title: Dist. 40, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (de sexto et septimo praecepto concupiscentiae, et de diversitate Sacramentorum utriusque Legis)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (on the sixth and seventh precepts forbidding concupiscence, and on the diversity of the Sacraments of the two Laws)

source_text:
<!-- page 892 -->

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod sextum praeceptum est: *Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui.* Si enim prius est concupiscere quam moechari, videtur, quod illud mandatum non deberet sexto loco, immo tertio loco poni inter praecepta secundae tabulae. — Item, nihil debet praecipi, nisi quod est in nostra potestate[^1]; sed natura, quamdiu corrupta est, habet pronitatem concupiscendi: ergo videtur, quod concupiscentia non debeat in Decalogo prohiberi. — Item, sicut contingit concupiscere uxorem hominis, ita etiam contingit concupiscere filiam et concubinam: ergo non videtur, quod in mandato illo sufficienter prohibeatur carnis concupiscentia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod moechia se habet ex additione ad concupiscentiam, quia moechari est in corde et opere, concupiscere est in corde. Et quia prohibitio dicit negationem utriusque; et negationes se habent e contrario affirmationibus[^2]: ideo prohibitio concupiscentiae addit supra prohibitionem moechiae; et generaliter prohibitio peccati cordis addit supra prohibitionem peccati operis. Plus enim est prohibere peccatum cordis quam peccatum operis, quia peccatum operis praesupponit peccatum cordis. Et ideo ista duo mandata, in quibus prohibetur concupiscentia, ultimo loco sunt ordinata[^3]. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod primo obiicitur.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil debet praecipi, quod non est in nostra potestate; dicendum, quod est concupiscentia, quae consistit in sensualitate, et est concupiscentia, quae est in consensu rationis progressivo ad opus. Prima est veniale nec prohibetur, sed cohibetur[^4]. Secunda vero est peccatum mortale, et prohibetur, in quantum est progressiva ad opus. Unde istius mandati explicatio et intellectus insinuatur decimo octavo[^5] Ecclesiastici, ubi dicitur: *Fili, post concupiscentias tuas non eas;* ubi simpliciter non prohibetur concupiscere, sed post concupiscentias ambulare consentiendo et in actum progrediendo.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de concupiscentia filiae et concubinae, dicendum, quod filia et concubina dupliciter potest concupisci: aut in possessionem, ut redigatur in servitutem et famulatum, aut ad operis carnalis consummationem. Et primum prohibetur per septimum praeceptum: *Non concupisces rem;* secundum vero prohibetur per mandatum illud, quia prohibetur concupiscentia carnis contra legitimum torum. Unde desiderare filiam alicuius in uxorem non est prohibitum, sed desiderare eam in fornicationem et meretricem; et hoc clauditur in sexta prohibitione[^6].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Septimum praeceptum est: Non concupisces domum proximi tui:* quia quod licitum est acquirere pretio licitum est affectu[^7] desiderare; sed domum proximi licitum est pretio emere: ergo licitum est eam desiderare et concupiscere. Si tu dicas, quod ibi accipitur concupiscentia pro inordinato desiderio; sic similiter non licet concupiscere rem propriam. — Item, sicut contingit inordinate desiderare domum proximi, ita contingit inordinate desiderare dignitatem proximi: ergo sicut illud prohibetur, ita et illud debuit prohiberi. Si tu dicas, quod illud clauditur in hac prohibitione; contra hoc est: quia concupiscentia dignitatis spectat ad superbiam et vanam gloriam, concupiscentia domus ad avaritiam: ergo cum ista sint diversorum generum, videtur, quod in una prohibitione non claudantur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in verbo isto prohibetur concupiscentia rei[^8] alienae, secundum quod aliquis concupiscit aliquid in possessionem, quaerens in illo sufficientiam. Unde non tantum prohibetur concupiscentia bonorum temporalium, ut domus et pecudis, sed etiam cuiuscumque alterius rei, quam quis vellet alii praeripere. Et hoc quidem prohibetur, intelligendo per se, ut quis non concupiscat alienum manens alienum; vel etiam intelligitur contra iuris ordinem, hoc est, quando quis vellet proximum damnificari in re propter suam utilitatem; tunc enim non diligit proximum sicut se. Unde in verbo isto prohibetur omnis avaritia et cupiditas.

<!-- page 893 -->

Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur: quod licet pretio acquirere licet concupiscere; dicendum, quod *concupiscere* dicit ibi appetitum immoderatum habendi cum damno proximi, et in hoc ipso[^9] etiam clauditur appetitus immoderatus, prohibitio etiam respectu rei propriae, penes quam consistit peccatum cupiditatis et avaritiae.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de ambitione dignitatis et honoris, dicendum, quod si dignitas et honor appetatur in ratione *sufficientiae*, sic spectat ad crimen avaritiae et in isto mandato prohiberi habet. Si autem in ratione *excellentiae*, sic potest dici, quod prohibetur per primum mandatum, in quo praecipitur reverentia Dei. — Posset tamen dici, quod utroque modo clauditur in prohibitione septimi, quia utrobique est amor boni proprii, et una est ratio deordinandi respectu proximi, licet multiplex sit ratio deordinandi respectu sui. Ideo sub una prohibitione habet claudi utraque concupiscentia; et magis prohibetur concupiscentia domus quam concupiscentia dignitatis, quia manifestior erat[^10] et sensibilior, et etiam Iudaei magis proni erant ad avaritiam.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *diversa Sacramenta sunt Legis novae et veteris, quia illa tantum significabant, haec conferunt gratiam.* Contra hoc obiicitur, quod nullus salvari potest sine gratia: ergo si Sacramenta veteris Legis gratiam non conferebant, videtur, quod nullus in Lege illa salvatus fuerit; quod est impium dicere. Si tu dicas, quod in Sacramentis illis dabatur gratia, sed tamen non virtute Sacramentorum illorum; in Sacramentis autem novae Legis datur gratia virtute ipsorum, quia sunt «ex sanctificatione sanctificantia», sicut dicit Hugo[^11]; obiicitur contra hoc: quia gratia est per creationem: ergo solus Deus habet virtutem conferendi gratiam[^12]: ergo si in istis et illis conferebat, videtur, quod inter haec Sacramenta et illa nulla sit differentia.

**Respondeo:** Intelligendum est ad hoc, quod duplex est circa quaestionem istam opinio celebris et famosa.

Quidam namque voluerunt dicere, quod in utrisque Sacramentis datur gratia, sed differenter: quia in illis dabatur ratione fidei et devotionis ipsius suscipientis, ita quod nullo modo ratione Sacramenti sive operis operati. In Sacramentis autem

<!-- page 894 -->

novae Legis secus est, quia constant ex verbo et elemento; et cum Dominus instituit verbum, dedit illi virtutem, per quam influit et agit in animam vel disponendo ad gratiae susceptionem, vel imprimendo characteris consignificationem, vel adminiculando ipsi gratiae ad animae curationem et fomitis debilitationem. Et hoc videtur dicere Augustinus[^14]: «Quae est virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo»? Et magister Hugo de sancto Victore videtur id idem sentire, qui dicit[^15], quod «Sacramenta novae Legis prius sanctificantur per verbum et postmodum sanctificant, ut sic sint ex sanctificatione sanctificantia». Et hunc modum dicendi sustinent viri periti et fide digni:

Sed difficile videtur mihi intelligere, virtutem illam simul esse verbo et elemento collatam, quantum ad essentiam et naturam, quantum ad eius existentiam, quantum ad durationis mensuram et etiam quantum ad operationis efficaciam; quae omnia necesse est ponere et explicare[^16] circa virtutem illam, si quis dicat, quod aliqua qualitas detur verbo et elemento, per quam agat et influat in ipsam animam.

Difficile namque est intelligere illius virtutis essentiam. Cum enim non sit substantia, sed accidens quoddam et in genere boni; dubium est, utrum debeat reponi inter bona maxima, vel media, vel minima[^17]. Et si inter bona maxima reponatur, iam gratia erit; gratia autem existens in uno subiecto, non habet virtutem agendi in aliud. Si vero gratia non est nec virtus, quomodo ergo dicitur secundum veritatem sanctificare ipsum Sacramentum et eum qui suscipit Sacramentum? — In quo etiam genere sit et cuius speciei sit, utrum videlicet in diversis Sacramentis diversificetur formaliter illa virtus, homini parum intelligenti difficile est capere. — Et si inter bona media, vel minima reponitur, quomodo talis virtus facit rectitudinem[^18] et sanationem ipsius animae, quae inter bona maxima computantur?

Non solum autem difficile est intelligere huius virtutis essentiam, sed etiam subsistentiam. Qualiter enim accidens spirituale substantificabitur in subiecto corporali, cum secundum naturae ordinem, quem Deus non pervertit per miraculum, substantia sit nobilior sua proprietate? — Aut si ponitur illa virtus spiritualis[^19] ut in subiecto in verbo et elemento, quare non similiter ipsa *gratia*, quae debet infundi animae? quod nescio si aliquis recte intelligens dicat. — Aut si est in subiecto corporali, quomodo una virtus et qualitas absoluta simul poterit esse in duobus subiectis, verbo videlicet et elemento, ex quibus, etsi fiat unum Sacramentum, non tamen fit unum per naturam et essentiam? Unitas autem virtutis, secundum quod vult Damascenus[^20], correspondet unitati substantiae et naturae. Aut ergo in uno Sacramento non est una virtus, sed plures; aut illa virtus composita est; aut unum accidens simplex et spirituale et impartibile simul erit in diversis subiectis; quod totum valde difficile est intelligere de illa virtute.

Nec solum ista duo difficile est intelligere de illa virtute, sed etiam durationis mensuram. Dubium enim videtur, utrum Deus dederit virtutem illam, quando primo instituit, an de novo det. Sed quomodo a principio dedit his quae nondum erant, sicut verbis, quae quotidie de novo formantur? Si de novo dat, tunc quotidie in Sacramentis non solum gratiam, sed etiam alia accidentia creat; et tamen non consuevit dici, quod creationis opus currat nunc nisi[^21] circa exitum animae in esse et circa infusionem gratiae. — Et si desinat esse statim, prolato verbo, quomodo creavit Deus tam nobilem virtutem, ut ita cito deficeret? — Et rursus, si datur verbo, cum non[^22] detur verbo in scripto nec in mente, datur in pronuntiatione; et tunc difficile erit explicare, utrum detur in principio, vel in medio, vel in fine: quia nec in principio verbi nec in medio est actio illius virtutis. Si vero in fine, tunc, cum verbum desinat esse, et deficiente verbo, desinat virtus verbi, simul incipiet virtus et desinet. Aut si ante finem daretur; quando ante[^23] detur et quantum duret, difficile est insinuare.

Nec tantum illud, sed etiam multo difficilius est explicare operationis illius virtutis efficaciam, utrum scilicet agat generatione aequivoca, vel univoca, generando sibi simile, vel dissimile. — Difficile etiam est[^24], utrum influat omnino aliquid ab extrinseco, an educat aliquid de potentia in actum. Pri-

<!-- page 895 -->

mum est soli Deo possibile, secundum autem difficile est explicare. — Difficile est etiam intelligere, quomodo characteris impressio possit esse ab illa virtute, cum character videatur esse in superiori parte, in qua solus Deus potest influere. Unde substantia intelligibilis beata, quantumcumque magnae sit excellentiae, secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^26], non potest facere ad nostram iustificationem, vel illuminationem aliquid interius formando, sed solum exterius excitando. Quomodo ergo hoc poterit virtus data elemento vel verbo, cum non videatur esse capax tantae virtutis? — Postremo, in Sacramento altaris, in quo fit subito transsubstantiatio panis secundum se totum in corpus Christi — quod quidem non potest esse nisi ab infinita virtute — quomodo verbum prolatum ab homine, cum sit finitae virtutis, poterit ad istam transsubstantiationem aliquid operari? Et certe, si illud verbum virtutem non habet agentem, multo minus verba aliorum Sacramentorum.

