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

source_text:
<!-- page 33 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum ad remissionem originalis sufficeret sola fides.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ad remissionem originalis sufficeret sola fides. Et quod sic, videtur[^1]:

1. Per verbum Gregorii, quod ponitur in littera[^2]: « Pro parvulis sola fides ».

2. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore[^3] dicit, quod « tempore legis naturae non fuerunt aliqua Sacramenta in praecepto », ergo sine omnibus poterat homo salvari; sed nullus poterat salvari sine remissione originalis: ergo remissio originalis poterat fieri sine aliquo Sacramento exteriori in sola fide.

3. Item, si tempore illo Sacramenta virtutem totam habebant a fide: ergo tantum faciebat sola fides, quantum fides cum illis Sacramentis: ergo videtur, quod sola fide parentum potuerunt[^4] salvari.

**Contra:**

1. Si parvulis sufficiebat sola fides tunc temporis, et modo non sufficit nec tempore circumcisionis sufficiebat: ergo videtur, quod fides tunc esset maioris virtutis quam post: ergo videtur, post fuisse deterioris conditionis. Sed post non fuit deterioris conditionis[^5]: ergo si post non sufficeret, nec prius.

2. Item, si sola fides sufficiebat, ergo parvulus in omni statu salvari poterat: cum ergo nihil oporteret circa corpus pueri fieri, videtur, quod posset[^6] iustificari in ventre matris.

3. Item, videtur, quod non posset parvulus mori sine remedio, parentibus existentibus fidelibus; sed modo non sic est, immo possunt et praepediuntur

<!-- page 34 -->

etiam nati: ergo sunt peioris conditionis in statu gratiae quam in statu naturae.

### Conclusio

> In remissionem peccati originalis parvulis tunc sufficiebat fidei professio, qualitercumque fieret, sive signo, sive verbo, sive actu cordis, dum tamen fieret a parentibus cum respectu ad parvulum.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc est duplex opinio cum dicitur, quod fides parentum erat in remedium parvulo.

Quidam dicunt, quod non fides — habitus, sed ratione actus et motus sive professionis, et non cuiuscumque professionis sed eius qua profitebantur, parvulum curandum esse ab eo quem exspectabant[^7]. Et de hac professione quidam dicunt, quod oportebat, quod fieret professio non tantum actu mentis vel oris, sed etiam in signo visibili, ut puta in oblatione vel in sacrificio sive decimatione, vel aliquo alio signo; quoniam Ecclesia fidelium semper aliqua signa habuit, in quibus fideles colligebantur et profitebantur fidem in facto. Unde Augustinus contra Faustum[^8]: « In nullum nomen religionis sive verum sive falsum, coadunari possent homines nisi aliquo signorum velut Sacramentorum visibilium consortio unirentur ». Unde dicunt, quod aliquod erat signum cum fide. Et quod dicit Gregorius sola fide intelligit: fide[^9] parentum sine consensu vel fide parvuli. — Sed haec positio non congruit, quia ipse addit in auctoritate: « vel pro maioribus virtus sacrificii ». Quare ergo dicit sola? Quia[^10], cum de maioribus agit, addit et dicit: virtus sacrificii; praeterea, cum nulla[^11] essent necessitatis, etsi talis professio de congruo deberet esse cum fide, non tamen necessario. Unde Hugo: « Commonemur, quod illa Sacramenta primi temporis magis ad devotionem proposita fuerunt quam ad obtinendam salutem indicta ».

Propter hoc alia positio dicit, quod professio fidei sufficiebat, qualitercumque fieret, sive signo, sive verbo, sive actu cordis, dum tamen fieret a parentibus, et haberetur respectus ad parvulum.

Si autem quaeratur: quare magis fides parentum? dici potest, quod parentes dicuntur hic omnes qui curam gerebant de parvulo; aut si dicantur parentes proprie, ratio, quare magis in fide ipsorum, est: quia per ipsos parvulus contraxerat culpam, congruum erat, ut eorum fide mereretur gratiam.

**Ad obiecta:**

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videtur fides deteriorata; dicendum, quod illud non sequitur simpliciter, quod fides sit deteriorata, sed quod vel deteriorata est, vel aliquid sit ei adiunctum, quod necessitate servari oportet, sicut sunt instituta Sacramenta sub praecepto. Exemplum de observantia mandatorum in eo qui est liberae voluntatis, et in eo qui intravit religionem: primo sufficit ad salutem, secundo non[^12].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum hoc parvulus in ventre matris posset iustificari; dicendum, quod non habebat efficaciam fides secundum communem legem, nisi quando natus erat ex utero, sicut nec baptismus. Deus enim secundum ius commune non regenerat nisi prius per naturam natum. Quare autem non, infra dicetur in tractatu de baptismo[^13].

3. Sed quod de natis obiicit, dicendum, quod habent se sicut excedentia[^14] et excessa. In hoc enim excedit illud, quod parvulo periclitanti facilius poterat subveniri; sed in hoc aliud excedit, quia, parentibus entibus infidelibus, adultus salvari poterat, sed parvulus non; praeterea, dubium est, quin

<!-- page 35 -->

oporteret, utrumque esse fidelem; et alia multa bona nunc habentur, quae non tunc[^15], ut puta maior certitudo salutis, maius munus gratiae et alia bona, quae proveniunt, scilicet obedientia et humiliatio et consimilia; et ideo non sequitur ex hoc, quod status ille esset melior.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether for the remission of original [sin] faith alone would suffice.*

Secondly it is asked whether for the remission of original [sin] faith alone would suffice. And that it would, seems to be the case[^1]:

1. From the word of Gregory, which is placed in the text [of Lombard][^2]: « For little children faith alone [suffices] ».

2. Likewise, Hugh of Saint Victor[^3] says that « in the time of the law of nature there were not any Sacraments under precept »; therefore without any [of them] a man could be saved; but no one could be saved without the remission of original [sin]: therefore the remission of original [sin] could come about without any exterior Sacrament, by faith alone.

3. Likewise, if in that time the Sacraments had all their power from faith: then faith alone accomplished as much as faith together with those Sacraments: therefore it seems that by the faith of the parents alone they could[^4] be saved.

**On the contrary:**

1. If faith alone sufficed for little children at that time, and now does not suffice, nor did it suffice in the time of circumcision: then it seems that faith was then of greater power than afterward: therefore it seems that afterward [the condition] was of worse standing. But afterward [the condition] was not of worse standing[^5]: therefore if afterward it would not suffice, neither would it before.

2. Likewise, if faith alone sufficed, then a little child could be saved in any state: since therefore nothing would need to be done about the body of the boy, it seems that he could[^6] be justified in the mother's womb.

3. Likewise, it seems that a little child could not die without remedy, the parents being faithful; but now it is not so, indeed they can [die] and are hindered

even after being born: therefore they are of worse standing in the state of grace than in the state of nature.

### Conclusion

> For the remission of the sin of original [guilt] in little children at that time a profession of faith sufficed, in whatever way it was made, whether by sign, or by word, or by an act of the heart, provided it was made by the parents with respect to the little child.

**I respond:** On this there is a twofold opinion, when it is said that the faith of the parents was a remedy for the little child.

Some say that [it was] not faith — [as] a habit, but by reason of the act and movement, that is, of the profession, and not of any profession whatever but of that by which they professed that the little child was to be cared for by him whom they were awaiting[^7]. And concerning this profession some say that it was necessary that the profession be made not only by an act of the mind or of the mouth, but also in a visible sign, as for instance in an offering or in a sacrifice or a tithing, or some other sign; since the Church of the faithful always had some signs, in which the faithful were gathered and professed their faith in deed. Hence Augustine against Faustus[^8]: « Into no name of religion, whether true or false, could men be brought together unless they were united by the fellowship of some signs, as it were of visible Sacraments ». Hence they say that there was some sign together with faith. And when Gregory says « faith alone » he understands: the faith[^9] of the parents without the consent or faith of the little child. — But this position is not fitting, because he himself adds in the authority: « or for the older ones the power of sacrifice ». Why then does he say « alone »? Because[^10], when he treats of the older ones, he adds and says: the power of sacrifice; furthermore, since none[^11] [of these] were of necessity, even if such a profession ought by congruity to be together with faith, yet [it was] not [so] of necessity. Hence Hugh: « We are admonished that those Sacraments of the first time were set forth rather for devotion than enjoined for obtaining salvation ».

On account of this another position says that a profession of faith sufficed, in whatever way it was made, whether by sign, or by word, or by an act of the heart, provided it was made by the parents, and respect was had to the little child.

But if it be asked: why rather the faith of the parents? it can be said that « parents » are here called all who took care of the little child; or if « parents » be taken properly, the reason why [it is] rather in their faith is: because through them the little child had contracted the guilt, it was fitting that by their faith he should merit grace.

**To the objections:**

1. To that which is objected, that faith seems to be made worse; it must be said that it does not follow simply that faith is made worse, but that either it is made worse, or something is adjoined to it which must of necessity be observed, as are the Sacraments instituted under precept. [There is] an example concerning the observance of the commandments in one who is of free will, and in one who has entered religion: for the first it suffices for salvation, for the second not[^12].

2. To that which is objected, that according to this a little child could be justified in the mother's womb; it must be said that faith did not have efficacy according to the common law, except when [the child] was born from the womb, just as neither [did] baptism. For God according to the common law does not regenerate [one] unless first born through nature. Why, however, [it is] not [so], will be said below in the treatise on baptism[^13].

3. But as to what he objects concerning those born, it must be said that they stand related as exceeding[^14] and exceeded. For in this respect the one exceeds, that a little child in danger could more easily be helped; but in this respect the other exceeds, because, the parents being unbelievers, an adult could be saved, but a little child not; furthermore, it is doubtful whether

it would be required that both be faithful; and many other good things are now had which [were] not then[^15], as for instance a greater certitude of salvation, a greater gift of grace and other goods which come about, namely obedience and humiliation and the like; and therefore it does not follow from this that that state would be better.

