed p.42 begins with this QUAESTIO III heading and its own per-page footer bands. q2 claimed all p.41 footers nn.1–10. Honored: q3 opens its own per-page band at **p.42 note 1** and does **NOT** re-claim any p.39/p.40/p.41 footer (q2's [^1]–[^6], [^1b]–[^9b], [^1c]–[^10c]).

**Hand-off forwarded → Pars II `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (next chunk, raw L5320):** **p.44 is a SHARED page.** q3 closes at the top of p.44's right column ("…aliquid abiiceret[^6c]"); the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (raw L5320, DUB. I *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…*) begins lower in the right column and runs onward. **The Pars II dubia chunk must claim p.44 footers nn.7–10** (`Vide infra d.2…` for *efficaciora⁷*; `Cfr. supra p.1. q.4.…` for *originalis⁸*; the Alexander-of-Hales note n.9; the `Cod. U fallacia consequentis…` note n.10) — q3 claims ONLY p.44 nn.1–6. The dubia chunk should open its own per-page footer band continuing at p.44 note 7 (NOT note 1), since the first six p.44 notes are exhausted by q3's body.

**OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF:** *efjicacia*→*efficacia*, *Sacramenlum*→*Sacramentum*, *Magisler*→*Magister*, *Giossa*→*Glossa*, *Ilem*→*Item*, *propler*→*propter*, *subiecli*→*subiecti*, *contrarii*→*contrarii*, *delwt*→[n/a], *posj^ry*→*positivi*, *aiiqui*→*aliqui*, *illuininando*→*illuminando*, *aera*→*aëra*, *Quarla posilio*→*Quarta positio*, *corapletum*→*completum*, *facit-*→*facit,*, *ahquid*→*aliquid*, *abiiceret*→*abiiceret*, *D[ST.*→*DIST.*, *OUAEST.*→*QUAEST.*, *htteram*→*litteram*, *dnplici*→*duplici*, *innovalio*→*innovatio*, *poenae*→*poenae*, *decoret*→*decoret*, *infunderelur*→*infunderetur*, *consonanlem*→*consonantem*, *suo decreto*→*suo decreto*, *aufert cul-pam*→*aufert culpam*, *necessi-tate*→*necessitate*, *raagis*→[n/a]. All corrected from the 450 dpi bands; the four-position structure and the *Ad obiecta* replies are fully legible.

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