Haec omnia et multa alia circa hoc valde difficile est intelligere et explicare. Quae non idcirco narro, quia credam esse insolubilia, vel ut per ipsam istam improbem positionem, sed ut ostendam, me ipsam non plene intelligere, et ideo nec affirmare nec negare velle; quia, etsi ipsam non clare intelligam, hoc tamen scio et intelligo, quod plura potest Deus facere et etiam in ipsis Sacramentis facit, quam nos possumus intelligere[^27]. Unde confugiendo ad mirabilem Dei potentiam, omnia ista possumus facile declinare. Et secundum istum modum dicendi satis plana esset responsio ad quaestionem propositam, si ipsius modi plana esset intelligentia. Et haec positio in quarto libro[^28] diffusius est explicata, ubi respondetur ad praemissa.

Alius est hic modus dicendi. Supposito, quod in Sacramentis novae Legis «divina virtus secretius operatur»[^29], quia hoc est ipsius fidei et sententiae communis: dixerunt aliqui, Sacramenta novae Legis habere respectu iustificationis virtutem influentem, promerentem, disponentem et efficaciter ordinantem: virtutem influentem ratione Spiritus sancti assistentis; virtutem promerentem ratione meriti passionis ad Sacramentum concurrentis[^31]; virtutem disponentem ratione devotionis ipsius fidelis Sacramentum suscipientis; virtutem denique efficaciter ordinantem ratione divinae pactionis instituentis. Sic enim instituit Dominus, ut ad talis verbi prolationem et Sacramenti susceptionem mirabilis in suscipientibus fieret operatio et suscipientium sanatio et iustificatio; et pro tanto dicuntur Sacramenta novae Legis habere virtutem. — Et differunt in hoc a Sacramentis Legis veteris, praecipue quantum ad ipsam efficacem ordinationem, quia non interveniebat ibi pactio in illis Sacramentis, per quam efficax et infallibilis fieret ordinatio ad gratiam, secundum quod in Sacramentis novae Legis; ut patet in institutione baptismi, ubi dixit[^32]: *Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit.* — In aliis etiam tribus modis habendi virtutem differentia est penes magis completum et minus completum, quia in Sacramentis novae Legis Spiritus sanctus influens iustitiam plenius assistit, et passio Christi meritoria efficacius concurrit. In cuius signum de latere Christi profluxerunt sanguis et aqua[^33], et per consequens Sacramenta, de quibus fundatur Ecclesia. — Abundantior etiam est devotio suscipientis tum propter incrementum fidei propriae, quod factum est in nova Lege, tum etiam propter subsidium fidei totius Ecclesiae, quia in fide Ecclesiae suscipiuntur ecclesiastica Sacramenta[^34]. — Et propter istum quadruplicem modum habendi virtutem dicuntur Sacramenta Legis novae iustificare et esse causa gratiae. — Nec volunt qui hanc positionem sustinent in Sacramentis novae Legis amplius ponere, tum quia ista satis videntur sufficere ad nostram sanationem et iustificationem; tum etiam, quia ex isto quadruplici modo habendi virtutem satis manifestatur nobilitas Sacramentorum novae Legis in se ipsis; tum etiam, quia secundum hoc satis apparet differentia Sacramentorum novae Legis et veteris[^35]; tum etiam, quia nec expressa auctoritas nec ratio videtur cogere amplius illis dare, et humilitas fidei non tantum debet refugere diminutionem, verum etiam superfluitatem, et laudabilius quodam modo videtur diminute dicere quam ampliare.

Hunc modum dicendi et huius quaestionis determinationem plures sustinent[^36] bene intelligentes. Et dominus Gulielmus, Parisiensis episcopus, in determinando in scholis Fratrum Minorum approbavit

<!-- page 896 -->

istum modum dicendi coram fratre Alexandro bonae memoriae. — Et istum modum dicendi dupliciter potest quis sustinere et intelligere: vel ita, quod omnino affirmet, nullo alio modo esse virtutem in Sacramentis novae Legis quam modis praedictis; vel quod hoc modo affirmet, virtutem in eis esse, ita tamen, quod non neget, alium modum praeter hos existendi virtutem in Sacramentis esse possibilem. Et primus modus repugnat priori modo dicendi; secundus autem modus dicendi priori opinioni non repugnat, quia nihil dicit, quod illa non dicat, immo etiam nihil dicit, quod communis opinio non teneat — nullus enim recte sentiens negat, quin omnibus dictis modis Sacramenta novae Legis virtutem habeant — sed si quis plus dicit, huic positioni non contradicit, sed addit.

Sed forte videbitur alicui calumniabile, quod dictum est, virtutem Spiritus sancti Sacramento assistere, quin potius in nomine Sacramenti claudi deberet intelligi tanquam de eius integritate, propter illud quod dicitur primae Ioannis quinto[^37]: *Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt;* et in libro de Unitate et uno[^38] dicitur, quod sunt unum Sacramento: et ideo non debet dici, quod Spiritus sanctus assistat Sacramento, tanquam cum eo connumeretur; sed propter ipsam unitatem, quae praedicta est, quam efficit Spiritus sanctus in Sacramento, ipsi Sacramento debet attribui.

Sed certe, etsi hic modus dicendi videatur differre a praedicto, tamen secundum rem idem est, licet vocabula sint diversa. Quod enim dicuntur ista, tria unum Sacramento, hoc non est, quod ex ipsis fiat unum per essentiam, sed quod fiat unum per ordinem, quia scilicet ordinantur ad unum effectum; et hoc nihil aliud est dicere, quam unum alteri assistere. — Item, omne quod est de integritate Sacramenti, aut est res tantum, aut significatio tantum, aut res et signum[^39]. Si ergo Spiritus influens iustitiam ponitur de unitate Sacramenti, cum non sit signum nec res et signum, erit tantummodo sicut res, et ita non habebit rationem causantis, sed potius rationem effectus; et ita Spiritus non staret pro ipsa virtute influente, sed potius pro ipsa gratia Spiritus sancti infusa ipsi animae in Sacramenti susceptione. — Item, non est quaestio, utrum Spiritus sanctus in Sacramento infundat gratiam, sed de hoc est quaestio, utrum Sacramentum, secundum quod dicitur «invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma[^40], ita quod similitudinem eius gerat et causa existat», habeat virtutem aliquam, per quam influat in animam. Non videtur ergo hoc facere ad propositum. — Postremo, Spiritus sanctus sanctificans et meritum passionis et elementum exterius non solummodo reperiuntur in Sacramentis Legis novae, sed etiam in Sacramentis veteris Legis. Hoc ergo non sufficit dicere ad assignandum differentiam istorum Sacramentorum et illorum. — Aut ergo modus iste dicendi nihil aliud dicit, aut si dicit, parum dicit et modicum ad propositum facit.

Et ideo sustineatur, quicumque praedictorum modorum magis placet, quia primus satis pius est, secundus vero satis sobrius est, si sustineatur illo modo, quo dictum est; et hoc modo in quarto libro[^41] sustinetur, sicut patet consideranti. Et idcirco hic repetii, non propter hoc, ut nova superadderentur, sed ut ostenderetur, quod a communi positione non dissonat, cui pro viribus meis in omnibus praecedentibus libris adhaesi tanquam viae securiori, et sicut scio et possum, mihi et aliis consimilibus parum intelligentibus persuadeo adhaerendum; et quoniam per totum librum hoc diligentius observavi — sicut advertenti clarius apparebit — ut in his quaestionibus dubiis et difficilibus, in quibus non potui deprehendere, quae esset via communis, quia sapientes opinantur contrarie sapientibus, sic unam partem tanquam magis probabilem sustinerem, ut tamen aliam minime improbarem.

Sufficit enim in dubiis scire, quid sapientes senserunt, nec est utile contentionibus deservire. *Multa dicimus et deficimus in verbis, consummator autem sermonum ipse est*[^42] Dominus noster Iesus Christus, de quo factus est sermo in hoc tertio libro, cui immensas gratias ago, quia adiuvit pervenire ad consummationem istius opusculi, miseratus paupertatem scientiae et ingenii; in quo tertius iste liber ultimo est notatus[^43]. Quem rogo, ut faciat provenire mihi ad obedientiae meritum et ad fratrum profectum, propter quae duo labor iste a principio fuit assumtus. Ipsi ergo, de quo factus est sermo, Domino nostro Iesu Christo, *regi saeculorum immortali et invisibili*, qui pro nobis factus est homo et crucem subiit et gratiam multiplicem contulit et mandata dedit, secundum quod in hoc libro explanatum est, sit omnis honor et gloria per infinita saecula saeculorum. Amen[^44].

EXPLICIT LIBER TERTIUS FRATRIS BONAVENTURAE SUPER SENTENTIAS.

english:
<!-- page 892 -->

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says, that the sixth precept is: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.* For if to covet is prior to committing adultery, it seems that that commandment ought not to be set down in the sixth place, but rather in the third place among the precepts of the second tablet. — Likewise, nothing ought to be commanded except what is in our power[^1]; but nature, so long as it is corrupted, has a proneness to coveting: therefore it seems that concupiscence ought not to be forbidden in the Decalogue. — Likewise, just as it happens that one covets a man's wife, so too it happens that one covets his daughter and his concubine: therefore it does not seem that the concupiscence of the flesh is sufficiently forbidden in that commandment.

**I respond:** It must be said that adultery stands by an addition over concupiscence, since to commit adultery is in heart and in deed, but to covet is in the heart. And since a prohibition states the negation of both; and negations stand contrariwise to affirmations[^2]: therefore the prohibition of concupiscence adds something over the prohibition of adultery; and generally the prohibition of the sin of the heart adds something over the prohibition of the sin of deed. For it is more to forbid the sin of the heart than the sin of deed, since the sin of deed presupposes the sin of the heart. And therefore those two commandments, in which concupiscence is forbidden, are ordered in the last place[^3]. — And by this is made plain the answer to that which is objected first.

To that which is objected, that nothing ought to be commanded which is not in our power; it must be said that there is a concupiscence which consists in sensuality, and there is a concupiscence which is in the consent of reason moving forward to a deed. The first is venial and is not forbidden, but is restrained[^4]. But the second is mortal sin, and is forbidden, insofar as it moves forward to a deed. Hence the explanation and meaning of this commandment is intimated in Ecclesiasticus 18[^5], where it is said: *Son, go not after thy lusts;* where to covet is not simply forbidden, but to walk after one's lusts by consenting and proceeding into act.

To that which is objected concerning the concupiscence of a daughter and a concubine, it must be said that a daughter and a concubine can be coveted in two ways: either into possession, that one may be reduced to servitude and service, or for the consummation of a carnal deed. And the first is forbidden by the seventh precept: *Thou shalt not covet the thing;* but the second is forbidden by that commandment, since the concupiscence of the flesh against the lawful marriage-bed is forbidden. Hence to desire someone's daughter for a wife is not forbidden, but to desire her for fornication and as a harlot; and this is comprised under the sixth prohibition[^6].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The seventh precept is: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house:* since what it is lawful to acquire for a price it is lawful to desire by affection[^7]; but it is lawful to buy one's neighbor's house for a price: therefore it is lawful to desire and covet it. If you say that there concupiscence is taken for an inordinate desire; in this way likewise it is not lawful to covet one's own property. — Likewise, just as it happens that one inordinately desires a neighbor's house, so it happens that one inordinately desires a neighbor's dignity: therefore just as the former is forbidden, so also the latter ought to have been forbidden. If you say that the latter is comprised under this prohibition; against this is: that the concupiscence of dignity pertains to pride and vainglory, the concupiscence of a house to avarice: therefore since these belong to diverse genera, it seems that they are not comprised under one prohibition.