---

la: Hic c. 8. Cod. G integrum Gregorii testimonium affert, prout a Magistro loc. cit. exhibetur, cod. Z post *Pro parvulis* addit *remedium erat.* Idem cod. Z superius post *sola* adiungit *sine aliis, scilicet sine signo exteriori et motu interiori.*

en: Here [in Lombard's text] c. 8. Codex G adduces the whole testimony of Gregory, as it is set out by the Master in the place cited; codex Z, after *For little children,* adds *there was a remedy.* The same codex Z, above, after *alone,* adjoins *without other things, namely without an exterior sign and an interior movement.*

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 8; cfr. ibid. c. 3.

en: Book I of *On the Sacraments,* part XI, c. 8; cf. ibid. c. 3.

la: Codd. F H K *poterant.*

en: Codices F H K [read] *they were able to.*

la: Codd. F H Z (L a secunda manu) *sed hoc est falsum.* Mox pro *non sufficeret* codd. F H I K Z *non sufficit.*

en: Codices F H Z (L by a second hand) [read] *but this is false.* Presently, for *would not suffice,* codices F H I K Z [read] *does not suffice.*

la: Ita cod. F (E I a secunda manu), in aliis *possit.* Superius pro *oporteret* cod. Z *oportebat.*

en: So codex F (E I by a second hand); in the others, *can.* Above, for *would need* codex Z [reads] *needed.*

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *exspectabat.*

en: The editions, with several codices, [read] *was awaiting.*

la: Libr. XIX. c. 11, cfr. supra pag. 12, nota 1.

en: [Augustine, *Contra Faustum*] Book XIX, c. 11; cf. above, page 12, note 1.

la: Cod. G (K a secunda manu) *de fide.* Hugo a S. Vict. — Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1: *Sed cum pro parvulis sacrificia offerentur, quomodo verum erit quod dicit Gregorius* « Sola pro parvulis fides »? *Ad quod potest dici, quod per* sola *non excluduntur sacrificia; sed dicitur* sola fides *i. e. nuda et in mysterio velata tunc fuisse in parvulis i. e. in iis quibus non erat revelatio facta futurae incarnationis.* Pro *maioribus virtus sacrificii: quia perfecti, quibus revelatum fuerat mysterium incarnationis, virtutem sacrificiorum intelligebant, quid scilicet significarent illa sacrificia.*

en: Codex G (K by a second hand) [reads] *of faith.* Hugh of St. Victor. — *Sum. Sent.* tr. 4, c. 1: *But since sacrifices were offered for little children, how will what Gregory says be true,* « Faith alone for little children »? *To which it can be said that by* alone *sacrifices are not excluded; but it is said* faith alone *i. e. that it was then bare and veiled in mystery in the little children, i. e. in those to whom the revelation of the future incarnation had not been made.* For *the older ones, the power of sacrifice: because the perfect, to whom the mystery of the incarnation had been revealed, understood the power of the sacrifices, namely what those sacrifices signified.*

la: Locus in edd. et fere omnibus codd. corruptus. Notavimus 16 diversas lectiones in solis codd., et quidem omnes corruptas vel parum congruas; sequimur cod. cc.

en: The passage is corrupt in the editions and in nearly all the codices. We have noted 16 different readings in the codices alone, and indeed all corrupt or scarcely congruous; we follow codex cc.

la: Cod. K (bb a secunda manu) supplet *Sacramenta,* cod. U legit *cum illa sacra non essent,* codd. A M *cum nullius essent.* — Respicitur dictum Hugonis a S. Vict. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 3: *Illa* (Sacramenta sub naturali lege) *voluntatis magis esse videntur, ista* (Sacramenta sub gratia) *necessitatis, illa ex voto celebrata, ista ex praecepto* etc. — Seq. Hugonis testimonium habetur ibidem: *Unde coniicimus, quod Sacramenta illa prima magis ad exercendam devotionem proposita fuerant, quam* etc. — Pro *commonemur* Vat. *commemoremur.*

en: Codex K (bb by a second hand) supplies *Sacraments,* codex U reads *since those sacred things were not [of necessity],* codices A M *since they were of no one's.* — There is referred to the saying of Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, part XI, c. 3: *Those* (Sacraments under the natural law) *seem to be rather of will, these* (Sacraments under grace) *of necessity, those celebrated from a vow, these from precept,* etc. — There follows the testimony of Hugh, had in the same place: *Whence we conjecture that those first Sacraments had been set forth rather for exercising devotion, than* etc. — For *we are admonished* the Vatican [edition reads] *let us call to mind.*

la: Praepositivus, S. p. IV. q. 3, ad idem ostendendum utitur argumento de eo « qui hodie fecit votum continentiae; heri sufficiebat fides sine continentia, hodie non sufficit: ergo heri fuit fides maioris efficaciae in eo, quam modo sit ».

en: Praepositinus, *Summa* part IV, q. 3, to show the same thing makes use of the argument concerning him « who today made a vow of continence; yesterday faith without continence sufficed, today it does not suffice: therefore yesterday faith was of greater efficacy in him than it now is ».

la: Dist. 6. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Superius pro *ius commune* — quod praebent codd. D F G H P V, codd. Q aa bb *legem communem,* alii codd. vel cum ed. 1 *secundum visionem,* vel cum Vat. *secundum institutionem.* Aliquanto superius codd. E Z *secundum rationem et legem communem* pro *secundum communem legem.*

en: Distinction 6, part II, a. 1, q. 1. — Above, for *common right* — which codices D F G H P V give, codices Q aa bb [read] *the common law,* other codices either with edition 1 *according to vision,* or with the Vatican [edition] *according to institution.* Somewhat above, codices E Z [read] *according to the reckoning and common law* for *according to the common law.*

la: Ita codd. F G H P; alii codd. pro *se sicut excedentia* substituunt vel cum edd. *in se opera excedentia,* vel *se opera sicut excedentia.* Superius post *obiicit* in codd. F H Z V (P a secunda manu) additur *quod nunc magis possunt periclitari.* — Seq. propositionem plurimi codd. sic exhibent: *in hoc enim excedit illud, quod parvulo* (codd. M R T U *parvulus*) *facilius periclitari poterat quam subveniri* (codd. M R T *sublevari,* cod. U *et subveniri*). Inferius pro *entibus,* quod ed. 1 cum aliquot codd. omittit, Vat. *existentibus.* Subinde post *adultus* codd. K aa (H a secunda manu) addunt *per propriam fidem.*

en: So codices F G H P; other codices, for *they stand related as exceeding,* substitute either, with the editions, *in themselves works exceeding,* or *themselves works as exceeding.* Above, after *objects,* in codices F H Z V (P by a second hand) is added *that now they can more [be] in danger.* — The following proposition very many codices set out thus: *for in this respect that exceeds, that for a little child* (codices M R T U *a little child* [nom.]) *it could more easily be in danger than be helped* (codices M R T *be relieved,* codex U *and be helped*). Below, for *being,* which edition 1 with some codices omits, the Vatican [edition reads] *existing.* Presently, after *adult,* codices K aa (H by a second hand) add *by his own faith.*

la: Ita codd. F H; in aliis codd. et edd. *unde* omittitur. Lemma: *verba bona nunc habentur, quae non tunc.*

en: So codices F H; in the other codices and editions *whence* is omitted. The lemma is: *good things are now had, which [were] not then.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p033-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p034-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p035-L-0`/`R-0` for the spillover tail; split_x = 1880); cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 4120–4273), which cascade-shatters the two-column Respondeo + footers. Printed pp. 33–35 = PDF pp. 53–55 (offset pdf = printed + 20). This is Part II, Article I, Question II — the SECOND of Article I's three questions.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** The QUAESTIO II opener *Secundo quaeritur, utrum ad remissionem originalis sufficeret sola fides* (raw L4124, p.33 left column) matches the question title exactly and the divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM second listed question. No q-swap. The following QUAESTIO III (raw L4274, p.35) is *Utrum in adultis requireretur virtus sacrificii in remedium originalis* — a distinct question.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.33** (PDF 53; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II."): q1's Respondeo conclusion + *Ad obiecta* + the article-master SCHOLION occupy the upper region (NOT re-set here). QUAESTIO II's body begins lower: the *videtur* arguments 1–3 (left column) and the *Contra* arguments 1–3 (right column, marginal "Ad oppositum"). Footer note-series **1–8**; **notes 1–2 belong to Question I** (its *Ad obiecta* replies — handed off and already in q1 as [^8]–[^9]), NOT re-claimed here. This question claims **p.33 notes 3–8** (renumbered [^1]–[^6]).
- **p.34** (PDF 54): Contra 3 concludes (top left), then the CONCLUSIO blockquote, the RESPONDEO with two *opiniones* (marginals "Opinio 1." / "Non probatur." left column; "Conclusio." / "Quaestio incidens solvitur." right column), then the *Ad obiecta* / *Solutio oppositorum* replies 1–3 (right column, marginal "Notandum" near reply 2). Footer note-series **1–8**, all claimed here (renumbered [^7]–[^14]).
- **p.35** (PDF 55; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III."): q2's reply-3 tail spills onto the top of p.35 (left column "oporteret… quae non tunc," right column "quae proveniunt… esset melior"), then QUAESTIO III begins. q2 claims **only p.35 note 1** (the marker on *quae non tunc*; renumbered [^15]). **p.35 notes 2 onward belong to the following QUAESTIO III.**

**Marker mapping (per-page → continuous).** p.33 n.3 → [^1] (*videtur*), n.4 → [^2] (*in littera*, Gregory), n.5 → [^3] (*Hugo*), n.6 → [^4] (*potuerunt*), n.7 → [^5] (*deterioris conditionis*), n.8 → [^6] (*posset* iustificari); p.34 n.1 → [^7] (*exspectabant*), n.2 → [^8] (*contra Faustum*), n.3 → [^9] (*fide* parentum / Hugo Sum. Sent.), n.4 → [^10] (*Quia*), n.5 → [^11] (*nulla* / Hugo de Sacram.), n.6 → [^12] (reply 1, *secundo non*, Praepositivus), n.7 → [^13] (reply 2, *de baptismo*, Dist. 6), n.8 → [^14] (reply 3, *excedentia*); p.35 n.1 → [^15] (*quae non tunc*). Marker pairing 15/15/15 (Latin body = English body = defs).

**Scholion scope.** `has_scholion: FALSE`. There is no SCHOLION header within q2's range (verified from the raw L4120–L4273 and the PDF bands — no SCHOLION opener appears). The single article-master SCHOLION (printed at the foot of q1 / top of p.33, spanning both columns) covers all three questions of Article I; its **§II** treats this q2 ("the solution of faith alone for children & adults"). q2 therefore defers to q1's §II — see `bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-a1-q1.md` Notes ("Scholion scope"). The scholion lives in q1, NOT here.

**Hand-off picked up ← `d1-p2-a1-q1`:** p.33 footer notes 3–8 (q1 closed its band at p.33 n.2 = its [^9]; q2 opens a fresh per-page band at p.33 n.3). All six landed as [^1]–[^6]. q1 forwarded "NOTHING" beyond confirming the p.33 nn.3–8 split, which is honored here.

**Hand-off forwarded → `d1-p2-a1-q3`:** p.35 footer notes **2 onward** belong to QUAESTIO III. q2's band on p.35 closes at p.35 note 1 ([^15], the marker on *quae non tunc* in the reply-3 tail). QUAESTIO III opens at raw L4274 / p.35 (*Tertio quaeritur, utrum requireretur virtus sacrificii in remedium originalis in adultis*) and starts its own per-page bands (p.35 nn.2–…, then p.36, etc.). q3 is also expected `has_scholion: false` (redirect to the article-master scholion §III in q1).

