title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt:
Utrum episcopatus sit ordo
Whether the episcopate is an order

source_text:
<!-- page 632 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum episcopatus sit ordo.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum episcopatus sit ordo. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Distinctione septuagesima septima[^1] Gelasius Papa, distinguens gradus ordinum, in fine dicit: «Deinde subdiaconus, deinde diaconus et postea presbyter, et exinde, si meretur, episcopus ordinetur».

2. Item, Isidorus in septimo libro Etymologiarum[^2]: «Episcoporum quadripartitus est ordo»: ergo episcopatus est ordo.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia nullus recte dicitur ordinari nisi ab ordinis susceptione; sed qui promovetur in episcopum recte dicitur in episcopum ordinari, sicut per omnes canones innuitur, qui de hac materia loquuntur[^3]: ergo etc.

4. Item, illa inter virtutes est virtus praecipua, quae virtutes alias regit et eis imperat[^4]: ergo pari ratione in ordine iste erit magis praecipuus, qui alios dispensat et regit; et ille est ordo episcopalis: ergo etc.

5. Item, hoc videtur per definitionem ordinis. «Ordo enim est, ut dicit Magister[^5], signaculum, quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato»; sed hoc totum est in episcopatu, ut patet: ergo etc. *Minor* patet per ipsam ordinationem episcopi, in qua traditur sibi baculus, qui significat potestatem spiritualem; unde dicitur sibi, cum traditur ei baculus: «Accipe baculum pastoralis officii, id est potestatem ligandi et solvendi; et sis in corrigendis vitiis saeviens pie, in fovendis virtutibus animos auditorum demulcens, in tranquillitate severitatis censuram non deferens».

6. Item, solemnior inunctio, solemnior benedictio et manuum impositio fit in consecratione episcopi quam sacerdotis[^6]; sed talis inunctio non potest esse vacua a significatione et efficacia, cum sit novae legis: ergo est amplioris efficaciae. Si ergo sacerdotium est ordo, multo fortius videtur, quod episcopatus.

<!-- page 633 -->

**Contra:**
1. Magister Hugo de sancto Victore[^7], distinguens gradus ordinum, dicit sic: «Primus est ostiariorum, secundus lectorum, tertius exorcistarum, quartus acolythorum, quintus subdiaconorum, sextus diaconorum, septimus sacerdotum. Hic gradus dispares in eodem ordine habet dignitates, scilicet episcopi» etc.: ergo episcopatus solum dicit dignitatem, non ordinem: ergo etc.

2. Item, distinctio graduum et ordinum omnis est propter altaris ministerium, scilicet propter sacrificium, in quo est consummatio omnis divini cultus: ergo cum perventum est ad illam, ibi debet esse status; sed in presbyteratu pervenitur: ergo etc.

3. Item, gradus ecclesiastici talem habent ordinem, quod possibile est posteriorem accipere, omisso priori; quod patet per illud quod dicitur distinctione quinquagesima secunda[^8], *Sollicitudo* etc., et Extra, de Clerico per saltum ordinato, *Tuae litterae* etc.; sed impossibile est, aliquem promoveri in episcopum, sacerdotio omisso, sicut dicitur Extra, de Excessibus praelatorum, *Ex litteris,* et infra, ubi dicit Innocentius: «Pontificale officium sine altaris ministerio non valet adimpleri»: ergo videtur, quod episcopatus non sit alius ordo quam sacerdotium.

4. Item, promotus in Sabbato ad ordinem sacrum non debet in die sequenti alium ordinem sacrum suscipere[^9]; sed promotus in sacerdotem potest in die sequenti, scilicet dominico, in episcopum promoveri: ergo videtur, quod episcopatus non sit ordo sacer.