**I respond:** It must be said that in this saying there is forbidden the concupiscence of another's thing[^8], insofar as one covets something into possession, seeking in it sufficiency. Hence not only is the concupiscence of temporal goods forbidden, such as a house and cattle, but also of any other thing whatsoever which one would wish to snatch away from another. And this indeed is forbidden, understood in itself, so that one not covet another's thing while it remains another's; or it is also understood as against the order of right, that is, when one would wish his neighbor to be harmed in his property for his own advantage; for then he does not love his neighbor as himself. Hence in this saying all avarice and cupidity are forbidden.

<!-- page 893 -->

To that, therefore, which is objected first: that what it is lawful to acquire for a price it is lawful to covet; it must be said that *to covet* there means an immoderate appetite of having with harm to one's neighbor, and in this very thing[^9] there is also comprised the immoderate appetite, and the prohibition even with respect to one's own thing, in which the sin of cupidity and avarice consists.

To that which is objected concerning the ambition of dignity and honor, it must be said that if dignity and honor be sought under the aspect of *sufficiency*, in this way it pertains to the crime of avarice and is to be forbidden in this commandment. But if under the aspect of *excellence*, in this way it can be said that it is forbidden by the first commandment, in which reverence of God is enjoined. — Yet it could be said that in both ways it is comprised under the prohibition of the seventh, since in both there is love of one's own good, and there is one ground of disorder with respect to one's neighbor, although the ground of disorder with respect to oneself is manifold. Therefore under one prohibition both concupiscences are to be comprised; and the concupiscence of a house is forbidden more than the concupiscence of dignity, since it was more manifest[^10] and more perceptible, and also the Jews were more prone to avarice.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *the Sacraments of the new and the old Law are diverse, since the latter only signified, but the former confer grace.* Against this it is objected that no one can be saved without grace: therefore if the Sacraments of the old Law did not confer grace, it seems that no one was saved in that Law; which it is impious to say. If you say that in those Sacraments grace was given, but yet not by the power of those Sacraments; whereas in the Sacraments of the new Law grace is given by their power, since they are "sanctifying from sanctification," as Hugh says[^11]; it is objected against this: that grace is by creation: therefore God alone has the power of conferring grace[^12]: therefore if it conferred it in both these and those, it seems that there is no difference between these Sacraments and those.

**I respond:** It must be understood, as to this, that concerning this question there is a twofold celebrated and famous opinion.

For some wished to say that in both kinds of Sacraments grace is given, but differently: because in the former it was given by reason of the faith and devotion of the very recipient, so that in no way by reason of the Sacrament or of the work worked. But in the Sacraments of the

<!-- page 894 -->

new Law it is otherwise, since they consist of word and element; and when the Lord instituted the word, he gave it a power, by which it flows in and acts upon the soul either by disposing it to the reception of grace, or by imprinting the con-signification of a character, or by ministering to grace itself for the healing of the soul and the weakening of the tinder of sin. And this Augustine seems to say[^14]: "What is the power of water, that it touch the body and wash the heart, except by the action of the word?" And master Hugh of St. Victor seems to feel the same thing, who says[^15] that "the Sacraments of the new Law are first sanctified through the word and afterward sanctify, so that thus they are sanctifying from sanctification." And this manner of speaking is upheld by men skilled and worthy of faith:

But it seems difficult to me to understand that that power is conferred simultaneously upon word and element, as to its essence and nature, as to its existence, as to its measure of duration, and also as to the efficacy of its operation; all of which it is necessary to posit and explain[^16] concerning that power, if one says that some quality is given to word and element, by which it may act and flow into the soul itself.

For it is difficult to understand the essence of that power. For since it is not a substance, but a certain accident and in the genus of the good; it is doubtful whether it ought to be placed among the greatest goods, or the middling, or the least[^17]. And if it be placed among the greatest goods, it will now be grace; but grace existing in one subject does not have the power of acting upon another. But if it is neither grace nor a power, how then is it said in truth to sanctify the Sacrament itself and him who receives the Sacrament? — In what genus too it is and of what species it is, namely whether in diverse Sacraments that power is formally diversified, is difficult for a man of little understanding to grasp. — And if it be placed among the middling goods, or the least, how does such a power produce the rectitude[^18] and healing of the soul itself, which are reckoned among the greatest goods?

But not only is it difficult to understand the essence of this power, but also its subsistence. For how will a spiritual accident be substantiated in a corporeal subject, since according to the order of nature, which God does not overturn by miracle, a substance is nobler than its property? — Or if that spiritual power[^19] is posited as in a subject in word and element, why is not grace itself likewise so, which ought to be infused into the soul? which I know not whether anyone rightly understanding would say. — Or if it is in a corporeal subject, how will one absolute power and quality be able to be simultaneously in two subjects, namely word and element, of which, even if one Sacrament is made, nevertheless one thing is not made by nature and essence? But the unity of a power, according to what Damascene holds[^20], corresponds to the unity of substance and nature. Either therefore in one Sacrament there is not one power, but several; or that power is composite; or one simple and spiritual and indivisible accident will be simultaneously in diverse subjects; all of which is very difficult to understand concerning that power.

Nor are these two things alone difficult to understand concerning that power, but also its measure of duration. For it seems doubtful whether God gave that power when he first instituted it, or gives it anew. But how did he from the beginning give to those things which did not yet exist, such as words, which are daily formed anew? If he gives it anew, then daily in the Sacraments he creates not only grace, but also other accidents; and yet it is not wont to be said that the work of creation runs now except[^21] in regard to the soul's coming into being and in regard to the infusion of grace. — And if it ceases to be at once, the word having been uttered, how did God create so noble a power, that it should fail so quickly? — And again, if it is given to the word, since it is not[^22] given to the word in writing nor in the mind, it is given in the utterance; and then it will be difficult to explain whether it is given at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end: since neither at the beginning of the word nor in the middle is there the action of that power. But if at the end, then, when the word ceases to be, and the word failing, the power of the word would cease, the power will begin and cease at once. Or if it were given before the end; when it is given before[^23] and how long it lasts, it is difficult to indicate.

Nor only that, but it is also much more difficult to explain the efficacy of the operation of that power, namely whether it acts by equivocal generation, or univocal, generating something like itself, or unlike. — It is also difficult[^24] whether it flows in something altogether from without, or draws something out of potency into act. The

<!-- page 895 -->

first is possible to God alone, but the second is difficult to explain. — It is also difficult to understand how the impression of a character can be from that power, since a character seems to be in a higher part, into which God alone can flow. Hence a beatified intelligible substance, however great its excellence, according to what Augustine says[^26], cannot do anything toward our justification or illumination by forming anything inwardly, but only by stirring outwardly. How then will a power given to element or word be able to do this, since it does not seem to be capable of so great a power? — Lastly, in the Sacrament of the altar, in which the transubstantiation of the bread according to its whole self into the body of Christ takes place suddenly — which indeed cannot be except from an infinite power — how will a word uttered by a man, since it is of finite power, be able to effect anything toward that transubstantiation? And surely, if that word does not have an acting power, much less do the words of the other Sacraments.

All these things and many others concerning this it is very difficult to understand and explain. Which things I do not relate because I believe them to be insoluble, or in order through them to disprove this position, but in order to show that I do not fully understand it, and therefore wish neither to affirm nor deny it; because, even though I do not clearly understand it, this nevertheless I know and understand, that God can do more, and even in the Sacraments themselves does more, than we can understand[^27]. Hence by taking refuge in the wonderful power of God, we can easily evade all these things. And according to this manner of speaking the answer to the proposed question would be plain enough, if the understanding of the manner itself were plain. And this position is more diffusely explained in the fourth book[^28], where the foregoing is answered.

There is here another manner of speaking. Granted that in the Sacraments of the new Law "the divine power works more secretly"[^29], since this belongs to faith itself and to the common opinion: some have said that the Sacraments of the new Law have, with respect to justification, an influencing, a meriting, a disposing, and an efficaciously ordaining power: an influencing power by reason of the assisting Holy Spirit; a meriting power by reason of the merit of the Passion concurring with the Sacrament[^31]; a disposing power by reason of the devotion of the faithful one receiving the Sacrament; and finally an efficaciously ordaining power by reason of the divine covenant of the one instituting. For so the Lord instituted, that at the utterance of such a word and the reception of the Sacrament a wonderful operation should come to be in the recipients, and a healing and justification of those receiving; and to that extent the Sacraments of the new Law are said to have power. — And they differ in this from the Sacraments of the old Law, especially as to the efficacious ordination itself, since there did not intervene in those Sacraments a covenant by which an efficacious and infallible ordination to grace might be made, such as in the Sacraments of the new Law; as is plain in the institution of baptism, where he said[^32]: *He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.* — In the other three modes also of having power there is a difference in respect of the more complete and the less complete, since in the Sacraments of the new Law the Holy Spirit, flowing in justice, more fully assists, and the meritorious Passion of Christ more efficaciously concurs. In sign of which from the side of Christ flowed blood and water[^33], and consequently the Sacraments, upon which the Church is founded. — More abundant too is the devotion of the recipient, both on account of the increase of one's own faith, which came about in the new Law, and also on account of the support of the faith of the whole Church, since the ecclesiastical Sacraments are received in the faith of the Church[^34]. — And on account of this fourfold mode of having power the Sacraments of the new Law are said to justify and to be a cause of grace. — Nor do those who uphold this position wish to posit anything more in the Sacraments of the new Law, both because these things seem sufficient enough for our healing and justification; and also because from this fourfold mode of having power the nobility of the Sacraments of the new Law in themselves is sufficiently manifested; and also because according to this the difference of the Sacraments of the new Law and of the old appears sufficiently[^35]; and also because neither express authority nor reason seems to compel one to grant them more, and the humility of faith ought to shrink not only from diminution, but also from superfluity, and in a certain way it seems more praiseworthy to speak by way of diminution than to enlarge.

This manner of speaking and the determination of this question many uphold[^36] who understand well. And lord William, bishop of Paris, in determining in the schools of the Friars Minor, approved

<!-- page 896 -->

this manner of speaking in the presence of brother Alexander of good memory. — And this manner of speaking one can uphold and understand in two ways: either so that one altogether affirms that there is no power in the Sacraments of the new Law in any other way than the aforesaid ways; or so that one affirms in this way that there is power in them, yet in such a way that one does not deny that another mode, besides these, of a power existing in the Sacraments is possible. And the first mode is repugnant to the former manner of speaking; but the second mode of speaking is not repugnant to the former opinion, since it says nothing which that does not say, nay rather it says nothing which the common opinion does not hold — for no one rightly thinking denies that in all the said modes the Sacraments of the new Law have power — but if one says more, he does not contradict this position, but adds to it.

But perhaps it will seem to someone open to calumny, what has been said, that the power of the Holy Spirit assists the Sacrament, since rather it ought to be understood as comprised within the name of the Sacrament as belonging to its integrity, on account of that which is said in 1 John 5[^37]: *There are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one;* and in the book *On Unity and the One*[^38] it is said that they are one in the Sacrament: and therefore it ought not to be said that the Holy Spirit assists the Sacrament, as though it were numbered along with it; but on account of that unity which was aforesaid, which the Holy Spirit effects in the Sacrament, it ought to be attributed to the Sacrament itself.