**[?] flags:** none. The OCR cascade-shatter of the two-column Respondeo and the footers was fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all readings are legible. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (`sufflcerel`→*sufficeret*, `ponitor`→*ponitur*, `nnn`→*non*, `originaHs`→*originalis*, `raatris`→*matris*, `Ilem`→*Item*, `stata`→*statu*, `Quidaui`→*Quidam*, `deleriorata`→*deteriorata*, `conciusio`→*conclusio*, `venini est`→*verum est*, `qiiam`/`quani`→*quam*, `subslituunt`→*substituunt*, `i)ro`→*pro*, `Grcgorii`→*Gregorii*, `soJa`→*sola*, `scilicct`→*scilicet*, `iiiiile`→*unde*, etc.). One footer interleave note: on p.34 the right-column footer note numbers (6 = Praepositivus, 7 = Dist. 6 / de baptismo, 8 = excedentia) do NOT run in left-to-right body order — the body order is reply 1 (n.6) → reply 2 (n.7) → reply 3 (n.8); the mapping above gives the verified body positions.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 35 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum in adultis requireretur virtus sacrificii in remedium originalis.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum requireretur virtus sacrificii in remedium originalis in adultis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per Gregorium in littera[^1], qui dicit, quod maioribus necessaria erat non tantum fides, sed virtus sacrificii: ergo cum Gregorius loquatur praecise, determinat, quod est necessarium. Si dicas, quod loquitur sine praecisione, ut tangat, quid sit congruum; tunc nulla esset differentia, quia similiter congruebat, pro parvulis offerri sacrificium.

2. Item, plus poterat adultus quam parvulus, et maius debitum peccati habebat: ergo et plus tenebatur facere quam parvulus.

**Contra:**
1. Tempore legis naturae non fuit praeceptum nisi naturale; sed Sacramenta non sunt naturalia, ut supra[^2] patuit: ergo nullum fuit ibi sub praecepto, nullum fuit ergo necessitatis: ergo sine sacrificio poterat esse salus adulto.

2. Item, Hugo de Sacramentis[^3] dicit, quod remedium contra originale fuit *decimatio*; Gregorius dicit, quod *sacrificium*. Sed contra: unius generis morbi unum debet esse remedii genus.

3. Item, morbus originalis peccati non iteratur[^4]: ergo debet habere remedium non iterabile; sed tam sacrificium quam decimatio sunt iterabilia: ergo non sunt convenientia remedia contra originale.

**Item**, quae erat ista virtus sacrificii? et videtur, quod nullius utilitatis[^5], quia huiusmodi oblatio non erat *praeceptum*, quia *bonum*, quia tunc semper esset *praeceptum*: ergo erat *bonum*, quia *praeceptum*; sed non erat *praeceptum*: ergo non erat *bonum*. — *Si tu dicas*, quod valet ad fidem, quae erudiebatur in illo signo; contra: ibi fiebat oblatio et fumus materialis: ergo si credebat fumum acceptum a Deo, credebat, Deum odorare[^6] materialiter: ergo credebat, eum esse corporeum: ergo videtur, quod potius esset in nocumentum fidei. — *Si dicas*, quod valebat ad excitationem devotionis; contra: omnis devotio, quae est contra pietatis opus, non potest esse accepta: unde dona iniquorum non probat Altissimus[^7]; sed ista erat contra pietatem, quia consumebat frustra quod erat utile pauperibus: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Sacrificia legis naturae nullam de se habebant efficaciam curandi vel iustificandi, sed solum ratione fidei Redemptoris.

**Respondeo:** Ad horum intelligentiam est praenotandum, quod, sicut dicit magister Hugo[^8] «in lege naturae tria fuerunt Sacramentorum genera, scilicet decimationes, oblationes et sacrificia». Ad quorum notitiam tria sunt notanda: primo, quae sit ratio instituendi illa Sacramenta; secundo, quis modus; tertio, quae efficacia.

Prima ratio est *Dei honorificatio*. — Notandum ergo, quod fides in iustis omni tempore cucurrit, et nullus nisi in fide salvatus est. Tempore igitur legis naturalis haec fides erat, quae fideles illuminabat ad hoc, quod crederent, quod Deus erat creator, quod redemptor, quod remunerator[^10]. Ideo fides illuminabat, et dictamen naturae consonabat, ut homo Deo serviret, et sua ab ipso recognosceret, et hoc quod credebat, signo visibili etiam quodam modo manifestaret. Ideo signa fuerunt tempore legis naturae, in quibus Deus ut creator[^11] honorabatur, qui omnia creaverat, ut in *oblatione*; similiter honorabatur ut redemptor, ut puta in *sacrificio*; ut perfectus remunerator, in *decimatione*. — Denarius enim est numerus perfectissimus, quia tres perfectiones habet in se: prima est unitatis, secunda ternarii, tertia senarii, quae simul iuncta[^12] faciunt denarium; et ideo ibi status est. Propter hoc honorabatur Deus ut perfectus remunerator. Unitas est enim perfecta, quia est omnis numeri perfectio;

<!-- page 36 -->

ternarius, quia constat ex omnibus partibus suis, ex parte aliquota et non aliquota; senarius vero, quia constat ex omnibus partibus aliquotis.

Secunda ratio est *fidei Redemptoris professio*. Sicut enim nullus sine fide potest Deo placere[^1b], sic nullus sine fide Mediatoris a peccato resurgere; et sicut fides simpliciter dictabat Dei honorificationem, ita et hanc professionem. Et quia tunc profitetur homo, quando quod interius credit exterius manifestat; ideo tempore legis naturae fuerunt signa ad hoc[^2b] manifestandum et etiam ad manifestandum Redemptorem. In redemptione autem tria considerantur: redemptum, et hoc per *decimationem* — homo enim significatur per decimam drachmam perditam[^3b] — ipse modus redimendi, et hoc per *oblationem*; ipsum pretium, et hoc per *sacrificium*, in quo erat sanguinis effusio. Et ista professio in huiusmodi signis maxime necessaria erat pro ipsis imperfectis; perfectis enim Deus revelavit Sacramenta fidei, imperfectis celavit. Unde minores adhaerebant fidei maiorum et credebant implicite; et sicut implicite credebant, sic signa data sunt eis a maioribus, in quibus fidem implicite profiterentur[^4b].

Tertia ratio est *vitae agendae institutio*. Sicut enim aliquis non poterat Deo placere sine fide nec a peccato resurgere sine fide Redemptoris, sic nec in bono stare sine bono opere; et ideo fidei adiecta sunt signa, quae significarent ea quae necessaria sunt cum fide[^5b]. Haec autem sunt sex, quorum tria sunt in corde, et tria exterius; quae his signantur: in *decimatione* peccati recognitio et eius dimissio; quia in ea datur Deo quod perfectum et quod bonum est, et remanet nobis quod est imperfectum; unde significatur, quod bona tantum sunt a Deo, sed mala a nobis[^6b]: rursus, in separatione decimae partis in partem Dei signatur recessus a peccato. — In *sacrificio* signatur interna contritio — *sacrificium enim Deo spiritus contribulatus*[^7b] — et exterior carnis maceratio, quia occidebatur pecus; unde mortificanda sunt membra nostra, ad Romanos duodecimo: *Exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam* etc. — In *oblatione*, mentis devotio et exterior bona operatio, quae, si adsunt cum fide, sufficiunt ad salutem. — Sic igitur patet, quae sit ratio institutionis illorum, scilicet Dei honorificatio, fidei Redemptoris professio, vitae agendae instructio[^8b].

Secundo debet attendi modus instituendi; non enim instituta sunt per modum praecepti, ut dicit Hugo[^9b]: «Primo parvulos consilio nutrivit», loquens pro illis qui fuerunt tempore legis naturae. Et si quaeras: quomodo? dicendum, quod fides dictabat, ut visum est, et natura consonabat, et inspiratio auctoritatem dabat; et ideo per modum consilii data erant, et hoc per superiores, in quibus erat fides explicita.

Tertio attendenda est in his efficacia. Et notandum, quod de se nullam habebant efficaciam curandi vel iustificandi, sed solum ratione fidei Redemptoris; non enim erant instituta ad hoc[^10b], sed ad haec quae praedicta sunt. Ex his patent obiecta. —

1. Quod enim obiicit primo, quod non sunt de necessitate, concedendum est.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hugone, quod remedium erat decimatio; dicendum, quod nec decimatio nec sacrificium erat per se remedium, sed tantum ratione fidei; et quia omnia illa tria erant signa redemptionis, ideo indeterminate fides cum quolibet istorum mundare poterat.

3. Ex hoc etiam patet aliud de iteratione, quoniam ideo poterant iterari, quia non erant medicinae ex se impositae[^11b] contra morbum non iterabilem.

<!-- page 37 -->

Ad illud quod quaeritur de virtute sacrificii, dicendum, quod virtus sacrificii vel dicitur hic fides, quae faciebat sacrificium valere, vel dicitur interna mentis contritio, quae faciebat exterius sacrificium virtuosum; et quia adultis necessaria erat contritio propter actuale, ideo Gregorius dicit, sacrificium curasse maiores.

Quod obiicitur, quod sacrificium erat via erroris; dicendum, quod verum est illis qui accipiebant ipsum ut rem, sed non his qui accipiebant ut signum; et quia fideles accipiebant ut signum, ideo eis non erat via erroris.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod erat contra pietatem; dicendum, quod non est verum, quia adeo abundabant animalia, et pauperes ita pauci erant, quod sufficiebant pietati quantum ad cultum Dei et quantum ad sustentationem proximi.

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether in adults the power of sacrifice was required as a remedy for original sin.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether in adults the power of sacrifice was required as a remedy for original sin. And that it was, seems [to follow]:

1. Through Gregory in the text[^1], who says that for the elders not only faith but the power of sacrifice was necessary: therefore, since Gregory speaks precisely, he determines what is necessary. If you say that he speaks without precision, so as to touch upon what is fitting; then there would be no difference, because it was likewise fitting for sacrifice to be offered for children.

2. Likewise, an adult could do more than a child, and had a greater debt of sin: therefore he was also bound to do more than a child.

**On the contrary:**
1. In the time of the law of nature there was no precept except a natural one; but the Sacraments are not natural, as was shown above[^2]: therefore none of them was there under a precept, none therefore was of necessity: therefore salvation could be had by an adult without sacrifice.

2. Likewise, Hugh in *On the Sacraments*[^3] says that the remedy against original sin was *tithing*; Gregory says that it was *sacrifice*. But on the contrary: of a disease of one kind there ought to be one kind of remedy.

3. Likewise, the disease of original sin is not repeated[^4]: therefore it ought to have a remedy that is not repeatable; but both sacrifice and tithing are repeatable: therefore they are not fitting remedies against original sin.