### Conclusio.

> Episcopatus proprie non est ordo, sed ordinis eminentia vel dignitas.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum est[^10], cum ordinis potestas principaliter sit ordinata ad dispensationem Sacramentorum et maxime illius Sacramenti nobilissimi, scilicet corporis Domini, quod ibi est status graduum et ordinum ascendentium, et ita ultra sacerdotium non est gradus ordinis. Sed tamen intra hunc gradum et ordinem contingit esse distinctionem dignitatum et officiorum, quae tamen novum gradum vel ordinem non constituunt, ut archipresbyter, episcopus, archiepiscopus, patriarcha, Pontifex Summus, quae ultra sacerdotium non addunt ordinem nec gradum[^11] novum, sed solum dignitatem et officium. Et ita episcopatus, prout concernit ordinem sacerdotii, bene potest dici ordo; sed prout distinguitur contra sacerdotium, dicit dignitatem quandam vel officium ipsi annexum, et non est proprie nomen ordinis nec novus character imprimitur, nec nova potestas datur, sed potestas data ampliatur. Unde sicut non recipit alias claves, sic nec alium ordinem. — Et hoc sensit magister Hugo, hoc etiam sensit Magister Sententiarum, sicut patet per id quod dicit in littera[^12], quod non sunt nomina ordinum, sed dignitatum; hoc etiam tenet communis opinio, quod in episcopatu character novus non imprimitur, sed illi aliqua eminentia confertur, quae semper manet cum ipso charactere ordinis, ablata omni iurisdictione. Hanc igitur opinionem sustinendo dicamus, quod episcopatus, praecise loquendo, non est ordo, sed ordinis eminentia vel dignitas.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. 2. 3. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de Isidoro et Gelasio, dicendum, quod ad eorum auctoritates et consimiles unica responsione potest responderi, quod ipsi nomen ordinis ampliant ad officia et dignitates; sed magistri nostri strictius accipiunt, scilicet pro *gradu potestatis;* et hoc patet per hoc quod Isidorus dicit, quod «episcoporum quadripartitus est ordo». Cum enim ordinatus in episcopum, si assumatur ad archiepiscopatum, non consecretur de novo, sed solum accipiat pallium; patet, quod non potest intelligi, quod novus sit ibi ordo, sed solum *dignitas* altior. Si ergo dicit, ipsos esse diversos ordines, manifestum est, quod nomen ordinis ad officia et dignitates extendit. — Et per hoc patet aliud sequens. Sicut enim ampliatur vocabulum et significatio *ordinis,* ita et *verbum,* cum dicitur: iste ordinatur in episcopum; unde non ita proprie dicitur aliquis *ordinari,* cum promovetur in episcopum, sicut cum promovetur in sacerdotem, sed magis proprie dicitur *consecrari.* Unde et Apostolus, loquens *proprie,* dicit Actuum vigesimo[^13]: *Posuit vos episcopos* etc.; et primae ad Timotheum tertio: *Qui episcopatum desiderat bonum opus desiderat.*

<!-- page 634 -->

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod per episcopatum ordines dispensantur; dicendum, quod nunquam possent per episcopum dispensari, nisi ordines illos, quos dispensat, haberet, maxime nisi haberet sacerdotium; et ideo concedo bene, quod episcopatus includit necessario ordinem perfectissimum, scilicet sacerdotium, et illi superaddit aliquam *eminentiam,* quam et ipsum nomen nobis insinuat; dicitur enim episcopus ab *epi,* quod est supra[^14].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo est *signaculum,* in quo spiritualis potestas etc.; dicendum, quod episcopatus deficit quantum ad utramque partem definitionis. Primo namque deficit a ratione *ordinis* quantum ad hoc, quod dicitur *signaculum;* quia signaculum ibi accipitur pro *charactere;* et hic non imprimitur in episcopatu, cuius signum est, quod non potest episcopus consecrari, nisi sit sacerdos, et ita per se characterem non imprimit. *Amplius* deficit, quia non datur ibi *nova potestas,* sed solum potestas ligandi et solvendi ampliatur, et ideo in huius signum baculus pastoralis porrigitur. Unde sicut collatio pallii non dat novum ordinem archiepiscopo ultra episcopum, sic nec collatio baculi, aut anuli, aut mitrae, aut alicuius consimilis ultra sacerdotem. Talia enim potius sunt sacramentalia quam Sacramenta; non enim sacramentalia tantum praecedunt Sacramentum, sed etiam sequi possunt.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solemnior est inunctio; dicendum, quod verum est, pro eo quod ad summum pontificatum assumitur, et datur ibi eminentia status et dignitas pastoralis, in qua debet esse *eminentia sanctitatis;* unde illa sanctitatis eminentia per superabundantem inunctionem debet significari, secundum quod dicitur[^15] de summo pontifice Aaron: *Sicut unguentum in capite eius, quod descendit in barbam, barbam Aaron.* Quia ad officium illud *maior* requiritur *sanctitas,* quam requiratur ad ordines; hinc est, quod *maior* fit *inunctio.* Reges enim et principes consueverunt inungi in signum dignitatis, quibus non *ordo* confertur, sed *regalis dignitas;* sic et episcopi, quibus confertur ordo sacerdotalis. Et propter hoc ratio illa non valet, quia inunctio non respicit ordinem, in quantum est *ordo,* sed magis *dignitatem.* Unde et sacerdos non inungitur ad ordinis necessitatem, sed magis ad solemnitatem, ut digne possit corpus Christi sacratissimum consecrare[^16].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the episcopate is an order.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the episcopate is an order. And that it is, seems [to be the case]:

1. Distinction seventy-seven[^1]: Pope Gelasius, distinguishing the grades of orders, says at the end: «Then a subdeacon, then a deacon, and afterward a presbyter, and thereupon, if he deserves it, let him be ordained bishop».