But surely, even though this manner of speaking seems to differ from the aforesaid, nevertheless in reality it is the same, although the words are diverse. For that these three are said to be one in the Sacrament, this is not that out of them one thing is made by essence, but that one thing is made by order, since namely they are ordered to one effect; and this is to say nothing other than that one assists another. — Likewise, everything that belongs to the integrity of a Sacrament is either thing only, or signification only, or thing and sign[^39]. If therefore the Spirit flowing in justice be posited as belonging to the unity of the Sacrament, since it is neither a sign nor a thing-and-sign, it will be only as a thing, and thus it will not have the character of a cause, but rather the character of an effect; and thus the Spirit would not stand for the influencing power itself, but rather for the very grace of the Holy Spirit infused into the soul in the reception of the Sacrament. — Likewise, there is no question whether the Holy Spirit infuses grace into the Sacrament, but about this is the question, whether the Sacrament, according as it is said to be "the visible form of invisible grace[^40], so that it bears its likeness and exists as its cause," has any power by which it may flow into the soul. This therefore does not seem to make for the purpose. — Lastly, the sanctifying Holy Spirit and the merit of the Passion and the external element are found not only in the Sacraments of the new Law, but also in the Sacraments of the old Law. This therefore does not suffice to say for assigning the difference of these Sacraments and those. — Either therefore this manner of speaking says nothing else, or if it says something, it says little and makes little for the purpose.

And therefore let whoever of the aforesaid modes pleases more be upheld, since the first is pious enough, but the second is sober enough, if it be upheld in that way in which it has been said; and in this way it is upheld in the fourth book[^41], as is plain to one who considers. And for this reason I have repeated it here, not on this account, that new things might be added, but that it might be shown that it is not dissonant from the common position, to which, to the best of my powers, in all the preceding books I have adhered as to the safer way, and, as I know and am able, I persuade myself and others of like little understanding that it ought to be adhered to; and since throughout the whole book I have observed this more diligently — as will appear more clearly to one who attends — that in these doubtful and difficult questions, in which I could not discern what was the common way, since the wise have opinions contrary to the wise, I have thus upheld one part as the more probable, yet so that I might in no way disprove the other.

For it suffices in doubtful matters to know what the wise have thought, nor is it useful to be a slave to contentions. *We say many things and fall short in words, but the consummator of words is he himself*[^42], our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the discourse has been made in this third book, to whom I render boundless thanks, because he helped me to come to the consummation of this little work, having pity on the poverty of my knowledge and ability; in which this third book was set down last[^43]. Whom I ask, that he may cause it to come to merit for me through obedience and to the profit of the brethren, on account of which two things this labor was undertaken from the beginning. To him therefore, of whom the discourse has been made, our Lord Jesus Christ, *the immortal and invisible King of the ages*, who for us was made man and underwent the cross and bestowed manifold grace and gave commandments, according to what has been explained in this book, be all honor and glory through the infinite ages of ages. Amen[^44].

HERE ENDS THE THIRD BOOK OF BROTHER BONAVENTURE UPON THE SENTENCES.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 815, nota 6. — Minor insinuatur Gen. 8, 21: *Sensus enim et cogitatio humani cordis in malum prona sunt ab adolescentia sua.* Cfr. Rom. 7, 18. seqq., et Gal. 5, 17. — Inferius pro *debeat* codd. *debet.*

en: Cf. above, p. 815, note 6. — The minor is intimated in Gen. 8:21: "For the sense and thought of the human heart are prone to evil from its youth." Cf. Rom. 7:18 ff. and Gal. 5:17. — Below, for *ought* the codices read *does.*

la: Vide supra pag. 853, nota 4. — Pro *et negationes* edd. *quia negationes.*

en: See above, p. 853, note 4. — For *and negations* the editions read *since negations.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Vide supra d. 38. q. 4. ad 2. — Paulo ante pro *quae est* cod. K *quae consistit.*

en: See above, d. 38, q. 4, ad 2. — A little before, for *which is* codex K reads *which consists.*

la: Vers. 30. — August., Serm. 154. (alias 5. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 6. n. 8: *Aliud est enim non concupiscere, aliud post concupiscentias suas non ire. Non concupiscere omnino perfecti est; post concupiscentias suas non ire pugnantis est, luctantis est, laborantis est.* Cfr. Serm. 151. (alias 45. de Tempore) c. 3. n. 3.

en: Verse 30. — Augustine, *Sermon* 154 (alias 5, *On the Words of the Apostle*) c. 6, n. 8: "For it is one thing not to covet, another not to go after one's lusts. Not to covet at all belongs to the perfect; not to go after one's lusts belongs to one fighting, to one struggling, to one laboring." Cf. *Sermon* 151 (alias 45, *On the Season*) c. 3, n. 3.

la: De quo in dubio seq. — Inferius pro *non est prohibitum* codd. G K L V aa *non prohibetur.*

en: Concerning which, in the following doubt. — Below, for *is not forbidden* codices G K L V aa read *is not prohibited.*

la: Edd. *communi affectu.* Mox post *proximi* codd. A K V adnectunt *tui.* Aliquanto inferius ante *similiter* plurimi codd. omittunt *sic.*

en: The editions read *by common affection.* Shortly, after *neighbor's* codices A K V append *thy.* Somewhat below, before *likewise* very many codices omit *thus.*

la: Cod. A melius *omnis rei.*

en: Codex A reads better *of every thing.*

la: Codd. G K L V aa omittunt *ipso.* Inferius pro *cupiditatis* codd. N U V *concupiscentiae.*

en: Codices G K L V aa omit *very.* Below, for *of cupidity* codices N U V read *of concupiscence.*

la: Cod. N *bene est.* Paulo superius pro *utraque* edd. *utrobique.*

en: Codex N reads *is well.* A little above, for *both* the editions read *in both places.*

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

en: *On the Sacraments* book I, part XI, c. 2.

la: Psalm. 83, 12: *Gratiam et gloriam dabit Dominus.* — Mox pro *conferebat* edd. *conferebatur.*

en: Psalm 83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory." — Shortly, for *it conferred* the editions read *it was conferred.*

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3. — Pro *faciente* cod. A *facilitante*, non pauci alii codd. cum edd. *faciendo*, sed contra textum originalem.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tract 80, n. 3. — For *by the action of* codex A reads *facilitating*, not a few other codices with the editions read *by making*, but contrary to the original text.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 2. — Pro *sentire* codd. et edd. 1, 2 *dicere.* Aliquanto inferius pro *sustinent* cod. A *sustinuerunt.*

en: *On the Sacraments* book I, part XI, c. 2. — For *to feel* the codices and editions 1, 2 read *to say.* Somewhat below, for *uphold* codex A reads *upheld.*

la: Codd. K aa *exponere*, cod. Z *exprimere.* Mox cum verbis *Si quis dicat* edd. perperam incipiunt novam propositionem et subinde post *difficile* omittunt *namque.*

en: Codices K aa read *expound*, codex Z *express.* Shortly, with the words *If one says* the editions wrongly begin a new sentence and then after *difficult* omit *for.*

la: Edd. *sed.* Paulo ante pro *constant* cod. F *consistunt.* Inferius pro *in animam* cod. U *in anima.*

en: The editions read *but.* A little before, for *consist* codex F reads *subsist.* Below, for *into the soul* codex U reads *in the soul.*

la: Codd. A U *rectificationem.*

en: Codices A U read *rectification.*

la: Edd. *specialis.*

en: The editions read *special.*

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 14. 15. et 19.

en: *On the Orthodox Faith* book III, c. 14, 15, and 19.

la: Pro *nunc, nisi* codd. G H L N V aa *non nisi;* edd., omisso *non* post *et tamen*, subinde legunt *creationis opus non currat nisi.* Pro *currat* cod. K *existat.*

en: For *now ... except* codices G H L N V aa read *not except;* the editions, with *not* omitted after *and yet*, then read *the work of creation does not run except.* For *runs* codex K reads *exists.*

la: Non pauci codd. perperam omittunt *non.* Inferius pro *erit* codd. G K L N U V aa *est.*

en: Not a few codices wrongly omit *not.* Below, for *will be* codices G K L N U V aa read *is.*

la: Ita cod. A, codd. E F Z (alii multi sunt dubiae lectionis) *quantum ante*, alii *quantum autem*, edd., retento *quantum*, omittunt *autem*, et deinde *etiam et quantum duret.* Paulo superius pro *deficiente* codd. A G H K L V aa *desinente.* Subinde pro *daretur* cod. A *detur*, edd. *datur.*

en: So codex A; codices E F Z (many others are of doubtful reading) read *how much before*, others *how much however*; the editions, retaining *how much*, omit *however*, and then *also and how long it lasts.* A little above, for *failing* codices A G H K L V aa read *ceasing.* Then for *were given* codex A reads *be given*, the editions *is given.*

la: Cod. K supplet *explicare;* codd. U Z *intelligere;* cod. A omittit *est.*

en: Codex K supplies *to explain;* codices U Z *to understand;* codex A omits *is.*

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 118. serm. 18. n. 4: *Deus itaque per se ipsum, quia lux est, illuminat pias mentes, ut ea quae divina dicuntur vel ostenduntur, intelligant. Sed si ad hoc ministro utitur Angelo, potest quidem aliquid agere Angelus in mente hominis, ut captet lucem Dei et per hanc intelligat; sed ita dicitur intellectum dare homini et quasi, ut ita dicam, intellectuare hominem, quemadmodum quisquam dicitur lucem dare domui vel illuminare domum, cui fenestram facit etc.* — Superius pro *in qua* (ita codd. et edd.) mallemus *in quam.*

en: *Expositions on Psalm* 118, sermon 18, n. 4: "God therefore by his very self, since he is light, illuminates devout minds, that they may understand the things which are said or shown to be divine. But if for this he uses an Angel as minister, the Angel can indeed do something in the mind of a man, that he may catch the light of God and understand through it; but it is so said to give understanding to a man and, so to speak, to make the man understand, in the way in which one is said to give light to a house or to illuminate a house, for which he makes a window, etc." — Above, for *in which* (so the codices and editions) we should prefer *into which.*

la: Plures codd. perperam *ut per ipsam*, edd. *ut ipse.*

en: Several codices wrongly read *that through it itself*, the editions *that he himself.*

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 760, nota 7. — Inferius pro *facile* cod. U *faciliter.*

en: Cf. vol. I, p. 760, note 7. — Below, for *easily* codex U reads *more easily.*

la: Dist. 1. p. 1. q. 4. — Mox pro *respondetur* cod. U *est responsio.*

en: Dist. 1, p. 1, q. 4. — Shortly, for *is answered* codex U reads *is the answer.*

la: Isidor., VI. Etymolog. c. 19. n. 40: *Sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum virtus divina secretius salutem [vi] eorundem Sacramentorum operatur; unde et a secretis virtutibus, vel a sacris Sacramenta dicuntur.* — Mox pro *hoc* permulti codd. *haec.* Paulo inferius post *habere* non pauci codd. adnectunt *virtutem.*

en: Isidore, *Etymologies* VI, c. 19, n. 40: "They are called Sacraments, since under the covering of corporeal things the divine power more secretly works the salvation [by the power] of those same Sacraments; whence also from the secret powers, or from the sacred, they are called Sacraments." — Shortly, for *this* very many codices read *these.* A little below, after *to have* not a few codices append *power.*

la: Vide supra d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 20. q. 4. circa finem corp. — Inferius pro *pactionis* Vat. *passionis.*

en: See above, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 20, q. 4, near the end of the body. — Below, for *of covenant* the Vatican edition reads *of passion.*

la: Marc. 16, 16. — Cod. F *ubi dicitur.* Inferius codd. H K L V aa omittunt *virtutem.*

en: Mark 16:16. — Codex F reads *where it is said.* Below, codices H K L V aa omit *power.*

la: Ioan. 19, 34. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 2, nota 19.

en: John 19:34. Cf. vol. I, p. 2, note 19.

la: Vide supra d. 28. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Paulo ante pro *suscipiuntur* edd. cum aliquot codd. *suscipiunt.*

en: See above, d. 28, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — A little before, for *are received* the editions with some codices read *receive.*

la: Haec tertia ratio desideratur in edd.

en: This third reason is wanting in the editions.