**Likewise**, what was this power of sacrifice? And it seems to be of no usefulness[^5], because such an oblation was not a *precept*, [for if it were a precept it would be] *good*, because then it would always be a *precept*: therefore it was *good* because a *precept*; but it was not a *precept*: therefore it was not *good*. — *If you say* that it avails for faith, which was instructed by that sign; on the contrary: there an oblation and a material smoke took place: therefore if one believed the smoke to be acceptable to God, he believed that God smelled[^6] materially: therefore he believed Him to be corporeal: therefore it seems that it was rather to the harm of faith. — *If you say* that it availed for the rousing of devotion; on the contrary: every devotion that is contrary to a work of piety cannot be acceptable: hence the Most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked[^7]; but this was contrary to piety, because it consumed in vain what was useful to the poor: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** The sacrifices of the law of nature had of themselves no efficacy of healing or justifying, but only by reason of faith in the Redeemer.

**I respond:** For the understanding of these matters it must be noted beforehand that, as master Hugh[^8] says, "in the law of nature there were three kinds of Sacraments, namely tithings, oblations, and sacrifices." For the knowledge of these, three things are to be noted: first, what is the reason for instituting those Sacraments; second, what is the manner; third, what is the efficacy.

The first reason is *the honoring of God*. — It must therefore be noted that faith ran among the just in every age, and no one was saved except in faith. In the time of the law of nature, then, this faith existed, which enlightened the faithful to this, that they should believe that God was creator, that He was redeemer, that He was rewarder[^10]. Therefore faith enlightened, and the dictate of nature was in accord, that man should serve God, and should acknowledge his goods from Him, and should also in some way make manifest by a visible sign that which he believed. Therefore there were signs in the time of the law of nature, in which God was honored as creator[^11], who had created all things, as in the *oblation*; likewise He was honored as redeemer, as for instance in the *sacrifice*; as the perfect rewarder, in the *tithing*. — For the denary is the most perfect number, because it has three perfections in itself: the first is that of unity, the second that of the ternary, the third that of the senary, which joined together[^12] make the denary; and therefore there is a halting-point there. On account of this God was honored as the perfect rewarder. For unity is perfect, because it is the perfection of every number;

the ternary, because it consists of all its parts, both an aliquot part and a non-aliquot part; but the senary, because it consists of all its aliquot parts.

The second reason is *the profession of faith in the Redeemer*. For as no one can please God without faith[^1b], so no one can rise from sin without faith in the Mediator; and as faith simply dictated the honoring of God, so also this profession. And because man professes when he makes manifest outwardly what he believes inwardly; therefore in the time of the law of nature there were signs for the manifesting of this[^2b] and also for the manifesting of the Redeemer. Now in the redemption three things are considered: that which is redeemed — and this by *tithing*, for man is signified by the lost tenth drachma[^3b] — the manner itself of redeeming, and this by *oblation*; the price itself, and this by *sacrifice*, in which there was a shedding of blood. And this profession in signs of this kind was most necessary for the imperfect themselves; for to the perfect God revealed the Sacraments of faith, from the imperfect He concealed them. Hence the lesser clung to the faith of the greater and believed implicitly; and as they believed implicitly, so signs were given to them by the greater, in which they might implicitly profess the faith[^4b].

The third reason is *the instruction of the life to be led*. For as someone could not please God without faith nor rise from sin without faith in the Redeemer, so neither could he stand in the good without good work; and therefore there were added to faith signs that would signify the things that are necessary together with faith[^5b]. Now these are six, of which three are in the heart and three outward; which are signified by these: in *tithing*, the recognition of sin and its dismissal; for in it there is given to God what is perfect and good, and there remains to us what is imperfect; whence it is signified that goods alone are from God, but evils from us[^6b]: again, in the separation of the tenth part into God's portion is signified withdrawal from sin. — In *sacrifice* is signified inward contrition — *for a sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit*[^7b] — and the outward mortification of the flesh, because the beast was slain; whence our members are to be mortified, in Romans twelve: *Present your bodies as a sacrifice* etc. — In *oblation*, the devotion of the mind and outward good work, which, if they are present together with faith, suffice for salvation. — Thus, therefore, it is plain what is the reason for the institution of those things, namely the honoring of God, the profession of faith in the Redeemer, the instruction of the life to be led[^8b].

Second, the manner of instituting is to be attended to; for they were not instituted by way of precept, as Hugh[^9b] says: "First He nourished the little ones by counsel," speaking for those who lived in the time of the law of nature. And if you ask: how? it must be said that faith dictated, as has been seen, and nature was in accord, and inspiration gave authority; and therefore they were given by way of counsel, and this through the superiors, in whom faith was explicit.

Third, the efficacy in these matters is to be attended to. And it must be noted that of themselves they had no efficacy of healing or justifying, but only by reason of faith in the Redeemer; for they were not instituted for this[^10b], but for the things that have been said. From these the objections are made plain. —

1. For as to what it objects in the first place, that they are not of necessity, it must be conceded.

2. To that which is objected concerning Hugh, that the remedy was tithing; it must be said that neither tithing nor sacrifice was of itself a remedy, but only by reason of faith; and because all those three were signs of the redemption, therefore faith with any one of them could indeterminately cleanse.

3. From this also is made plain the other point concerning repetition, since they could be repeated for this reason, that they were not medicines imposed of themselves[^11b] against a non-repeatable disease.

As to that which is asked concerning the power of sacrifice, it must be said that the power of sacrifice is called here either faith, which made the sacrifice avail, or the inward contrition of the mind, which made the outward sacrifice virtuous; and because for adults contrition was necessary on account of the actual [sin], therefore Gregory says that sacrifice healed the elders.

As to what is objected, that sacrifice was a way of error; it must be said that this is true of those who took it as a thing, but not of those who took it as a sign; and because the faithful took it as a sign, therefore for them it was not a way of error.

To that which is objected, that it was contrary to piety; it must be said that this is not true, because animals so abounded, and the poor were so few, that they sufficed for piety both as to the worship of God and as to the sustenance of the neighbor.

---

la: Hic c. 8. — Voci *maioribus* cod. Z praemittit *pro*. Subinde post *sed* codd. G V cc (bb a secunda manu) non male addunt *etiam*.

en: Here ch. 8. — Before the word *maioribus* codex Z prefixes *pro*. Then after *sed* codices G V cc (and bb by a second hand) not badly add *etiam*.

la: Partis I. q. 2. ad 5. Vide etiam verba Hugonis a S. Vict. allegata in quaest. praeced. circa finem corp.

en: Of Part I, q. 2, ad 5. See also the words of Hugh of St. Victor cited in the preceding question, near the end of the body.

la: Libr. XI. c. 4. et 6. Cfr. de Sacram. legis naturalis I. p. et scriptae (versus finem). — Mox post *remedium* cod. H subiungit *tunc*.

en: Book XI, ch. 4 and 6. Cf. *On the Sacraments of the Law of Nature*, Part I, and *of the Written [Law]* (toward the end). — Soon after *remedium* codex H adds *tunc*.

la: Cod. R brevius *Item, videtur quod ista virtus sacrificii nullius erat utilitatis*.

en: Codex R, more briefly: *Likewise, it seems that this power of sacrifice was of no usefulness.*

la: Permulti codd. et edd. perperam *adorare*. Mox in codd. desideratur *eum*.

en: Very many codices and editions wrongly [read] *adorare* ["adore"]. Soon after, in the codices *eum* is lacking.

la: Eccli. 34, 23. — Superius pro *excitationem devotionis* codd. F G *exercitationem devotionis*. Cfr. verba Hugonis supra pag. 34, nota 3.

en: Sirach 34:23. — Above, for *excitationem devotionis* ["rousing of devotion"] codices F G [read] *exercitationem devotionis* ["exercising of devotion"]. Cf. the words of Hugh above, page 34, note 3.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 4; cfr. ibid. p. XI. c. 3; et de Sacram. legis naturalis et scriptae.

en: Book I of *On the Sacraments*, Part XII, ch. 4; cf. ibid., Part XI, ch. 3; and *On the Sacraments of the Law of Nature and the Written [Law]*.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro *quae fideles illuminabat* cod. Z *qua fideles illuminabantur*.

en: See III *Sentences*, d. 28, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for *quae fideles illuminabat* ["which enlightened the faithful"] codex Z [reads] *qua fideles illuminabantur* ["by which the faithful were enlightened"].

la: Ita cod. H (V bb a secunda manu), cod. F omittit *Deus*, alii cum edd. omittunt *ut creator*.

en: Thus codex H (and V bb by a second hand); codex F omits *Deus*, others with the editions omit *ut creator*.

la: Cod. bb *qui simul iuncti*.

en: Codex bb [reads] *qui simul iuncti*.

la: Hebr. 11, 6: *Sine fide autem impossibile est placere Deo.* — Aliquanto inferius pro *ita et hanc*, quod habet cod. U (I a secunda manu), cod. A *ita et huius*, codd. R T *ita et eius*, cod. X *ita etiam fidei*, alii codd. et edd. *ita et haec*.

en: Hebrews 11:6: *But without faith it is impossible to please God.* — Somewhat below, for *ita et hanc*, which codex U has (and I by a second hand), codex A [reads] *ita et huius*, codices R T *ita et eius*, codex X *ita etiam fidei*, the other codices and editions *ita et haec*.

la: Intellige: nullus sine fide Redemptoris a peccato resurgere potest. — Post *hoc manifestandum* edd. corrupte sic prosequuntur: *Etiam honorabatur ut Redemptor, et hoc modo tria* etc. In codd. sunt 9 diversae lectiones corruptae, quae tamen in hoc conveniunt, quod ob homoteleuton transsiliunt verba *et etiam ad manifestandum*, excepto cod. U; cod. I supplet haec verba sic: *ad profitendum etiam Redemptorem tria*. Pro *In redemptione*, quod habent codd. F G H (V a secunda manu) X, alii *In Redemptore*, et cod. U cum pluribus *Inde*.

en: Understand: no one can rise from sin without faith in the Redeemer. — After *hoc manifestandum* the editions corruptly continue thus: *He was also honored as Redeemer, and in this manner three* etc. In the codices there are 9 different corrupt readings, which nevertheless agree in this, that on account of homoeoteleuton they skip over the words *et etiam ad manifestandum*, except codex U; codex I supplies these words thus: *ad profitendum etiam Redemptorem tria*. For *In redemptione*, which codices F G H (V by a second hand) X have, others [read] *In Redemptore*, and codex U with several [reads] *Inde*.

la: Respicitur Luc. 15, 8. Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 103. serm. 1. n. 2. et in Ps. 138. n. 14, ubi haec parabola eodem modo exponitur.

en: Reference is made to Luke 15:8. Cf. Augustine, *Expositions of the Psalms*, on Ps. 103, sermon 1, n. 2, and on Ps. 138, n. 14, where this parable is expounded in the same way.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 25. a. I. q. 2. et a. 2. q. I. — Pro *signa* cod. F *Sacramenta*. Mox pro *institutio* Vat. cum aliquot codd. *instructio*.