2. Likewise, Isidore in the seventh book of the *Etymologies*[^2]: «Of bishops the order is fourfold»: therefore the episcopate is an order.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason:* because no one is properly said to be ordained except by the reception of an order; but he who is promoted to bishop is properly said to be ordained bishop, as is intimated by all the canons that speak of this matter[^3]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that is the chief virtue among the virtues which governs the other virtues and commands them[^4]: therefore, by parity of reasoning, that will be the more chief [order] in the [rank of] order which dispenses and rules the others; and that is the episcopal order: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, this seems [so] from the definition of order. «For an order is, as the Master says[^5], a seal by which spiritual power is handed on to the one ordained»; but all this is in the episcopate, as is clear: therefore etc. The *minor* [premise] is clear through the very ordination of the bishop, in which the staff is handed to him, which signifies spiritual power; whence it is said to him, when the staff is handed to him: «Receive the staff of the pastoral office, that is, the power of binding and loosing; and be, in correcting vices, piously severe, in fostering virtues soothing the minds of the hearers, in the tranquillity of severity not laying aside censure».

6. Likewise, a more solemn unction, a more solemn benediction and imposition of hands is made in the consecration of a bishop than of a priest[^6]; but such an unction cannot be void of signification and efficacy, since it is of the new law: therefore it is of greater efficacy. If, then, the priesthood is an order, much more strongly does it seem that the episcopate [is].

<!-- page 633 -->

**On the contrary:**
1. Master Hugh of St. Victor[^7], distinguishing the grades of orders, speaks thus: «The first is that of doorkeepers, the second of readers, the third of exorcists, the fourth of acolytes, the fifth of subdeacons, the sixth of deacons, the seventh of priests. This [seventh] grade has, within the same order, unequal dignities, namely that of the bishop» etc.: therefore the episcopate bespeaks only a dignity, not an order: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, every distinction of grades and orders is on account of the ministry of the altar, namely on account of the sacrifice, in which is the consummation of all divine worship: therefore, when one has come to that, there ought the terminus to be; but in the priesthood one comes [to it]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the ecclesiastical grades have such an order that it is possible to receive a later one, the prior having been omitted; which is clear through what is said in distinction fifty-two[^8], *Sollicitudo* etc., and in the Extra[vagantes], On the Cleric ordained by a leap, *Tuae litterae* etc.; but it is impossible for anyone to be promoted to bishop, the priesthood having been omitted, as is said in the Extra, On the Excesses of prelates, *Ex litteris,* and below, where Innocent says: «The pontifical office cannot be fulfilled without the ministry of the altar»: therefore it seems that the episcopate is not another order than the priesthood.

4. Likewise, one promoted on Saturday to a sacred order ought not on the following day to receive another sacred order[^9]; but one promoted to the priesthood can on the following day, namely the Lord's day, be promoted to bishop: therefore it seems that the episcopate is not a sacred order.

### Conclusion.

> The episcopate is properly not an order, but an eminence or dignity of order.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been touched upon[^10], since the power of order is principally ordained to the dispensing of the Sacraments and most of all of that most noble Sacrament, namely the body of the Lord, therefore there is [in it] the terminus of the ascending grades and orders, and thus beyond the priesthood there is no grade of order. Yet nevertheless within this grade and order there happens to be a distinction of dignities and offices, which however do not constitute a new grade or order — such as archpresbyter, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, Supreme Pontiff — which beyond the priesthood add no order nor a new grade[^11], but only a dignity and office. And so the episcopate, insofar as it concerns the order of priesthood, can well be called an order; but insofar as it is distinguished against the priesthood, it bespeaks a certain dignity or office annexed to it, and is not properly the name of an order, nor is a new character imprinted, nor is a new power given, but the power given is enlarged. Whence, just as it does not receive other keys, so neither [does it receive] another order. — And this Master Hugh held, this too the Master of the Sentences held, as is clear through what he says in the text[^12], that they are not names of orders, but of dignities; this too the common opinion holds, that in the episcopate no new character is imprinted, but some eminence is conferred on it, which always remains together with the very character of order, all jurisdiction being removed. Sustaining, therefore, this opinion, let us say that the episcopate, strictly speaking, is not an order, but an eminence or dignity of order.