la: Cod. A *Hunc modum dicendi in huius quaestionis terminatione plures sustinuerunt.*

en: Codex A reads *Many upheld this manner of speaking in the determination of this question.*

la: Vers. 8.

en: Verse 8.

la: Quem composuit Boethius et in quo inter divisiones unitatis recenset etiam hanc: *Alia dicuntur unum ratione, sed hoc duobus modis: quia ratione consortii, ut ens, intellectus et res, aliquid et vocabulum unum genus; vel ratione unius Sacramenti, ut spiritus, aqua et sanguis dicuntur unum.* — Paulo inferius pro *assistat* plures codd. *assistit* et pro *unitatem* cod. U *virtutem.*

en: Which Boethius composed and in which, among the divisions of unity, he reckons also this one: "Other things are said to be one by reason, but this in two ways: either by reason of association, as being, intellect, and thing, something and a word are one genus; or by reason of one Sacrament, as the spirit, the water, and the blood are said to be one." — A little below, for *assists* (subj.) several codices read *assists* (indic.) and for *unity* codex U reads *power.*

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. 1. — Inferius pro *nec res signum* Vat. *et res nec signum tantum.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* IV, text of the Master, d. 1. — Below, for *nor thing-sign* the Vatican edition reads *and thing nor sign only.*

la: De hac Sacramenti definitione vide IV. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. 1. — Superius pro *infundat* codd. G L V aa *effundat.*

en: On this definition of a Sacrament see *Sentences* IV, text of the Master, d. 1. — Above, for *infuses* codices G L V aa read *pours out.*

la: Eccli. 43, 29: *Multa dicemus et deficiemus in verbis; consummatio autem sermonum ipse est in omnibus.*

en: Ecclesiasticus 43:29: "We shall say many things and shall fall short in words; but the consummation of words is he himself in all."

la: Ultima verba, quae in edd. 1, 2 desiderantur, Vat. sic exhibet *in quo tertius iste liber est annotatus;* pro *notatus* codd. G L U V cc *vocatus.* Superius post *quia adiuvit* edd. supplent *me.* — Epist. I. Tim. 1, 17.

en: The last words, which are wanting in editions 1, 2, the Vatican edition gives thus: *in which this third book is annotated;* for *set down* codices G L U V cc read *called.* Above, after *because he helped* the editions supply *me.* — Epistle 1 Tim. 1:17.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 61872–62179 (DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI raw 61872 → closing doxology + `EXPLICIT LIBER TERTIUS … BONAVENTURAE SUPER SENTENTIAS` raw 62180); printed pp. 892–896 (PDF pp. 914–918, offset pdf = printed + 22). The `INDEX QUAESTIONUM` end-matter (raw ~62193) follows the EXPLICIT and is excluded. **THREE dubia** (not two): **Dub. I** raw 61874 (sixth precept, *Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui*), **Dub. II** raw 61945 (seventh precept, *Non concupisces domum proximi tui*), and **Dub. III** raw 61953, **OCR-garbled as `Dcb. III.`** (u→c), the climactic dubium on sacramental causality (the fourfold *virtus*, four *Difficultates*, the William of Auvergne / Alexander of Hales note). There is NO DISTINCTIO XLI — d.40 is the last distinction of Vol III, and Dub. III's close is the close of Book III.
- **⚠ PAGE-SPAN CORRECTION — the dubia run FIVE printed pages, not four.** The dispatch brief specified `printed_pages = [892, 893, 894, 896]` on the basis that "no 895 running head appears in the OCR." Ground-truth on the 450 dpi PDF bands shows otherwise: there IS a real, distinct printed **p.895** (PDF 917) — its running head reads `DUBIA. 895` (the OCR mangled the `5` of `895` to `3`, producing a second spurious `DIST. XL. DUBIA. 893` at raw 62056, which the coordinator mistook for a duplicate of the genuine p.893 head at raw 61923). Verso/recto alternation confirms it: 892, 893 (recto, `DUBIA. 893`), 894 (verso, `894 SENTENTIARUM`), **895 (recto, `DUBIA. 895`)**, 896 (verso, `896 SENTENTIARUM`). Per CLAUDE.md ("trust running-head TEXT over OCR'd digits"; the column-band PDF read is authoritative), this chunk uses the true sequence **printed_pages [892, 893, 894, 895, 896] / pdf_pages [914, 915, 916, 917, 918]**. The dubia text is continuous across all five.
- **Footer-split map (per-page restart, renumbered continuous, 44 entries):**
  - **p.892** — page footers nn.1–4 belong wholly to a40-q3 (n.4 = the *Vide scholion ad 1. quaestionem* redirect). **Dubia footers nn.5–9 → [^1]–[^5].** (5 entries.)
  - **p.893** — L-col nn.1–3, R-col nn.4–8 → **[^6]–[^13].** (8 entries.)
  - **p.894** — L-col nn.1–6, R-col nn.7–12 → **[^14]–[^25].** (12 entries.)
  - **p.895** — L-col nn.1–5, R-col nn.6–11 → **[^26]–[^36].** (11 entries.)
  - **p.896** — L-col nn.1–3, R-col nn.4–8 → **[^37]–[^44].** (8 entries.)
  - Total = 5 + 8 + 12 + 11 + 8 = **44**. Numbering is a single continuous sequence [^1]–[^44]; NO `[^Nb]/[^Nc]` suffixes.
- **Footer hand-offs:** **PICKED UP ← d40-a1-q3: p.892 nn.5–9** (a1-q3's band closed at p.892 n.4; the dubia's first footers nn.5–9 = [^1]–[^5]). **FORWARDS NOTHING** — this chunk closes Book III; the `INDEX QUAESTIONUM` end-matter after the EXPLICIT carries no body apparatus.
- **`has_scholion: false`** — grep-verified body-only over raw 61872–62179. The two "schol-" hits in range are (a) the a40-q3 apparatus redirect *Vide scholion ad 1. quaestionem* (p.892 n.4, NOT this chunk) and (b) the body phrase *in scholis Fratrum Minorum* ("in the schools of the Friars Minor," the William-of-Auvergne note). Neither is a scholion header.
- **Closes Book III.** Dub. III ends with the closing doxology of Book III (*…sit omnis honor et gloria per infinita saecula saeculorum. Amen*) immediately followed by `EXPLICIT LIBER TERTIUS FRATRIS BONAVENTURAE SUPER SENTENTIAS` — rendered faithfully at the foot of both the Latin and English bodies. With this chunk d.40 closes and Vol III (Book III, 40 distinctions) is fully Tier 2; the d.31–d.40 decade polish gate now fires.
- **`[?]` flags:** none illegible. One editorial note: in [^31] (Isidore, p.895 L n.5) the printed text carries a bracketed editorial conjecture after *salutem*; the 450 dpi band reads it as `[vi]` (= *virtute*, "by the power [of those same Sacraments]"), rendered accordingly. Not flagged as illegible — the bracket is the Quaracchi editors' own conjecture and is reproduced as such.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Proemium

title_alt: PROOEMIUM in quartum librum Sententiarum

title_alt: Proemium to the fourth book of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 1 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; Quaracchi restart their numbering on every printed page, so the labels are qualified by page.

### PROOEMIUM
#### IN QUARTUM LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM.

> *Unguentarius faciet pigmenta suavitatis et unctiones conficiet sanitatis.*

Verbum istud scribitur Ecclesiastici trigesimo octavo[^p1-1], in quo diligentius considerato explicatur et commendatur materia quarti libri Sententiarum ad nostram eruditionem et exercitationem. Explicatur autem sub duplici tropo sive metaphora, scilicet *pigmentorum suavitatis* et *unctionum sanitatis.* Ex quibus datur nobis intelligi, quod medicamenta sacramentalia et sunt *suavia* et sunt *salubria;* et in hoc est tam medicamenti quam medici *laus perfecta.* Nihil enim ultra quaerit aegrotus in medicina, nisi ut habeat *suavitatem* in usu et *efficaciam* in effectu; et qui hoc tribuit medicinae medicus est perfectus, secundum illud poëticum[^p1-2]:

> Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci.

Sunt igitur medicamenta sacramentalia *pigmenta odorifera* et *unguenta salutifera.* Sed unguenta salutifera sunt respectu *aegroti curandi,* pigmenta odorifera respectu *Dei placandi;* et haec[^p1-3] contra duo, quae facit culpa: Deum enim offendit et naturam laedit; et offendendo Deum hominem *gratia exspoliat,* et laedendo naturam *vulnerat naturalia.* Sacramenta igitur sunt medicamenta *perfecta,* quoniam Deum sua suavitate placant et placando faciunt propitium et impetrant gratiam; et vestiunt hominem *exspoliatum* et hominem *infirmum* sua curant virtute, et sic reparant naturalia.

Et sic homo descendens ab Ierusalem in Iericho *exspoliatus* et *vulneratus* reinduitur et curatur a Samaritano[^p1-4], scilicet Christo Domino, in cuius persona nunc dicitur: *Unguentarius faciet pigmenta suavitatis,* id est, instituet Sacramenta redolentia ad placandam maiestatem divinam. *Faciet,* futurum dicit, loquens in tempore legis Moysaicae pro tempore legis gratiae. Etsi enim in illo fuisse dicantur pigmenta et sacrificia Deo redolentia, non tamen *vi sua* erant Deum placantia. Praecepit namque Dominus Moysi Exodi trigesimo[^p1-5], ut faceret thymiama compositum opere pigmentarii: *Facies thymiama,* inquit etc.; praeceperat Aaron, ut offerret: *Pones altare contra velum;* et post subdit: *Et uret super illud Aaron incensum mane, suave fragrans, et ad vesperum uret thymiama.* Et in omni oblatione fere dicitur in Levitico[^p1-6]: *In odorem suavissimum Domino.* — Sed odor ille non placabat Dominum propter *vacuitatem oblatorum,* sicut dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos decimo[^p1-7]: *Umbram habens Lex futurorum bonorum* etc. Non placabat etiam propter *immunditiam offerentium,* sicut Isaiae primo dicitur: *Ne offeratis ultra sacrificium frustra; incensum abominatio est mihi,* et ratio subiungitur post: *Manus enim vestrae sanguine plenae sunt.* — Ad hoc ergo, quod aliquis faceret pigmenta redolentia, necesse erat, quod nulla in eo esset immunditia, et quod plenus esset veri odoris fragrantia; nullus talis poterat inveniri nec ab homine generari propter immunditiam generantis: et ideo necesse fuit, quod Dominus ipse virtute sua corpus ei aptaret, secundum illud Psalmi, quod assumit Apostolus ad Hebraeos decimo[^p1-8], loquens de Christo: *Ingrediens mundum, dicit: Hostiam et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem aptasti mihi. Holocausta pro peccato non tibi placuerunt, tunc dixi: Ecce venio.* Bene dicit *aptasti,* quia mundus Dominus, mundificans Virginem «ea puritate, qua maior sub Deo

<!-- page 2 -->

nequit intelligi[^p2-1]», aptavit corpus ei, ut esset vas munditiae contentivum omnis fragrantiae; quod praesentiens patriarcha Iacob dixit Genesis vigesimo septimo[^p2-2]: *Ecce odor filii mei sicut odor agri pleni, cui benedixit Dominus.* Hic ergo erat *perfectus pigmentarius,* quia non aliunde mendicabat odorem, sed ipse in se Patri redolebat. Et ut odor iste, quo plenus erat, ad alios derivaretur, obtulit semetipsum Deo et Patri pro omnibus, secundum illud ad Ephesios quinto[^p2-3]: *Dilexit nos et tradidit semetipsum oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis.* Tunc *fractum est alabastrum, et domus repleta est ex odore unguenti;* tunc de hac *plenitudine accepimus omnes,* dum non solum placatur Deus ex *ipsa passione,* immo etiam *in memorialibus passionis;* ut non tantum *passio* sit pigmentum suavitatis, immo etiam *memorialia,* utpote Sacramenta, secundum illud Ecclesiastici quadragesimo nono[^p2-4]: *Memoria Iosiae in compositione odoris facta opus pigmentarii;* ut per *Iosiam* intelligamus Christum passum; *Iosias* enim interpretatur: ubi est incendium Domini, vel, in quo est sacrificium. — Memorialia vero sunt Sacramenta passionem praeteritam significantia. His memorialibus abundat et impleta est domus Ecclesiae militantis; et ideo impleta est ex *odore unguenti,* secundum quod dicit Spiritus sanctus in Canticorum quarto[^p2-5]: *Odor unguentorum tuorum super omnia aromata.* — *Unguentarius* igitur *faciet pigmenta suavitatis,* scilicet Deum placantia.