en: See III *Sentences*, d. 25, a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 1. — For *signa* codex F [reads] *Sacramenta*. Soon for *institutio* the Vatican edition with several codices [reads] *instructio*.

la: Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 8: *Tria sane sunt, quae ab initio, sive ante adventum Christi sive post, ad salutem obtinendam necessaria fuerunt, id est fides, Sacramenta fidei et opera bona. Quae tria ita cohaerent, ut salutis effectum habere non possint, si simul non fuerint* etc. Cfr. de Sacram. legis naturalis et scriptae. — Superius post *sine bono opere* cod. Z addit *subsequenti*. Subinde post *Haec autem* supplevimus ex codd. F H (P bb a secunda manu) verba *sunt sex, quorum*. Post pauca pro *quae his* Vat. *quae tria in corde his sequentibus*.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*, Book I, Part IX, ch. 8: "There are indeed three things which from the beginning, whether before the coming of Christ or after, were necessary for obtaining salvation, that is, faith, the Sacraments of faith, and good works. These three so cohere that they cannot have the effect of salvation unless they be together" etc. Cf. *On the Sacraments of the Law of Nature and the Written [Law]*. — Above, after *sine bono opere* codex Z adds *subsequenti*. Then after *Haec autem* we have supplied from codices F H (P bb by a second hand) the words *sunt sex, quorum*. After a little, for *quae his* the Vatican edition [reads] *quae tria in corde his sequentibus*.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 84, nota 2, ubi allata sunt verba Hugonis, quibus haec ratio exponitur.

en: Cf. vol. III, page 84, note 2, where the words of Hugh are cited, by which this reasoning is expounded.

la: Psalm. 50, 19. — Seq. textus est Rom. 12, 1. Plures codd. *Offeratis* pro *Exhibeatis*, cui voci codd. G I praemittunt *Obsecro vos, ut.*

en: Psalm 50[51]:19. — The following text is Romans 12:1. Several codices [read] *Offeratis* ["Offer"] for *Exhibeatis* ["Present"], before which word codices G I prefix *Obsecro vos, ut* ["I beseech you, that"].

la: Cod. K *institutio*, quae lectio congruit cum praemissis.

en: Codex K [reads] *institutio* ["institution"], which reading agrees with what precedes.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 4, ubi ostendit, quod homo divina inspiratione instructus sit ad decimas [quare decimam, non nonam etc.] offerendas et dicit: *Primum igitur ante Legem parvulos consilio nutrivit; postea sub Lege exercitatos praecepto tentavit; novissime sub gratia perfectos in libertate spiritus ambulare permittit.* — Pro *nutrivit* cod. N *erudivit*, Vat. *erudivit vel nutrivit*.

en: Book I of *On the Sacraments*, Part XI, ch. 4, where he shows that man was instructed by divine inspiration to offer tithes [hence a tenth, not a ninth, etc.] and says: "First, therefore, before the Law, He nourished the little ones by counsel; afterward under the Law He tried the trained by precept; most recently under grace He permits the perfect to walk in liberty of spirit." — For *nutrivit* codex N [reads] *erudivit*, the Vatican edition *erudivit vel nutrivit*.

la: Cfr. supra p. I. q. 5, ubi simile de Sacramentis veteris legis ostenditur. — Superius ante *notandum* multi codd. omittunt *Et*, codd. A G legunt *Notandum enim*, cod. Z *Notandum tamen*. Subinde pro *curandi* codd. K aa et ed. *a* *mundandi*, Vat. *mundandi seu curandi*, et pro *iustificandi* cod. N *vivificandi*.

en: Cf. above, Part I, q. 5, where the like is shown concerning the Sacraments of the old law. — Above, before *notandum* many codices omit *Et*, codices A G read *Notandum enim*, codex Z *Notandum tamen*. Then for *curandi* codices K aa and edition *a* [read] *mundandi*, the Vatican edition *mundandi seu curandi*, and for *iustificandi* codex N [reads] *vivificandi*.

la: Codd. F H *non erant ex se imposita*.

en: Codices F H [read] *non erant ex se imposita*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p035-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p036-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p037-{L}-0` for the spillover tail; split_x = 1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 4274–4498), which cascade-shatters the two-column *videtur* / Respondeo / *Ad obiecta* and the footers. Printed pp. 35–37 = PDF pp. 55–57 (offset pdf = printed + 20). This is Part II, Article I, Question III — the THIRD and LAST of Article I's three questions. **This chunk CLOSES Pars II, Article I.** The next chunk is Article II's a2-q1 (about circumcision), beginning at raw L4499 (`ARTICULUS II. De remedio in lege scripta sive de circumcisione`).

**Alignment VERIFIED.** The QUAESTIO III opener *Tertio quaeritur, utrum requireretur virtus sacrificii in remedium originalis in adultis* (raw L4274, p.35) matches the question title exactly and the divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM third listed question. No q-swap. The following ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I (raw L4499, p.37) is *De institutione circumcisionis* — a distinct article.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.35** (PDF 55; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III."): q2's reply-3 tail occupies the very top of both columns (NOT re-set here). QUAESTIO III's title + body begin below: the *videtur* args 1–2 + *Contra* args 1–3 + the *Item* "quaestio incidens" (left column), the videtur arg-1 tail + CONCLUSIO + start of RESPONDEO with the three *rationes instituendi* (right column). Footer note-series **1–12** split across columns (left col nn.1–6, right col nn.7–12); **note 1 belongs to Question II** (its reply-3 tail marker on *quae non tunc* — already handed off and held in q2 as [^15]), NOT re-claimed here. This question claims **p.35 notes 2–12** (rendered [^1]–[^8] / [^10]–[^12]; note 9 falls in q2's tail region — see below).
- **p.36** (PDF 56; running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): RESPONDEO continues — the *senarius* tail of *Ratio 1* (top left), then *Ratio 2* (*fidei Redemptoris professio*) and *Ratio 3* (*vitae agendae institutio*) with the *sex signa* (left column); then the *modus instituendi* + *efficacia* + the *Ex his patent obiecta* replies 1–3 (right column). Footer note-series **1–11**, all claimed here (rendered [^1b]–[^11b]).
- **p.37** (PDF 57; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I."): q3's tail spills onto the top of p.37 (the *Ad illud quod quaeritur de virtute sacrificii* resolution + the *Solvuntur 2 obiectiones* on *via erroris* and *contra pietatem*, left column top + right column top), then ARTICULUS II begins lower. **q3's p.37 tail carries NO footnote markers** (verified against the L-0 / R-0 bands — no superscript numbers in q3's text); the p.37 footer note-series belongs entirely to ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I. So q3 claims **no p.37 footers.**

**Marker numbering.** To keep the two per-page footer sequences from clashing, p.35's claimed notes use plain markers and p.36's use the `b`-suffixed markers `[^1b]`–`[^11b]`. The p.35 printed footer prints 12 entries (left col nn.1–6, right col nn.7–12); **note 1 is q2's** (handoff, *quae non tunc*, NOT claimed here). The remaining eleven (printed nn.2–12) map onto the chunk markers as: printed n.2 → [^1] (Gregory, *in littera*), n.3 → [^2] (*supra*, Part I q.2 ad 5), n.4 → [^3] (Hugo *de Sacram.* XI.4&6), n.5 → [^4] (*non iteratur*), n.6 → [^5] (Cod. R *brevius*), n.7 → [^6] (*odorare*/*adorare*), n.8 → [^7] (*Altissimus*, Eccli 34,23), n.9 → [^8] (*magister Hugo*, Libr. I de Sacram. p.XII — the Respondeo opener), n.10 → [^10] (*remunerator*/*illuminabat*, III Sent. d.28), n.11 → [^11] (*ut creator*), n.12 → [^12] (*qui simul iuncti*). The chunk deliberately **skips marker `[^9]`** (there is no `[^9]` anchor and no `[^9]` def — pairing stays consistent) so that the printed-page note numbers 10/11/12 read through to markers [^10]/[^11]/[^12], preserving the visual correspondence to the source footer. Marker pairing: Latin body = English body = defs (22 defs: [^1]–[^8], [^10]–[^12], [^1b]–[^11b]).

**Scholion scope.** `has_scholion: FALSE`. There is no SCHOLION header within q3's range (verified from the raw L4274–L4498 and the PDF bands — no SCHOLION opener appears). The single article-master SCHOLION (printed with q1, spanning both columns of p.33) covers all three questions of Article I; its **§III** treats this q3 (the necessity of a protestation of faith / sacrifice for adults). q3 therefore defers to q1's §III — see `bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-a1-q1.md` Notes ("Scholion scope", which explicitly says §III treats q3). The scholion lives in q1, NOT here.

**Hand-off picked up ← `d1-p2-a1-q2`:** p.35 footer notes **2 onward** belong to QUAESTIO III. q2's band on p.35 closed at p.35 note 1 ([^15] in q2, the marker on *quae non tunc*). q3 opens a fresh per-page band at p.35 note 2 and claims p.35 nn.2–12. All honored here.

**Hand-off forwarded → `d1-p2-a2-q1`:** NOTHING — q3's p.37 tail carries no footnote markers, and the p.37 footer note-series belongs entirely to ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I (note 1 = *Cfr. infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.*, a circumcision cross-reference). ARTICULUS II opens at raw L4499 / p.37 (*Consequenter quaeritur de remedio contra originale, quod praecessit baptismum tempore legis scriptae, scilicet de circumcisione*) and starts its own per-page bands (p.37 nn.1–…). a2-q1 should claim ALL p.37 footers and is also expected `has_scholion: false` if its own q1 carries the next article-master scholion.

**[?] flags:** none. The OCR cascade-shatter of the two-column body and footers was fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all readings are legible. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (*quaeritnr*→*quaeritur*, *ulrum*→*utrum*, *adullis*→*adultis*, *AUissimus*→*Altissimus*, *consiliuni*→*consilium*, *iiiiile*→*nulla*, *mnnus*→*munus*, *Gregorinm*→*Gregorium*, *iteratur* OCR'd cleanly, *contribulatus* kept (Vulg. *contribulatus*), *deraptoris*→*Redemptoris*, *iilorum*→*illorum*, *manifeslaret*→*manifestaret*, *honoriftcatio*→*honorificatio*, *iustiftcandi*→*iustificandi*, *efftcaciam*→*efficaciam*, *Ilngone*→*Hugone*, *medicinae ex se impositae* kept, etc.).

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

title_alt:
De institutione circumcisionis
On the institution of circumcision

source_text:
<!-- page 37 -->

### Articulus II. *De remedio in lege scripta sive de circumcisione.*

Consequenter quaeritur de remedio contra originale, quod praecessit baptismum tempore legis scriptae, scilicet de circumcisione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de institutione circumcisionis. Secundo quaeritur de forma ipsius sive de integritate. Tertio de efficacia.