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

1. 2. 3. To that, then, which is objected first concerning Isidore and Gelasius, it must be said that to their authorities and the like a single response can be given, [namely] that they enlarge the name of order to [include] offices and dignities; but our masters take it more strictly, namely for a *grade of power;* and this is clear through what Isidore says, that «of bishops the order is fourfold». For since one ordained bishop, if he be raised to the archbishopric, is not consecrated anew, but only receives the pallium; it is clear that it cannot be understood that there is a new order there, but only a higher *dignity.* If, then, he says that they are diverse orders, it is manifest that he extends the name of order to offices and dignities. — And through this the other, following [point] is clear. For just as the term and signification of *order* is enlarged, so also is the *verb,* when it is said: this man is ordained to the episcopate; whence one is not so properly said to be *ordained,* when he is promoted to bishop, as when he is promoted to the priesthood, but is more properly said to be *consecrated.* Whence also the Apostle, speaking *properly,* says in Acts twenty[^13]: *He has placed you as bishops* etc.; and in the first to Timothy, chapter three: *He who desires the episcopate desires a good work.*

<!-- page 634 -->

4. To that which is objected, that through the episcopate orders are dispensed; it must be said that they could never be dispensed by the bishop, unless he had those orders which he dispenses, and most of all unless he had the priesthood; and therefore I readily concede that the episcopate necessarily includes the most perfect order, namely the priesthood, and superadds to it some *eminence,* which the very name too intimates to us; for a bishop is [so] called from *epi,* which is "above"[^14].

5. To that which is objected, that an order is a *seal,* in which [is] spiritual power etc.; it must be said that the episcopate is deficient as regards both parts of the definition. For first it is deficient in respect of the account of *order* as to this, that it is called a *seal;* because "seal" is there taken for *character;* and this is not imprinted in the episcopate, of which the sign is that a bishop cannot be consecrated unless he be a priest, and thus of itself it does not imprint a character. Further it is deficient, because there is not given there a *new power,* but only the power of binding and loosing is enlarged, and therefore as a sign of this the pastoral staff is held out. Whence, just as the conferring of the pallium does not give a new order to the archbishop beyond the bishop, so neither [does] the conferring of the staff, or the ring, or the mitre, or anything of the like beyond the priest. For such things are rather sacramentals than Sacraments; for sacramentals do not only precede the Sacrament, but can also follow [it].

6. To that which is objected, that the unction is more solemn; it must be said that this is true, for the reason that [the bishop] is raised to the supreme pontificate, and there is given there an eminence of status and a pastoral dignity, in which there ought to be an *eminence of holiness;* whence that eminence of holiness ought to be signified by the superabundant unction, according to what is said[^15] of the supreme pontiff Aaron: *Like the ointment upon his head, which ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron.* Because for that office a greater *holiness* is required than is required for the [other] orders; hence it is that a greater *unction* is made. For kings and princes have been accustomed to be anointed as a sign of dignity, on whom not an *order* is conferred, but *royal dignity;* so too the bishops, on whom the sacerdotal order is conferred. And on account of this that argument is not valid, because the unction does not regard the order, insofar as it is an *order,* but rather the *dignity.* Whence also the priest is anointed not for the necessity of the order, but rather for the solemnity, that he may worthily consecrate the most holy body of Christ[^16].

---

la: Can. *Illud nos* (1.), qui secundum Gratian. non est *Gelasii* [infra in solut. huius obiect. multi codd. *Pelagii*], sed *Caii* Papae. Ed. *Migne* hanc notam adiicit: Caput Pseudoisidorianum [reapse Isidorus Mercator in sua Decretalium collectione haec verba Caio Papae tribuit], concinnatum secundum libr. pontificalem.

en: Canon *Illud nos* (1), which according to Gratian is not by *Gelasius* [below, in the solution of this objection, many codices (attribute it to) *Pelagius*], but by Pope *Caius.* The *Migne* edition adds this note: A Pseudo-Isidorian chapter [in fact Isidore Mercator, in his collection of Decretals, attributes these words to Pope Caius], composed according to the pontifical book.

la: Cap. 12. n. 4. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 17.

en: Chapter 12, n. 4. See here the text of the Master, c. 17.