Conficiet nihilominus *unctiones sanitatis,* id est Sacramenta *morbum-curantia.* Erant quippe in Lege figurativae unctiones, sed non erant *sanativae;* quia morbus erat lethalis, et unctio erat superficialis. Unde Apostolus dicit ad Hebraeos nono[^p2-6], quia non poterant medicamenta legalia *iuxta conscientiam perfectum facere servientem solummodo in cibis et potibus et variis baptismatibus et iustificationibus carnis.* Quia ergo ungebant carnem, et vulnus lethale erat in mente; ideo non poterant curare. Unde ad Hebraeos decimo[^p2-7]: *Impossibile est, sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata.* Ideo clamabat Isaias et dicebat primo capitulo: *Vulnus et livor et plaga tumens non est circumligata nec curata medicamine neque fota oleo.* Hoc dicit quantum ad triplex genus peccati, quo homo infirmabatur: per *vulnus* intelligitur originale, per *livorem* veniale, per *plagam tumentem* mortale. Et ideo praemittit: *Omne caput languidum* etc.

Ad hoc ergo, quod aliquis faceret *unguenta sanitatis*[^p2-8], necessarium erat, quod afferret *unctionem spiritualem* et *virtutem vitalem.* Hic autem fuit Christus Dominus, qui vere *Christus* fuit, quia *unctus,* secundum quod dicitur Isaiae sexagesimo primo[^p2-9]: *Spiritus Domini super me, eo quod unxerit me, ad annuntiandum mansuetis* etc. Et quod hoc intelligatur de Christo, ipsemet perhibet sibi testimonium Lucae quarto, ubi, postquam legit hoc verbum, dixit: *Hodie impleta est haec Scriptura in auribus vestris.* Hic potuit *unctionem* conficere *sanativam,* secundum quod Actuum decimo dicit de ipso beatus Petrus: *Unxit eum Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute, qui pertransiit benefaciendo et sanando omnes oppressos a diabolo, quoniam Deus erat in illo.* Unxit eum *Spiritu sancto,* et ideo attulit *unctionem spiritualem;* et *virtute*[^p2-10], et ita habuit *virtutem vitalem; quoniam Deus erat in illo* per unctionem, quoniam ipse erat Deus, et ita *vitam* habebat in semetipso, secundum illud Ioannis quinto[^p2-11]: *Sicut Pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso.*

Et quia in se *vitam* habebat, *mortuos vivificare* poterat; et ideo fecit *unguenta curantia a morbo lethali.* Dum enim mortalitatem nostram univit vitae, et ille qui vita erat, mortuus est; facta est confectio, in qua et per quam mortuus reviviscit, et ex morte ipsius Sacramenta habent vivificandi efficaciam. Unde super illud ad Ephesios quinto[^p2-12]: *Sacramentum hoc magnum est; ego autem dico in Christo et Ecclesia;* dicit Augustinus: «Dormit Adam, ut fiat Eva; moritur Christus, ut fiat Ecclesia. Dormiente Adam, fit Eva de latere; mortuo Christo, lancea percutitur latus, ut profluant

<!-- page 3 -->

Sacramenta, quibus formetur Ecclesia». Ideo dicuntur magis Sacramenta profluxisse de *latere* quam de pedibus vel manibus — cum inde[^p3-1] profluxerit sanguis — propter ipsam convenientiam in significando, quia simul profluxit *sanguis et aqua;* et profluxit quidem de *iam mortuo;* in quo convenienter exprimitur Sacramentorum *confectio et institutio.* Sicut enim in *promerendo* Sacramentis[^p3-2] efficaciam *mors* iuncta est cum *vita,* sic *sanguis* vitalis exiit cum *aqua:* sic ergo Sacramenta sunt in *verbo* et *elemento* pariter instituta; et ideo ad sanandum non tantum *facta,* sed etiam *confecta*[^p3-3] dicuntur.

Haec igitur Sacramenta sunt *perfecta* medicamenta, quae fecit unguentarius ad *placandum Deum,* et ideo sunt *pigmenta suavitatis;* et ad *sanandum hominem aegrotum,* et ideo sunt *unctiones sanitatis.* Unctiones autem sanitatis sunt, quia sanitatem *tribuunt* et ad sanitatem *disponunt: tribuunt* sanitatem sufficienter, quae est sanitas *gratiae,* de qua in Psalmo[^p3-4]: *Qui sanat contritos corde et alligat contritiones eorum; disponunt* ad sanitatem perfectam, quae est sanitas *gloriae,* de qua in Psalmo: *Qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas.* Et hoc quidem facit in gloria. Et secundum hoc liber iste[^p3-5] etc.

---

english:
<!-- page 1 -->

### PROEMIUM
#### TO THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE SENTENCES.

> *The apothecary shall make confections of sweetness, and shall make up ointments of health.*

This word is written in Ecclesiasticus the thirty-eighth chapter[^p1-1]; and when it is considered more diligently, there is set forth and commended in it the matter of the fourth book of the Sentences, for our instruction and exercise. Now it is set forth under a twofold trope or metaphor, namely of *the confections of sweetness* and *the ointments of health.* From these it is given us to understand that the sacramental medicines are both *sweet* and *wholesome;* and in this lies the *perfect praise* both of the medicine and of the physician. For the sick man seeks nothing further in a medicine than that it have *sweetness* in the use and *efficacy* in the effect; and the physician who bestows this upon a medicine is a perfect physician, according to that saying of the poet[^p1-2]:

> He has carried every vote who has mingled the useful with the sweet.

The sacramental medicines, therefore, are *odour-bearing confections* and *health-bearing ointments.* But the health-bearing ointments are such in respect of *the sick man to be cured,* the odour-bearing confections in respect of *God to be appeased;* and these[^p1-3] [stand] against the two things which fault brings about: for it offends God and wounds nature; and by offending God it *despoils* man *of grace,* and by wounding nature it *wounds his natural [endowments].* The Sacraments, therefore, are *perfect* medicines, since by their own sweetness they appease God, and by appeasing make him propitious and obtain grace; and they clothe the man who has been *despoiled,* and cure by their own power the man who is *infirm,* and thus repair his natural [endowments].

And thus the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, *despoiled* and *wounded,* is clothed again and cured by the Samaritan[^p1-4], namely by Christ the Lord, in whose person it is now said: *The apothecary shall make confections of sweetness;* that is, he shall institute Sacraments fragrant unto the appeasing of the divine majesty. *Shall make:* he says it in the future, speaking in the time of the Mosaic law for the time of the law of grace. For although in that law there are said to have been confections and sacrifices fragrant unto God, nevertheless they were not appeasing God *by their own power.* For the Lord commanded Moses, in Exodus the thirtieth chapter[^p1-5], to make incense compounded by the work of the perfumer: *Thou shalt make incense,* he says, and so on; he had commanded Aaron to offer it: *Thou shalt set the altar over against the veil;* and afterwards he adds: *And Aaron shall burn upon it incense in the morning, sweet-smelling, and at evening he shall burn incense.* And in almost every oblation it is said in Leviticus[^p1-6]: *For a most sweet odour to the Lord.* — But that odour did not appease the Lord, because of the *emptiness of the things offered,* as the Apostle says to the Hebrews in the tenth chapter[^p1-7]: *The Law, having a shadow of the good things to come,* and so on. Nor did it appease, because of the *uncleanness of those who offered,* as is said in Isaiah the first chapter: *Offer sacrifice no more in vain; incense is an abomination to me;* and the reason is subjoined afterwards: *For your hands are full of blood.* — To this end, therefore, that anyone might make fragrant confections, it was necessary that there should be no uncleanness in him, and that he should be full of the fragrance of true odour; but no such one could be found, nor be generated from man, because of the uncleanness of the one generating: and therefore it was necessary that the Lord himself should by his own power fit a body for him, according to that word of the Psalm which the Apostle takes up in the tenth chapter to the Hebrews[^p1-8], speaking of Christ: *Coming into the world, he says: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast fitted to me. Holocausts for sin did not please thee, then said I: Behold, I come.* Well does he say *thou hast fitted,* because the Lord [was] clean, having cleansed the Virgin «with that purity than which a greater cannot be

<!-- page 2 -->

understood under God[^p2-1]», and fitted a body for him, that it might be a vessel of cleanness containing every fragrance; which the patriarch Jacob, foreseeing, spoke of in Genesis the twenty-seventh chapter[^p2-2]: *Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field, which the Lord hath blessed.* This one, then, was the *perfect perfumer,* because he did not beg his odour from elsewhere, but himself in himself was fragrant to the Father. And that this odour, with which he was full, might be derived to others, he offered himself to God the Father for all, according to that word to the Ephesians in the fifth chapter[^p2-3]: *He hath loved us and hath delivered himself up an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness.* Then *was the alabaster box broken, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment;* then *of this fulness we all have received,* since God is appeased not only by *the Passion itself,* but even *in the memorials of the Passion;* so that not only the *Passion* is a confection of sweetness, but also the *memorials,* namely the Sacraments, according to that word of Ecclesiasticus the forty-ninth chapter[^p2-4]: *The memory of Josias is like the composition of a sweet smell made by the work of a perfumer;* so that by *Josias* we may understand Christ in his Passion; for *Josias* is interpreted: where the burning of the Lord is, or, in whom there is sacrifice. — But the memorials are the Sacraments signifying the Passion now past. With these memorials the house of the Church militant abounds and has been filled; and therefore it has been filled *with the odour of the ointment,* according to what the Holy Spirit says in the fourth chapter of the Canticles[^p2-5]: *The odour of thy ointments is above all aromatical spices.* — The *apothecary,* therefore, *shall make confections of sweetness,* namely such as appease God.

He shall nonetheless make up *ointments of health,* that is, Sacraments *curing the disease.* For there were indeed in the Law figurative unctions, but they were not *healing;* because the disease was lethal, and the unction was superficial. Whence the Apostle says to the Hebrews in the ninth chapter[^p2-6] that the legal medicines could not *make him that serveth perfect according to the conscience, consisting only in meats and drinks and divers washings and justices of the flesh.* Since, therefore, they anointed the flesh, while the lethal wound was in the mind, they could not cure. Whence to the Hebrews in the tenth chapter[^p2-7]: *It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and of goats sins should be taken away.* Therefore Isaiah cried out and said in the first chapter: *The wound and bruise and swelling sore is not bound up, nor dressed with medicine, nor soothed with oil.* This he says as regards the threefold kind of sin by which man was made infirm: by the *wound* is understood original sin, by the *bruise* venial sin, by the *swelling sore* mortal sin. And therefore he puts first: *The whole head is sick,* and so on.