### Quaestio I. *De institutione circumcisionis.*

Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur, quod remedium circumcisionis congrue sit[^2] institutum:

1. *Primo* ratione *significationis*[^1], quia est instituta in Sacramentum, quod est remedium contra originale; sed originale traducitur per propagationem: ergo cum circumcisio fiat ab eo membro, per quod est propagatio, expresse signat originalis curationem[^3].

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione *curationis*: quia «contrariis contraria curantur[^4]», tam materialiter quam spiritualiter: ergo cum originale contrahatur per delectationem circa membrum illud, in passione illius membri expresse curatio designatur: ergo si Sacramentum est ordinatum ad hoc: patet etc.

3. Item, originale est morbus currens *circulariter*, quia, sicut dicit Anselmus[^5], «persona corrumpit naturam, et natura personam»: ergo expresse signatur per ablationem secundum circulum; sed hoc est in circumcisione: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Deus non delectatur in poenis nostris[^6], ergo medicamenta Dei debent esse suavia; sed circumcisio est poenalis: ergo etc.

2. Item, originali non debetur poena sensus[^7], ergo in eius ablatione non debet sentiri poena: ergo si circumcisio non est sine sensu poenae, non est congruum remedium.

Item, quaero, ad quod tempus pertineat institutio circumcisionis. Non ad tempus legis *naturae*, quia lex naturae communis est omnibus, sed circumcisio propria est generi Abrahae[^8]; nec ad tempus legis *scriptae*, quia lator Legis Moyses circumcisionem non instituit — unde Ioannis septimo: *Circumcisio ex Patribus est, non ex Moyse* — nec ad tempus *gratiae*: ergo nulli tempori convenit eius institutio.

*Si dicas*, quod pertinet ad legem scriptam, quaero: quare ante dationem Legis fuit instituta, et quare magis Abrahae data quam alii?

Item, quaeritur: quare non fuit in latore Legis confirmata, sed potius accepit Iosue[^9] mandatum quam Moyses?

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Circumcisio congrue fuit instituta ad deletionem originalis culpae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod institutio circumcisionis congrua fuit, quia fuit expressum signum[^10] curationis originalis, tum propter ablationem *a membro propagationis*, tum propter ablationem *poenalem*, tum etiam propter ablationem *circularem*.

<!-- page 38 -->

**Ad obiecta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus non delectatur in poenis; dicendum, quod poena comparatur ad *punitum*; et sic non placet Deo, «non enim creavit nos Deus ad puniendum[^1b]». Comparatur ad *meritum*, scilicet praeexistentem culpam; et sic est in ea manifestatio iustitiae et ordinis, et sic placet Deo, in quantum iustus. Comparatur ad *finem* vel effectum, ut puta iustificationem rei; et sic placet ei, in quantum misericors; unde in punitione, quae est via ad iustificationem, relucet misericordia et iustitia[^2b]; et ita est Deo placens, et talis fuit poena circumcisionis. — Quod ergo *obiicitur*, quod non delectatur in poena; dicendum, quod non delectatur in poena, secundum quod *poena*, sed secundum quod *iusta* vel iustificatoria; tamen haec delectatio semper est cum aliquo rigore, et quia lex vetus fuit lex rigoris[^3b], ideo debuit in ea esse poenalis curatio.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod originale non meruit poenam sensus[^4b]; dicendum, quod verum est de ista quae est poena tantum et nullo modo via ad salutem, ut puta infernalis; sed bene illam meruit, quae potest esse via in salutem, ut puta praesentem.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, cui Legi conveniat; dicendum secundum Hugonem[^5b], quod fuit Sacramentum legis *scriptae*, succedens Sacramentis legis *naturae*; et hoc quadruplici de causa, scilicet ratione *gravitatis* et *evidentiae*, ratione *certitudinis* et *efficaciae*. Gravis est ratione poenalitatis; et debet *sequi*, quia prima aetas fuit quasi infantia, secunda quasi pueritia; et ideo non debuit gravari Sacramento onerante, sed levi manu duci; et etiam quia morbus erat recens, et non erat tanta cognitio peccati. Sed post[^6b] tertia aetas est sicut iuventus, et magis habuerunt cognitionem peccati; ideo potuerunt magis onerari. — Secunda est *evidentia*, quam ponit Hugo in undecima parte[^7b], quia «circumcisio fuit signum evidentius». — Tertia est *certitudinis*, quia, si puer circumcidebatur a quibuscumque, sive parentes essent boni sive mali, mundabatur, et certum erat; sed non sic de *fide*, quia in lege naturae non erat certum, utrum mundaretur, si alter esset infidelis et dedicaret ipsum idolis, et de parentibus poterat dubitari pluribus modis[^8b]. — Quarta est *efficacia*, quia magis remittebatur fomes in his qui circumcidebantur, quam in his qui solis sacrificiis et fide mundabantur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare fuit data ante Legem? dicendum, quod hoc fuit ad praeparandum et segregandum populum, cui danda erat Lex. — Quare autem magis Abrahae? dicendum, quod circumcisio fuit data non tantum in *remedium*, sed etiam in *signum*, in signum, inquam, distinctionis secundum fidem et secundum carnem, secundum quod in illo populo praecipue colendus erat Deus, et ex illo secundum carnem nasciturus erat Christus. Et quia Abraham primus fuit, qui reliquit terram suam propter cultum Dei, et excellens fuit in fide, et sibi facta fuit de Christo promissio; ideo inter Patres praecipue data fuit Abrahae[^9b].

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare magis confirmata est sub Iosue quam sub Moyse? ratio est ad hoc et *spiritualis* et *litteralis*: litteralis, quia legislator[^10b] repetiit, quomodo praecepta fuit Abraham pro tota posteritate, et ipsi iam habebant usum nec unquam dimiserant; ideo non oportuit dari a Moyse vel Moysi. Sed tempore Iosue neglexerant circumcisionem in deserto; ideo oportuit dari mandatum, sicut ibi[^11b] dicitur. — Alia ratio fuit *spiritualis*: quia, etsi circumcisio significet circumcisionem *praesentem* et *futuram*, tamen illa Abrahae significat *praesentem*; illa autem Iosue in terra promissionis facta post peregrinationem significat *futuram*[^12b].

english:
### Article II. *On the remedy under the written Law, that is, on circumcision.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the remedy against the original [fault] which preceded baptism in the time of the written Law, namely concerning circumcision. And about this three things are asked.

First there is inquiry concerning the institution of circumcision. Second there is inquiry concerning its form, or its integrity. Third concerning its efficacy.

### Question I. *On the institution of circumcision.*

As to the first, then, it is shown that the remedy of circumcision was suitably[^2] instituted:

1. *First*, by reason of its *signification*[^1], because it was instituted as a Sacrament, which is a remedy against the original [fault]; but the original [fault] is transmitted through propagation: therefore, since circumcision is performed upon that member by which propagation takes place, it expressly signifies the healing of the original [fault].[^3]

2. Likewise, this seems [evident] by reason of *healing*: because «contraries are healed by contraries[^4]», as much materially as spiritually: therefore, since the original [fault] is contracted through pleasure concerning that member, in the suffering of that member the healing is expressly designated: therefore, if the Sacrament is ordained to this: it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, the original [fault] is a disease running in a circle, because, as Anselm says[^5], «the person corrupts the nature, and the nature the person»: therefore it is expressly signified by a removal according to a circle; but this is what happens in circumcision: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. God does not delight in our punishments[^6], therefore God's medicines ought to be gentle; but circumcision is penal: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no punishment of sense is owed to the original [fault][^7], therefore in its removal punishment ought not to be felt: therefore if circumcision is not without the feeling of punishment, it is not a suitable remedy.

Likewise, I ask, to what time the institution of circumcision pertains. Not to the time of the law of *nature*, because the law of nature is common to all, but circumcision is proper to the lineage of Abraham[^8]; nor to the time of the *written* law, because Moses, the giver of the Law, did not institute circumcision — whence in John the seventh: *Circumcision is from the Fathers, not from Moses* — nor to the time of *grace*: therefore its institution belongs to no time.

*If you say* that it pertains to the written law, I ask: why was it instituted before the giving of the Law, and why was it given rather to Abraham than to another?

Likewise, it is asked: why was it not confirmed in the giver of the Law, but rather Joshua[^9] received the command rather than Moses?

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** Circumcision was suitably instituted for the blotting-out of original guilt.

**I respond:** It must be said that the institution of circumcision was suitable, because it was an express sign[^10] of the healing of the original [fault], both on account of the removal *from the member of propagation*, and on account of the *penal* removal, and also on account of the *circular* removal.

**Replies to the objections:**

*To 1.* As to what is objected, that the Lord does not delight in punishments; it must be said that punishment is compared to the *one punished*; and thus it does not please God, «for God did not create us for punishing[^1b]». It is compared to *merit*, namely a pre-existing fault; and thus there is in it a manifestation of justice and of order, and thus it pleases God, inasmuch as He is just. It is compared to the *end* or effect, as for instance the justification of the matter; and thus it pleases Him, inasmuch as He is merciful; whence in the punishment which is the way to justification, mercy and justice shine forth[^2b]; and so it is pleasing to God, and such was the punishment of circumcision. — As to what then is *objected*, that He does not delight in punishment; it must be said that He does not delight in punishment as it is *punishment*, but as it is *just* or justificatory; yet this delight is always with a certain rigor, and because the old law was a law of rigor[^3b], therefore there had to be in it a penal healing.

*To 2.* As to what is objected, that the original [fault] did not merit a punishment of sense[^4b]; it must be said that this is true of that [punishment] which is punishment only and in no way a way to salvation, as for instance the infernal [punishment]; but it well merited that which can be a way to salvation, as for instance the present [punishment].

As to what is asked, to which Law it belongs; it must be said, according to Hugh[^5b], that it was a Sacrament of the *written* law, succeeding the Sacraments of the law of *nature*; and this for a fourfold cause, namely by reason of *gravity* and of *evidence*, by reason of *certitude* and of *efficacy*. It is grave by reason of penalty; and it had to *follow*, because the first age was as it were infancy, the second as it were boyhood; and therefore it ought not to be burdened with a burdening Sacrament, but to be led with a gentle hand; and also because the disease was recent, and there was not so great a knowledge of sin. But afterward[^6b] the third age is like youth, and they had more knowledge of sin; therefore they could be more heavily burdened. — The second [cause] is *evidence*, which Hugh sets down in the eleventh part[^7b], because «circumcision was a more evident sign». — The third is of *certitude*, because, if a boy was circumcised by anyone whatsoever, whether the parents were good or evil, he was cleansed, and it was certain; but not so with respect to *faith*, because under the law of nature it was not certain whether he would be cleansed, if one [parent] were unbelieving and dedicated him to idols, and concerning the parents one could doubt in many ways[^8b]. — The fourth is *efficacy*, because the tinder [of sin] was more remitted in those who were circumcised than in those who were cleansed by sacrifices and faith alone.