la: Praeter C. *Illud nos* in penultima nota allegatum cfr. C. *Episcopus cum ordinatur* (7.), d. 23. — Pro *innuitur* codd. *invenitur.*

en: Besides the Canon *Illud nos* cited in the penultimate note, compare the Canon *Episcopus cum ordinatur* (7), d. 23. — For *innuitur* the codices [read] *invenitur.*

la: Scilicet prudentia; cfr. tom. III. pag. 471, nota 3, pag. 720, nota 1; Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6; VI. c. 5. et 8. seqq.

en: Namely prudence; compare tom. III, p. 471, note 3, p. 720, note 1; Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 6; VI, c. 5 and 8 ff.

la: Hic in lit. c. 13. — Inferius in forma tradendi baculum post verba *id est potestatem ligandi et solvendi,* quae a S. Bonav. explicandi gratia adiuncta sunt, pontificale Romanum prosequitur: *ut sis... pie saeviens, iudicium sine ira tenens, in fovendis* etc.

en: Here in the text [of the Master], c. 13. — Below, in the form for delivering the staff, after the words *"that is, the power of binding and loosing"* — which were added by St. Bonaventure for the sake of explanation — the Roman pontifical continues: *that you may be... piously severe, holding judgment without wrath, in fostering* etc.

la: Cfr. Pontificale Romanum, c. de Consecratione electi in episcopum.

en: Compare the Roman Pontifical, c. On the Consecration of one elected as bishop.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. III. c. 5. Textus originalis pro *scilicet episcopi* habet: *nam post sacerdotes altiores sunt principes sacerdotum, id est episcopi.*

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments,* Book II, part III, c. 5. The original text, for *"namely the bishops,"* has: *for after the priests, higher are the chiefs of the priests, that is, the bishops.*

la: Can. 1. — Seq. locus est Extra, lib. V. tit. 29. c. 1. Vide supra pag. 625, nota 3. et 5. Tertius est Extra lib. V. tit. 31. c. 10, in quo permulti codd. contra textum originalem *alterius* pro *altaris.*

en: Canon 1. — The following passage is Extra, Book V, tit. 29, c. 1. See above p. 625, note 3 and 5. The third is Extra, Book V, tit. 31, c. 10, in which very many codices, against the original text, [read] *alterius* for *altaris.*

la: Ut habetur C. *Litteras vestras* (13.), X. de Temporibus ordinationum etc. (lib. I. tit. II.). Cfr. ibid. C. *Dilectus filius* (15.). Vide etiam Gratian. d. 75. et d. 77, ubi de interstitiis in singulis ordinibus servandis.

en: As is found in the Canon *Litteras vestras* (13), X, On the Times of ordinations etc. (Book I, tit. II). Compare there the Canon *Dilectus filius* (15). See also Gratian, d. 75 and d. 77, where [it treats] of the intervals to be observed in the individual orders.

la: Fundam. 2. Cfr. q. I. et supra p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq.

en: Foundation 2. Compare q. 1 and above, part I, a. 2, q. 2 f.

la: Pro *nec gradum* codd. A E H L aa bb *secundum gradum.*

en: For *nec gradum* codices A E H L aa bb [read] *secundum gradum.*

la: Hic c. 14. seqq. — Quod episcopus non recipiat alias claves, dictum est supra d. 19. a. 2. q. I. in corp.

en: Here c. 14 ff. — That the bishop does not receive other keys was stated above, d. 19, a. 2, q. 1, in the body [of the article].

la: Vers. 28: *Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos* etc. [codd. et edd. *Posuit hos*]. — Seq. locus est I. Tim. 3, 1: *Si quis episcopatum* etc.

en: Verse 28: *Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops* etc. [codices and editions: *Posuit hos*]. — The following passage is 1 Tim. 3:1: *If anyone [desires] the episcopate* etc.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 15, ubi ἐπίσκοπος redditur *superintendens* sive *speculator.*

en: Compare here the text of the Master, c. 15, where ἐπίσκοπος is rendered *"overseer"* or *"watchman."*

la: Psalm. 132, 2. Cfr. Innocent. III. C. *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 15.). — Inferius pro *Quia ad* edd. *unde quia ad.*

en: Psalm 132:2. Compare Innocent III, Canon *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1), X, On Sacred Unction (Book I, tit. 15). — Below, for *Quia ad* the editions [read] *unde quia ad.*

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p632..634-{L,R}-*.png`, split_x=1780 — the default 1880 clipped the left edge of the right column). Raw OCR L68732–L68915 used only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing (Vol IV two-column cascade-shatter — PDF authoritative).