To this end, therefore, that anyone might make *ointments of health*[^p2-8], it was necessary that he should bring a *spiritual unction* and a *vital power.* And this was Christ the Lord, who truly was *Christ* because *anointed,* according to what is said in Isaiah the sixty-first chapter[^p2-9]: *The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me, to preach to the meek,* and so on. And that this is to be understood of Christ, he himself bears witness to himself in the fourth chapter of Luke, where, after he had read this word, he said: *This day is fulfilled this Scripture in your ears.* He was able to make up a *healing unction,* according to what blessed Peter says of him in the tenth chapter of Acts: *God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.* He anointed him *with the Holy Spirit,* and therefore he brought a *spiritual unction;* and *with power*[^p2-10], and so he had a *vital power; for God was in him* through the unction, since he himself was God, and so he had *life* in himself, according to that word of John the fifth chapter[^p2-11]: *As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.*

And because he had *life* in himself, he could *give life to the dead;* and therefore he made *ointments curing the lethal disease.* For while he united our mortality to life, and he who was life died, there was made a confection in which and through which the dead man comes to life again, and from his death the Sacraments have the efficacy of giving life. Whence upon that word to the Ephesians in the fifth chapter[^p2-12]: *This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church,* Augustine says: «Adam sleeps, that Eve may be made; Christ dies, that the Church may be made. While Adam sleeps, Eve is made from his side; when Christ is dead, his side is struck with the lance, that there may flow forth

<!-- page 3 -->

the Sacraments by which the Church may be formed». Therefore the Sacraments are said to have flowed forth rather from the *side* than from the feet or the hands — although from thence[^p3-1] blood had flowed — because of the very fittingness in signifying, since *blood and water* flowed forth together; and they flowed forth indeed from one *already dead;* in which is fittingly expressed the *making and institution* of the Sacraments. For just as in *meriting* efficacy for the Sacraments[^p3-2] *death* was joined with *life,* so the vital *blood* went out with the *water:* so, then, the Sacraments are instituted alike in *word* and in *element;* and therefore, for healing, they are said to be not only *made,* but also *made up*[^p3-3].

These Sacraments, therefore, are *perfect* medicines, which the apothecary made for the *appeasing of God,* and therefore they are *confections of sweetness;* and for the *healing of the sick man,* and therefore they are *ointments of health.* And they are ointments of health because they *bestow* health and *dispose* to health: they *bestow* health sufficiently, which is the health of *grace,* of which it is said in the Psalm[^p3-4]: *Who healeth the broken of heart and bindeth up their bruises;* they *dispose* to perfect health, which is the health of *glory,* of which it is said in the Psalm: *Who forgiveth all thy iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases.* And this indeed he does in glory. And according to this, this book[^p3-5], and so on.

---

la: Vers. 7. — Paulo inferius pro *exercitationem* multi codd. *exitationem,* sed perperam, ut colligi potest ex lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 5, et ex Comment. p. 1. q. 1. in corp. nec non dub. 7. et 10.

en: Verse 7. — A little below, for *exercitationem* many codices have *exitationem,* but wrongly, as can be gathered from the Master's text, d. 1, c. 5, and from the Commentary, p. 1, q. 1, in the body, as also from dub. 7 and 10.

la: Horat., Epist. ad Pisones (sive de Arte poetica) v. 243. — Superius pro *nisi ut* plures codd. *cum,* edd. *quam quod,* quae etiam subinde pro *qui hoc tribuit medicinae* substituunt *qui huiusmodi tribuit medicinam.*

en: Horace, *Epistle to the Pisos* (or *On the Art of Poetry*), v. 243. — Above, for *nisi ut* several codices have *cum,* the editions *quam quod;* and these further substitute, for *qui hoc tribuit medicinae,* the reading *qui huiusmodi tribuit medicinam.*

la: Cod. U *et haec duo sunt,* multi alii codd. *et hoc.* Paulo ante pro *aegroti curandi* cod. H *aegri sanandi.*

en: Codex U has *et haec duo sunt,* many other codices *et hoc.* A little before, for *aegroti curandi* codex H has *aegri sanandi.*

la: Respicitur Luc. 10, 30. seqq. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 1, et tom. II. pag. 700, nota 1.

en: Luke 10:30 sqq. is alluded to. Cf. below, the Master's text, d. 1, c. 1, and tom. II, p. 700, note 1.

la: Vers. 35. — Seq. textus est ibidem v. 6; tertius ibid. v. 7. seq.: Et adolebit incensum super eo Aaron, suave fragrans, mane. Quando componet lucernas, incendet illud, et quando collocabit eas ad vesperum, uret thymiama etc. — Superius edd. omittunt *vi sua,* et inferius pro *ut offerret: Pones altare* substituunt *ut offerret illud ponens super altare.*

en: Verse 35. — The following text is from the same chapter, v. 6; the third from the same, v. 7 sq.: And Aaron shall burn incense upon it, sweet-smelling, in the morning. When he shall dress the lamps, he shall burn it, and when he shall place them at evening, he shall burn incense, etc. — Above, the editions omit *vi sua;* and below, for *ut offerret: Pones altare* they substitute *ut offerret illud ponens super altare.*

la: Cfr. 1, 13; 2, 2; 6, 21; 23, 18. — Post *dicitur* cod. Z addit *etiam.*

en: Cf. 1:13; 2:2; 6:21; 23:18. — After *dicitur* codex Z adds *etiam.*

la: Vers. 1. — Seq. textus est Isai. 1, 13. et 15. — Mox pro *Non placabat etiam* non pauci codd. *Non placabant etiam.*

en: Verse 1. — The following text is Isaiah 1:13 and 15. — Presently, for *Non placabat etiam* not a few codices have *Non placabant etiam.*

la: Vers. 5. seqq., ubi Vulgata *Holocautomata* pro *Holocausta;* respicitur Ps. 39, 7. — Edd. *loquens de Christo ingrediente mundum dicens: Hostiam* etc.

en: Verse 5 sqq., where the Vulgate has *Holocautomata* for *Holocausta;* Ps. 39:7 is alluded to. — The editions read *loquens de Christo ingrediente mundum dicens: Hostiam,* etc.

la: Anselm., de Conceptu virgin. et orig. pecc. c. 18.

en: Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin,* c. 18.

la: Vers. 27. — Paulo inferius edd. omittunt *Patri.* Subinde pro *ad alios* codd. H Q *ad nos.*

en: Verse 27. — A little below, the editions omit *Patri.* Further on, for *ad alios* codices H and Q have *ad nos.*

la: Vers. 2, ubi Vulgata post *semetipsum* addit *pro nobis.* — Inferius primo respicitur Marc. 14, 3: Venit mulier habens alabastrum unguenti nardi spicati pretiosi, et fracto alabastro; dein Ioan. 12, 3; demum Ioan. 1, 16: Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. — Aliquanto inferius pro *ut non tantum passio sit,* quod habent codd. A E F M U X, alii cum edd. *et non tantum passio fit.* Subinde post *memorialia* cod. U supplet *passionis.*

en: Verse 2, where the Vulgate adds *pro nobis* after *semetipsum.* — Below, the allusion is first to Mark 14:3: There came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard, and breaking the alabaster box; then to John 12:3; finally to John 1:16: And of his fulness we all have received. — Somewhat further below, for *ut non tantum passio sit,* which codices A E F M U X have, others with the editions read *et non tantum passio fit.* Further on, after *memorialia,* codex U supplies *passionis.*

la: Vers. 1, ubi Vulgata: *in compositionem.* — Aliquanto inferius pro *incendium Domini* codd. E F [K primitus] *incensum Domini,* quae lectio confirmatur ab Isidoro, VII. Etymolog. c. 6. n. 74: Iosias, *ubi est incensum Domini,* propria etymologia nominis. Iste est enim qui simulacra combussit. — Hieron., de Nominibus Hebr. ex III. Reg.: Iosia, *cuius est sacrificium Domino,* vel salus Domini, vel fortitudo Domini.

en: Verse 1, where the Vulgate has: *in compositionem.* — Somewhat below, for *incendium Domini* codices E and F (K in the first hand) have *incensum Domini,* a reading confirmed by Isidore, *Etymologies* VII, c. 6, n. 74: Josias, *where the burning of the Lord is,* the proper etymology of the name. For he it is who burned the idols. — Jerome, *On Hebrew Names,* from III Kings: Josia, *whose is the sacrifice to the Lord,* or the salvation of the Lord, or the strength of the Lord.

la: Vers. 10.

en: Verse 10.

la: Vers. 9. seq., ubi Vulgata *iustitiis* pro *iustificationibus.* — Paulo superius ex codd. F H I substituimus *figurativae unctiones* pro *figurae unctiones.*

en: Verse 9 sq., where the Vulgate has *iustitiis* for *iustificationibus.* — A little above, on the faith of codices F H I, we have substituted *figurativae unctiones* for *figurae unctiones.*

la: Vers. 4. — Seq. textus est Isai. 1, 6; et tertius ibid. 1, 5. — Paulo ante pro *curare* edd. *curari.*

en: Verse 4. — The following text is Isaiah 1:6; and the third the same, 1:5. — A little before, for *curare* the editions have *curari.*

la: Ita codd. H K aa, alii cum edd. contra contextum *suavitatis.*

en: So codices H K aa; the others with the editions have, against the context, *suavitatis.*

la: Vers. 1. — Seq. textus est Luc. 4, 21; tertius est Act. 10, 38, in cuius fine pro *in illo* Vulgata *cum illo.*

en: Verse 1. — The following text is Luke 4:21; the third is Acts 10:38, at the end of which the Vulgate has *cum illo* for *in illo.*

la: Contextu exigente (explicantur enim verba testimonii praemissi) et auctoritate codd. E G L V substituimus *et virtute* pro *et virtutem.*

en: As the context requires (for the words of the testimony set down above are being explained), and on the authority of codices E G L V, we have substituted *et virtute* for *et virtutem.*

la: Vers. 26.

en: Verse 26.

la: Vers. 32. — Verba August. habentur In Ioan. Evang. tr. 9. n. 10, ubi textus originalis *Dormienti Adae* pro *Dormiente Adam.* Codd. et edd. contra textum originalem *ut perfluant* pro *ut profluant.* — Superius pro *reviviscit* edd. *reviviscitur.*

en: Verse 32. — Augustine's words are found in *On the Gospel of John,* tract. 9, n. 10, where the original text has *Dormienti Adae* for *Dormiente Adam.* The codices and the editions have, against the original text, *ut perfluant* for *ut profluant.* — Above, for *reviviscit* the editions have *reviviscitur.*

la: Cod. V *cum tamen,* codd. F H Q bene *cum etiam inde,* i. e. quamvis etiam de pedibus vel manibus. Mox post *sanguis* in cod. Q additur *scilicet,* in cod. A perperam *et aqua.* In seqq. respicitur Ioan. 19, 33. seqq.

en: Codex V has *cum tamen;* codices F H Q rightly *cum etiam inde,* that is, although also from the feet or the hands. Presently, after *sanguis,* codex Q adds *scilicet,* codex A wrongly *et aqua.* In what follows John 19:33 sqq. is alluded to.

la: Codd. G V *Sacramenti,* cod. H *Sacramentorum.* Inferius substituimus ex codd. A E H I aa cc *sic ergo* pro *sic etiam.*

en: Codices G and V have *Sacramenti,* codex H *Sacramentorum.* Below, on the faith of codices A E H I aa cc, we have substituted *sic ergo* for *sic etiam.*

la: Cfr. C. *Hoc est quod dicimus* (48.) de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: Cf. the canon *Hoc est quod dicimus* (48) of *De Consecratione,* d. 2.

la: Psalm. 146, 3. — Seq. textus est Ps. 102, 3. Cfr. August., Enarrat. in dictos locc., ubi eodem modo exponuntur. — Inferius post *disponunt* edd. addunt *etiam* et in fine prooemii substituunt *faciet* pro *facit.*

en: Psalm 146:3. — The following text is Ps. 102:3. Cf. Augustine, *Enarrations* on the said places, where they are expounded in the same way. — Below, after *disponunt,* the editions add *etiam;* and at the end of the proemium they substitute *faciet* for *facit.*

la: In codd. hic continuatur propositio, et immediate exhibetur *divisio textus,* ut etiam infra dicitur pag. 10, nota 4. Nobis autem cum Vaticana interiiciendus erat textus Magistri.

en: In the codices the sentence is here continued, and the *division of the text* is immediately given, as is also said below, p. 10, note 4. But we, with the Vatican edition, had to interject the Master's text at this point. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Printed pp. 1–3 (PDF 21–23, offset `pdf = printed + 20`). ⚠ **The raw OCR was not
used as a base.** `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` is column-truncated through this region — the right
column is cut mid-word from roughly L946 — and the Prolegomena's *Tabula collatorum codicum* is
interleaved with the opening of the proemium in the same block. Latin body, marginalia and the whole
apparatus were read off 450 dpi column bands, left column then right, body bands then footer
register.