As to what is asked: why was it given before the Law? it must be said that this was for preparing and setting apart the people to whom the Law was to be given. — But why rather to Abraham? it must be said that circumcision was given not only as a *remedy*, but also as a *sign* — as a sign, I say, of distinction according to faith and according to flesh, inasmuch as in that people God was chiefly to be worshipped, and from it according to the flesh Christ was to be born. And because Abraham was the first who left his own land for the worship of God, and was excellent in faith, and to him the promise concerning Christ was made; therefore among the Fathers it was given chiefly to Abraham.[^9b]

As to what is asked: why was it confirmed rather under Joshua than under Moses? the reason for this is both *spiritual* and *literal*: literal, because the legislator[^10b] repeated how Abraham had been commanded on behalf of the whole posterity, and they already had the use [of it] and had never abandoned it; therefore it did not have to be given by Moses or to Moses. But in the time of Joshua they had neglected circumcision in the desert; therefore it was necessary that a command be given, as is said there[^11b]. — Another reason was *spiritual*: because, although circumcision signifies both *present* and *future* circumcision, yet that of Abraham signifies the *present*; but that of Joshua, performed in the land of promise after the wandering, signifies the *future*.[^12b]

la: Cfr. infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. seq. — Mox pro *sacrificium* codd. F H *virtutem sacrificii*.

en: Cf. below d. 16, p. II, a. 1, q. 2 and d. 17, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, following. — Shortly, for *sacrificium* codices F H read *virtutem sacrificii* ("the power of the sacrifice").

la: Codd. M O *fuit*. Subinde pro *institutum* permulti codd. *constitutum*.

en: Codices M O read *fuit* ("was"). Then, for *institutum* very many codices read *constitutum* ("established").

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 9. — Pro *ab eo* cod. F *in eo*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 9. — For *ab eo* codex F reads *in eo*.

la: Secundum Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 32. n. 1. Vide tom. III. pag. 261, nota 2. Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3: Medicationes per contraria fieri consueverunt.

en: According to Gregory, Book II of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 32, n. 1. See vol. III, p. 261, note 2. Aristotle, *Ethics* II. c. 3: Cures are wont to be effected by contraries.

la: De Conceptu virgin. et pecc. orig. c. 23: Spoliavit persona naturam bono iustitiae in Adam, et natura egens facta omnes personas, quas ipsa de se procreat, eadem egestate peccatrices et iniustas facit. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 720, nota 5. — Pro *corrumpit* cod. aa (II a secunda manu) *corrupit*, cod. bb post *personam* addit *corrumpit*.

en: *On the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin*, c. 23: The person despoiled the nature of the good of justice in Adam, and the nature, made needy, makes all the persons which it of itself procreates sinful and unjust by the same neediness. Cf. vol. II, p. 720, note 5. — For *corrumpit* codex aa (in part II by a second hand) reads *corrupit*; codex bb after *personam* adds *corrumpit*.

la: Tob. 3, 22: Non enim delectaris in perditionibus nostris.

en: Tobit 3:22: For thou art not delighted in our destruction.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: See II Sent., d. 33, a. 3, q. 1, following.

la: Gen. 17, 10. seqq. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 7, 22. — Codd. H L *proprie est generi Abrahae data*.

en: Genesis 17:10ff. — The following text is John 7:22. — Codices H L read *proprie est generi Abrahae data* ("was given properly to the lineage of Abraham").

la: Ios. 5, 2. — Superius pro *quaeritur, quare* quod habent codd. H K cc (E I a secunda manu), alii et edd. *quare data*; deinde verbo *confirmata* cod. R praemittit *vel*, cod. Z *nec*. Fortasse pro *latore* legendum *latione*.

en: Joshua 5:2. — Above, for *quaeritur, quare* ("it is asked: why"), which codices H K cc (E I by a second hand) have, others and the editions read *quare data* ("why given"); then before the word *confirmata* codex R prefixes *vel*, codex Z *nec*. Perhaps for *latore* ("giver") one should read *latione* ("giving").

la: Cod. Z *quia fuit expressiva*.

en: Codex Z reads *quia fuit expressiva* ("because it was expressive").

la: Ut dicit Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 29. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 877, nota 8.

en: As Damascene says, *On the Orthodox Faith* II. c. 29. Cf. vol. II, p. 877, note 8.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: See II Sent., d. 36, a. 2, q. 1, following.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 40, q. 1.

la: Codd. R T *originali non debetur poena sensus*.

en: Codices R T read *originali non debetur poena sensus* ("a punishment of sense is not owed to the original [fault]").

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 1: Primus status ab Adam usque ad Abraham magis proprie determinatur. Quamvis enim per Moysen lex scripta data sit, ante Moysen tamen observantia legalis in circumcisione exordium sumsit. Cfr. ibid. c. 3. et p. XI. c. 6, ubi etiam primam seq. rationem insinuans dicit: Amplius autem, quia circumcisio quidem sordes aufert, sed *dolores* infert... idcirco priori populo in timore servienti et sub Lege laboranti circumcisio ad emundationem data est. Vide infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2.

en: *On the Sacraments* Book I, p. XII, c. 1: The first state, from Adam up to Abraham, is more properly determined. For although the written law was given through Moses, nevertheless before Moses the legal observance took its beginning in circumcision. Cf. ibid. c. 3 and p. XI. c. 6, where also, hinting at the following first reason, he says: Moreover, because circumcision indeed takes away filth but inflicts *pains*... therefore to the earlier people, serving in fear and laboring under the Law, circumcision was given for cleansing. See below d. 2, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cod. F *post hoc*, cod. G *postea*.

en: Codex F reads *post hoc* ("after this"), codex G *postea* ("afterward").

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. c. 6: Eiusdem mundationis forma et similitudo in oblatione quidem occulte invenitur, in circumcisione vero evidentius exprimitur. Cfr. ibid. p. XII. c. 1, ubi ostendit, quod circumcisio instituta sit ad commendandam interiorem unitatem populi fidelis et ad manifestandam distinctionem populi fidelis a ceteris nationibus.

en: *On the Sacraments* Book I, c. 6: The form and likeness of the same cleansing is indeed found hiddenly in the [sacrificial] oblation, but is more evidently expressed in circumcision. Cf. ibid. p. XII. c. 1, where he shows that circumcision was instituted to commend the inner unity of the faithful people and to manifest the distinction of the faithful people from the other nations.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. et infra d. 4. p. II. dub. 4. — De quarta ratione cfr. infra q. 3.

en: See above a. 1, q. 2, ad 3, and below d. 4, p. II, dub. 4. — On the fourth reason cf. below q. 3.

la: Gen. 12, 1. seqq.; 15, 6. seqq. et 22, 18. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 9. — Superius pro *distinctionis*, quod habent codd. A F H K R S V X, alii et edd. *discretionis*.

en: Genesis 12:1ff.; 15:6ff. and 22:18. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 9. — Above, for *distinctionis* ("of distinction"), which codices A F H K R S V X have, others and the editions read *discretionis* ("of discretion").

la: Cfr. Lev. 12, 3; Ioan. 7, 22. et Hieronym., I. Comment. in Gal. 3, 7. — Propter abbreviationem in multis codd. pro *ratio legi* potest *responsio*.

en: Cf. Leviticus 12:3; John 7:22 and Jerome, Book I of the Commentary on Galatians 3:7. — On account of abbreviation, in many codices for *ratio legi* one may read *responsio*.

la: Ios. 5, 4. seqq.

en: Joshua 5:4ff.

la: Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2. et de Sacram. legis naturalis et scriptae (in fine), ait: Tres sunt circumcisiones: una in carne tantum exterius, quae Sacramentum est; duae aliae, quae sunt res et virtus Sacramenti: altera, quae fit in praesenti, quando per depositionem iniquitatis mens circumciditur; altera, quae in futuro fiet, quando per depositionem corruptionis corpus circumcidetur. Prima igitur est in carne, secunda in mente, tertia in corpore.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, p. XII, c. 2 and *On the Sacraments of the natural and the written law* (at the end), says: There are three circumcisions: one in the flesh only, outwardly, which is the Sacrament; the two others, which are the reality and the power of the Sacrament: one which takes place in the present, when by the laying-aside of iniquity the mind is circumcised; the other which will take place in the future, when by the laying-aside of corruption the body will be circumcised. The first, therefore, is in the flesh, the second in the mind, the third in the body.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Duplici ex causa circumcisio a Deo convenienter instituta fuit, scilicet tum in remedium peccati originalis, tum in signaculum distinctionis (q. incid. 2.) ad separandum populum fidelem ab infidelibus. Hoc constat; de nonnullis aliis annexis quaestionibus inter doctores disputatur.

De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 1. m. 1. 2. — Scot., de hac et 2. seqq. qq. hic q. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 70. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 22. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 7.

<!-- page 39 -->

**II.** In 2. quaestione solvenda conveniunt doctores in hoc, quod determinatio *diei octavae* non spectet ad essentiam circumcisionis, sed sit *praeceptum adiunctum*, quod vel non obligabat in articulo *necessitatis*, ut vult Magister, vel, si non nisi ex speciali Dei dispensatione licebat terminum hunc praevenire vel differre, tunc supplementum habuit per generale remedium, scilicet fidei. Hanc alteram opinionem tenent Hugo a S. Victore nec non S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 3. ad 3; cfr. ibid. a. 4. ad 3.); cui sententiae S. Bonav. (hic ad 3. 4.) addit restrictionem, quod scilicet non semper in casu necessitatis recursus ad remedium fidei efficax fuerit.

De hac 2. quaestione praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal. loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. — B. Albert., rem tangendo hic a. 23. in fine. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.