**Where this chunk begins and ends.** It opens at the head of **p. 1** with the full-measure display
heading `PROOEMIUM / IN QUARTUM LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM` and the full-measure lemma from Eccli. 38:7, and
closes on **p. 3** at *Et secundum hoc liber iste⁵ etc.,* about a fifth of the way down the leaf,
below which the plate prints a printer's ornament and then blank paper to the footer register.

**★★ BOOK IV HAS NO PRAELOCUTIO — AND THAT WAS CHECKED, NOT ASSUMED.** Book II's gap ran to four
units; Book IV's runs to three, like Book III's. p. 1 was extracted and read before anything was
written, and it opens with the proemium's own display heading — nothing precedes it.

**★★ THE FRONT-MATTER SPAN IS pp. 1–8, NOT "pp. 1–9".** The predecessor's figure came from
subtracting one from `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-littera`'s `printed_pages: [8, 9, 10]`. Fixed positively on
the plates: the proemium closes on p. 3; `LIBER QUARTUS SENTENTIARUM / DE DOCTRINA SIGNORUM`, the
Master's littera and `INCIPIUNT CAPITULA QUARTI LIBRI` all stand on **p. 4**; the capitula runs to the
head of **p. 8**, where `DISTINCTIO I. / Pars I.` opens on the same leaf. **Two chunks remain in this
book's gap: `bon-sent-IV-littera` (p. 4, apparatus-free) and `bon-sent-IV-capitula` (pp. 4–8, which
carries apparatus on the table — nn. 1–7 on p. 4 alone — and so is chunked under the frozen test.)**

**Gutters, measured per leaf.** p. 1 **1739** · p. 2 **1958** · p. 3 **1729** (direct ink profile over
the body rows). ⚠ p. 1's page image is 3638 px wide where pp. 2–8 are 3719; the volume has no single
usable default here, and the odd/even parity split (≈1730 / ≈1958) is large. The volume default of
1660 would have truncated the left column on every leaf of this front.

**★ QUARACCHI'S OWN CITATION IS WRONG AT p. 1 n. 2, AND IT IS TRANSCRIBED AS PRINTED.** *Omne tulit
punctum qui miscuit utile dulci* is *Ars poetica* **343**, not 243. The plate was magnified to 5× to
settle the digit: the leaf really prints `v. 243.` The error is the edition's, so the entry carries
it; it is recorded here, not emended in the text.

**Register settled here (reuse; do not re-decide).** The proemium turns entirely on one pair of
metaphors, so the pair is fixed: *unguentarius* → **"apothecary"** (Douay at the lemma, Eccli. 38:7)
· *pigmentarius* → **"perfumer"** (Douay at Exod. 30:35 and Eccli. 49:1) · *pigmenta* →
**"confections"** · *unguentum* → **"ointment"** (already the corpus's word, e.g. `bon-hex-c18`,
`bon-brev-p7-c7`) · *unctio* → **"unction"** where it is the act, **"ointment"** only inside the
Douay lemma *unctiones sanitatis* → "ointments of health" · *thymiama* → **"incense"** ·
*suavitas / suavia* → **"sweetness / sweet"** vs *salubria* → **"wholesome"** · *vulnerat naturalia*
→ "wounds his natural [endowments]", the bracket carrying the scholastic substantive. ⚠ *pigmentum*
is at once a spice-confection and a medicine, and English cannot hold both at once — **recorded as a
loss, not patched with a coinage;** the medical half is carried by *medicamenta* → "medicines"
standing next to it in the same sentence.

**Marginalia** (trimmed from the body, transcribed here in body order).
p. 1: *Duplex metaphora: pigmenta et unguenta.* · *Duplex effectus Sacramentorum.* · *A Christo est
effectus 1.* · *Sacramenta et sacrificia Legis.* · *Non placabant vi sua.* · *Necessitas
incarnationis.*
p. 2: *Christus perfecte placabat.* · *Etiam in memorialibus passionis.* · *Memorialia illa in
Ecclesia.* · *Effectus 2, Sacramenta morbum curantia.* · *Medicamenta Legis infirma.* · *Triplex
genus peccati.* · *Conditiones 2 unguentorum sanitatis non nisi in Christo.* · *Christus fecit ista
unguenta.*
p. 3: *Confectio et institutio Sacramentorum.* · *Epilogus.*

**Per-page register (25 entries owned).**

| page | notes owned | block split | relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | nn. 1–8 | left block nn. 1–5, right block the tail of n. 5 (unnumbered) + nn. 6–8 | n. 5 breaks mid-entry across the gutter and resumes unnumbered at the head of the right block |
| 2 | nn. 1–12 | left block nn. 1–4, right block nn. 5–12 | clean at the block boundary |
| 3 | nn. 1–5 | left block nn. 1–3, right block nn. 4–5 | clean at the block boundary |

**Hand-off forwarded — none.** p. 3's register closes this work; `bon-sent-IV-littera` opens on p. 4
with p. 4's own footer, whose nn. 1–7 all answer to the capitula table, not to the littera.

**⚠ FORWARDED DEFECT, INHERITED AND STILL OPEN — Book IV's d. 2 pars.** Three chunks cite
`IV. Sent. d. 2. p. I.`, but the corpus's Book IV d. 2 has no pars chunks (`IV-d2-a1-q1..q3`,
`IV-d2-a2-q1..q3`) and the raw carries no `DIST. II. P. I.` running head. Nothing in this proemium
touches it; it is passed on to whoever works Book IV's body, flagged and not emended.

**⛔ THE THREE GUARD-RAIL AUDITS CANNOT SEE THIS CHUNK, AND THEY WILL REPORT CLEAN ANYWAY** — they
select on the filename regex `bon-sent-IV-d(\d+)-`, and a proemium never matches. This is not
audits-clean. What was actually run: marker pairing (Latin 25 / English 25 / defs 25,
order-identical), `build-content.mjs`, `build-citations.py`, `polish-style-scan.py`, and eyes-on
450 dpi column bands for all three leaves, body and footer registers.

**`[?]` flags: none.**

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Textus Magistri

title_alt: LIBER QUARTUS SENTENTIARUM. De doctrina signorum

title_alt: Book Four of the Sentences — on the doctrine of signs

source_text:
<!-- page 4 -->

# LIBER QUARTUS SENTENTIARUM

### DE DOCTRINA SIGNORUM.

His tractatis quae ad doctrinam rerum pertinent, quibus fruendum est, et quibus utendum est, et quae fruuntur et utuntur, ad doctrinam signorum accedamus.

---

english:
<!-- page 4 -->

# BOOK FOUR OF THE SENTENCES

### ON THE DOCTRINE OF SIGNS.

These things having been treated which pertain to the doctrine of things — the things which are to be enjoyed, and the things which are to be used, and the things which enjoy and use — let us approach the doctrine of signs.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Printed p. 4 (PDF 24; offset `pdf = printed + 20`), raw
`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L1161–1166. The unit is **full-measure display matter plus one
sentence**, so it was re-set from full-width 450 dpi bands of the head of the leaf rather than
through `colcrop`; the OCR served only as a cross-check (it gives `Iractalis` for **tractatis**,
`acl` for **ad**, `perlinent` for **pertinent**, `siguorum` for **signorum**).

**What this chunk is.** Lombard's own opening of Book IV: the book title, its one-line subtitle, and
the single transition sentence that hands the reader from the *doctrina rerum* of Books I–III to the
*doctrina signorum* — the Sacraments — of Book IV. It sits between `bon-sent-IV-proem` (which closes
about a fifth down p. 3) and `bon-sent-IV-capitula`, whose `INCIPIUNT CAPITULA QUARTI LIBRI.` opens
further down this same leaf.

**★ THE EDITORS SAY WHY THIS UNIT IS HERE AT ALL — AND IT IS THE PROEM'S OWN LAST NOTE.**
`bon-sent-IV-proem`'s p. 3 n. 5 records that in the codices the proemium's closing sentence runs
straight on into the *divisio textus,* and that Quaracchi, following the Vatican edition,
**interjected the Master's text** at this point (*Nobis autem cum Vaticana interiiciendus erat textus
Magistri*). Book II's p. 6 n. 6 says the same thing in the same words. So this chunk's existence and
its boundaries are the edition's own decision, stated in the edition's own apparatus.

**★★ NO APPARATUS, AND IT WAS VERIFIED RATHER THAN ASSUMED.** p. 4's footer register carries
**seven** entries and **all seven answer to the chapter list below the littera**, each traced to its
anchor on the table: n. 1 → dist. I cap. IV *Quo¹ differant signum et Sacramentum* · n. 2 → dist. I
cap. V *Quare instituta sint²* · n. 3 → dist. II cap. I *De Sacramentis novae legis³* · n. 4 →
dist. III cap. IV *Si in nomine Patris possit tradi baptismus⁴* · n. 5 → dist. IV cap. VI *Quid
dimittitur⁵ in baptismo iustis* · n. 6 → dist. IV cap. VII *…quem recipit iustus⁶* · n. 7 →
dist. VII cap. III *Quae⁷ sit virtus huius Sacramenti.* The title, the subtitle and the transition
sentence carry **no anchor of any kind**, read at magnification on the band. The chunk therefore
declares `has_apparatus: false`. This is the same shape as `bon-sent-II-littera` (whose p. 7 held two
footer notes, both the capitula's) — and the **opposite** of `bon-sent-III-littera`, whose p. 3 did
own two entries. **The shape does not port between books; read the anchors.**

**★ AND THE SAME READING SETTLES THE NEXT CHUNK.** Because all seven notes sit **on the chapter list
itself** and record its transmission (codices' variant chapter wordings, an omitted capitulum, cod. D's
added eighth capitulum), the frozen test — *a capitula table is transmitted text when it carries
apparatus ON the table* — is **already satisfied for `bon-sent-IV-capitula`.** It is chunked and
translated, exactly as Books II and III were. Do not re-decide it.

**★ THE HEADING PRINTS WITHOUT A FULL STOP.** `LIBER QUARTUS SENTENTIARUM` carries no period on the
plate (Books II and III both print one); `DE DOCTRINA SIGNORUM.` does. Transcribed as printed.

**Gutter: not applicable.** This unit is full-measure. p. 4 is a **stacked-region leaf** — display
heading, full-measure littera, then a two-column table, then the register — and per the frozen Vol V
rule the gutter is a property of the region, not the leaf: the two-column measure on p. 4 belongs to
`bon-sent-IV-capitula` and is that chunk's to profile.

**⛔ THE THREE GUARD-RAIL AUDITS CANNOT SEE THIS CHUNK** — they select on the filename regex
`bon-sent-IV-d(\d+)-`, which a littera at distinctio 0 never matches, and all three print a clean
verdict on **0 chunks audited**. Verified instead by: eyes-on 450 dpi bands for the display matter,
the littera and the footer register; marker pairing (none in either body, `has_apparatus: false`);
structural parity between the Latin and English bodies; `build-content.mjs`; `build-citations.py`;
`polish-style-scan.py`.

**`[?]` flags: none.**