**III.** Circa 3. quaestionem de efficacia circumcisionis sunt plures difficultates et fuerunt variae opiniones. Concedunt fere omnes tanquam certum, per eam primo et principaliter deletum esse peccatum originale et ex consequenti etiam actuale illi annexum (S. Thom., S. III. q. 70. a. 4. ad 5.). Sed disputabatur tum de aliis quibusdam eiusdem effectibus, tum de modo, quo conferebat gratiam. Tres primae opiniones, hic ab auctore nostro relatae — quarum prima insinuari videtur verbis Magistri, tertia vero tenetur a Guliel. Antissiod. (Sum. p. IV. tr. 1. c. 5. q. 2.) — a S. Thoma aliisque posterioribus tanquam improbabiles reiciuntur. Quartam opinionem cum S. Bonav. approbaverunt etiam S. Thom. in Commentario (loc. cit. a. 4.) et Petr. a Tar. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.). Sed in Summa (loc. cit. q. 4.) S. Thom., postquam de quarta opinione dixit, idem aliquando sibi visum esse, subiungit: «Sed diligenter consideranti apparet, hoc non esse verum». Deinde docet, «quod in circumcisione conferebatur gratia quantum ad omnes gratiae effectus, aliter tamen quam in baptismo». — De hoc igitur modo gratiam conferendi et de altera quaestione cum illa cohaerente, utrum circumcisio fuerit verum et proprium Sacramentum, inter subsequentes theologos, praesertim inter Thomistas et Scotistas, controversia fuit. Illi tamen concorditer tenent, circumcisionem non tantum fuisse remedium contra peccatum originale, sed etiam gratiam contulisse cum effectibus eiusdem tam positivis quam privativis. Dissensus igitur circa *modum* efficiendi versatur circa hoc: utrum ex *vi sua* sive ex opere operato, an solum *ratione fidei* operabatur. S. Thom. docet, baptismum conferre gratiam «ex virtute ipsius baptismi, quam habet, in quantum est instrumentum *passionis Christi* iam perfectae; in circumcisione autem conferebatur gratia non ex virtute circumcisionis, sed ex virtute *fidei* passionis Christi, cuius signum erat circumcisio» etc. Idem breviter docetur S. c. Gent. IV. c. 57. Sed Scot. (hic q. 6. n. 9. seqq.) vult, circumcisionem causasse gratiam ut signum efficax sive ex operato, et in hoc eam fuisse similem Sacramentis novae legis et proprie Sacramentum. Ita docent etiam S. Bonav. (cfr. infra dub. 1. et dist. 2. dub. 2.), Alex. Hal., Richard. a Med., Durand. et non pauci alii, praesertim qui efficaciam physicam Sacramentorum negant. — Multa in hac quaestione a S. Bonav. sumta sunt ex Alexandro Hal.

De hac (3.) quaestione praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. a. 2. 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 19. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** For a twofold cause circumcision was fittingly instituted by God, namely both as a remedy for original sin, and as a seal of distinction (incidental q. 2.) for separating the faithful people from the unbelievers. This is established; concerning certain other annexed questions there is dispute among the doctors.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 1. m. 1, 2. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions, here q. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1; *Summa* III. q. 70. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 22. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the two following questions, here q. 7.

**II.** In the solving of the second question the doctors agree in this, that the determination of the *eighth day* does not pertain to the essence of circumcision, but is an *adjoined precept*, which either did not bind in the case of *necessity*, as the Master holds, or, if only by a special dispensation of God it was permitted to anticipate or defer this term, then it had supplement through the general remedy, namely of faith. This latter opinion is held by Hugh of St. Victor and also by St. Thomas (here q. 2. a. 3; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. ad 3; cf. ibid. a. 4. ad 3.); to which view St. Bonaventure (here ad 3, 4.) adds the restriction, that, namely, recourse to the remedy of faith was not always efficacious in the case of necessity.

On this second question, besides those praised: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, touching the matter here a. 23. at the end. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 2.

**III.** Concerning the third question, on the efficacy of circumcision, there are many difficulties and there were various opinions. Almost all concede as certain that through it original sin was first and principally blotted out, and consequently also the actual [sin] annexed to it (St. Thomas, *Summa* III. q. 70. a. 4. ad 5.). But it was disputed both concerning certain other effects of it, and concerning the mode by which it conferred grace. The first three opinions, here related by our author — of which the first seems to be hinted at by the words of the Master, while the third is held by William of Auxerre (*Summa* p. IV. tr. 1. c. 5. q. 2.) — are rejected by St. Thomas and others later as improbable. The fourth opinion, with St. Bonaventure, was also approved by St. Thomas in the Commentary (loc. cit. a. 4.) and Peter of Tarentaise (loc. cit. little-question 2.). But in the *Summa* (loc. cit. q. 4.) St. Thomas, after speaking of the fourth opinion, subjoins that it had at one time seemed to him: «But to one considering diligently it appears that this is not true». Then he teaches «that in circumcision grace was conferred with respect to all the effects of grace, yet otherwise than in baptism». — Concerning this mode, therefore, of conferring grace, and concerning the other question cohering with it — whether circumcision was a true and proper Sacrament — there was controversy among the subsequent theologians, especially between the Thomists and the Scotists. Yet they hold concordantly that circumcision was not only a remedy against original sin, but also conferred grace with its effects, both positive and privative. The disagreement, therefore, concerning the *mode* of effecting turns on this: whether it operated *by its own power*, that is, by the work performed (*ex opere operato*), or only *by reason of faith*. St. Thomas teaches that baptism confers grace «by the power of baptism itself, which it has inasmuch as it is the instrument of the *passion of Christ* already accomplished; but in circumcision grace was conferred not by the power of circumcision, but by the power of *faith* in the passion of Christ, whose sign circumcision was» etc. The same is briefly taught in *Summa contra Gentiles* IV. c. 57. But Scotus (here q. 6. n. 9. seqq.) holds that circumcision caused grace as an efficacious sign, that is, by the work performed, and in this it was similar to the Sacraments of the new law and properly a Sacrament. So teach also St. Bonaventure (cf. below dub. 1. and dist. 2. dub. 2.), Alexander of Hales, Richard of Middleton, Durandus, and not a few others, especially those who deny the physical efficacy of the Sacraments. — Much in this question was taken by St. Bonaventure from Alexander of Hales.

On this (third) question, besides those praised: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7. a. 2, 3, 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 19. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6. q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p037-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p038-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p039-{L,R}-*`; split_x = 1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 4499–4777), which cascade-shatters the two-column *videtur* / Respondeo / *Ad obiecta* / scholion and the footers. Printed pp. 37–39 = PDF pp. 57–59 (offset pdf = printed + 20). This is Part II, Article II, Question I — the FIRST of Article II's three questions (on circumcision). **The ARTICULUS II opener (*De remedio in lege scripta sive de circumcisione*; *Consequenter quaeritur… Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria* listing q1 institution / q2 form-integrity / q3 efficacy) is folded into THIS q1** per the locked chunking convention. The next chunk is a2-q2 (*De forma sive de integritate circumcisionis*), beginning at raw L4779 / foot of p.39.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** The ARTICULUS II opener (raw L4499) and the QUAESTIO I title *De institutione circumcisionis* match the article's first listed question (institution); the body opener *Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur, quod remedium circumcisionis congrue sit institutum* keys to "primum" = institution. No q-swap. The following QUAESTIO II *De forma sive de integritate circumcisionis* (raw L4779, foot of p.39) is the distinct second question.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.37** (PDF 57; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I."): q3's tail (the *Solvuntur 2 obiectiones* on *via erroris* / *contra pietatem*) occupies the very top of both columns — NOT re-set here (held in a1-q3). Below: ARTICULUS II opener (both columns), then QUAESTIO I — the *videtur* args 1–3 + *Contra* args 1–2 (left column); the three "quaestiones incidentes" + CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO opener (right column). Footer note-series **1–10** (left col nn.1–5, right col nn.6–10), **all claimed here** → [^1]–[^10]. (a1-q3 forwarded NOTHING and confirmed its p.37 tail carried no markers; q1 claims p.37 from note 1.)
- **p.38** (PDF 58; running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): the *Ad obiecta* replies 1–2 + the reply on which Law (the *quadruplex causa*: gravity / evidence / certitude / efficacy) + the replies on "why before the Law / why Abraham / why under Joshua" (both columns), then SCHOLION §I begins. Footer note-series **1–12** (left col nn.1–7, right col nn.8–12), all claimed here → [^1b]–[^12b].
- **p.39** (PDF 59; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II." — this is q2's running head sitting over q1's scholion tail): SCHOLION §II (day-eight) and §III (efficacy) with their inline doctor-reference lists (left column + upper right column). q1's scholion **carries no footnote markers**. The lower right column begins QUAESTIO II (*De forma…*; the *Sed contra* args + footers nn.5–6) — that belongs to a2-q2, NOT here. So q1 claims **no p.39 footers.**

**Marker numbering.** To keep the two per-page footer sequences distinct, p.37's claimed notes use plain markers [^1]–[^10] and p.38's use the `b`-suffixed markers [^1b]–[^12b]. Marker pairing: Latin body = English body = defs (22 defs: [^1]–[^10], [^1b]–[^12b]).

**Scholion scope (finding).** `has_scholion: TRUE`. q1 carries the single **article-master SCHOLION** for Article II, spanning **§I–§III** (printed lower p.38 → p.39, both columns). **§I treats THIS q1** (twofold cause: remedy + seal of distinction); **§II treats q2** (the eighth-day determination as adjoined precept, not of the essence); **§III treats q3** (efficacy / mode of conferring grace; Thomist *ex virtute fidei* vs Scotist *ex opere operato*). Each section closes with its own "De hac N. quaestione…" doctor-reference list. Per the parser gotcha, the full scholion is placed LAST in each language block. **Siblings q2 and q3 are expected `has_scholion: false`**, deferring respectively to this scholion's §II and §III (mirrors the Article I pattern, where q1 held the article-master scholion and q2/q3 deferred to its §II/§III).

**Hand-off picked up ← `d1-p2-a1-q3`:** a1-q3 forwarded NOTHING (its p.37 tail carried no footnote markers; the p.37 footer note-series belongs entirely to ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I, note 1 = *Cfr. infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.*). q1 opens its own per-page band at **p.37 note 1** and claims p.37 nn.1–10 + p.38 nn.1–12. All honored here. Did NOT re-claim p.35/36 footers (a1-q3's).

**Hand-off forwarded → `d1-p2-a2-q2`:** NOTHING — q1's scholion §III closes in the upper-right column of p.39 and carries no footnote markers. QUAESTIO II (*De forma sive de integritate circumcisionis*) opens in the lower-right column of p.39 / raw L4779 and starts its own per-page bands (the visible p.39 footers nn.5–6 are q2's *Sed contra* notes). a2-q2 should claim ALL p.39 footers from QUAESTIO II's body onward.

**[?] flags:** none. The OCR cascade-shatter of the two-column body, scholion, and footers was fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all readings are legible. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (*institutnm*→*institutum*, *significationis* read cleanly, *circulariter* read cleanly, *Ansehnus*→*Anselmus*, *jn*→*in*, *del̂ent*→*debent*, *Ilem*→*Item*, *sensns*→*sensus*, *Qo^esiio in-* margin = *Quaestio incidens*, *institutnm*→*institutum*, *expressnm*→*expressum*, *corapa-ratur*→*comparatur*, *poena corapa-*→*poena compa-*, *Conipara-*→*Compara-*, *qnantum*→*quantum*, *iuslus*→*iustus*, *del3uit*→*debuit*, *Hugónem*→*Hugonem*, *natnrae*→*naturae*, *halxierunt*→*habuerunt*, *Damasc.*→*Damascene*, *gislator*→*legislator*, *flet*→*fiet*, etc.).