**Page span corrected.** Auto-chunker frontmatter listed printed pp. 633–634; page-verified to **632–634**. QUAESTIO III begins mid-page on p.632 (running head "632" precedes it at raw L68694): its centered header + title span both columns, the opener and args 1–4 sit in p.632 col A, args 4(cont)–6 in col B; the *quod sic* args continue onto p.633, the *Contra* + Conclusio + Respondeo fill p.633, and the solutions (replies 4–6) run onto p.634, ending at *…corpus Christi sacratissimum consecrare*. QUAESTIO IV (*Utrum ordines sint septem, an plures, vel pauciores*) begins immediately after on p.634.

**Cross-page argument splits.** Argument 6 spans the 632/633 break (*…solemnior benedi-* | *-ctio et manuum impositio…*); its marker [^6] is p.633's first footnote. Reply 4 spans the 633/634 break (*…quod per episcopa-* | *-tum ordines dispensantur…*); its marker [^14] is p.634's first footnote. Page markers placed at the nearest clean paragraph boundary.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. The article-II scholion sits in a2-q1 and covers all four questions. Independent confirmation: this quaestio's own p.632 n.5 ([^4]) reads *"Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.,"* and p.634 n.3 ([^16]) reads *"Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest."* — both pointing back to q1's scholion. No scholion text anchored to q3 falls in this range.

**Shared-page footer splits.** *P.632* runs a single 1–10 footer series: notes **1–5** anchor to Question II markers (belong to a2-q2, already captured there); notes **6–10** anchor to this quaestio's args (*Gelasius/Illud nos*→[^1]; *Etymologiarum*→[^2]; *loquuntur*→[^3]; *imperat*→[^4]; *Magister/definitionem ordinis*→[^5]). *P.634* runs a 1–9 footer series: notes **1–3** anchor to this quaestio's replies (*epi, quod est supra*→[^14]; *dicitur/Psalm 132*→[^15]; *consecrare*→[^16]); notes **4–9** anchor to Question IV markers and belong to the following chunk (a2-q4). *P.633*'s footer (notes 1–8) is entirely this quaestio's ([^6]–[^13]).

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi margin glosses bleeding into the OCR (*Ad oppositum.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Conclusio.*, *Confirmatur.*, *Notandum.*, *Nota.*) removed from the body per convention.

**No `[?]` flags** — all readings resolved against the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 4

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 634 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum ordines sint septem, an plures, vel pauciores.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum ordines sint septem, an plures, vel pauciores. Et quod tantum septem sint:

1. Hoc expresse magister Hugo[^p634-4] dicit; Magister etiam dicit in littera.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia signum debet respondere veritati; sed in Sacramento isto septiformis gratia Spiritus sancti datur[^p634-5]: ergo videtur, quod, si gradus in ordine assignantur, quod septem esse debent.

Sed quod debeant esse tantum tres, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Dionysii, de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia[^p634-6], ubi non ponit nisi tres gradus, scilicet ministros, sacerdotes et episcopos.

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione: quia distinctio graduum debet esse penes actus hierarchicos; isti autem actus sunt tres tantummodo, scilicet «purgare, illuminare et perficere[^p634-7]»: ergo videtur, quod sint tantum tres gradus sive ordines.

Sed quod sint plures, videtur:

3. Quoniam Ecclesia militans imitatur triumphantem, secundum quod dicitur Exodi vigesimo quinto[^p634-8]: *Inspice, et fac secundum exemplar, quod tibi monstratum est* etc.; sed in illa est distinctio et gradus in Angelis secundum numerum novenarium: ergo etc.

4. Item, quanto maior est recessus a principio, tanto magis tenditur in multitudinem[^p634-9]; sed hierarchia ecclesiastica plus distat a principio omnium, Deo summo, quam angelica: ergo pluribus gradibus et ordinibus debet distingui quam angelica: ergo plures deberent esse ordines quam novem.

Est igitur quaestio: propter quid in hoc Sacramento magis est graduum distinctio quam in alio; et propter quid in numero septenario?

> **Conclusio.** Ordines sunt septem et ad unum sacerdotium ordinati.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod omnes in hoc concordant, scilicet quod huic Sacramento competit graduum
<!-- page 635 -->
distinctio, sive propter hoc, quod penes ipsum membra Ecclesiae in corpore mystico ordinantur secundum diversas operationes et gratias, secundum quod dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^p635-1]; sive propter hoc, quod secundum illud Sacramentum configuratur et conformatur pulcritudo Ecclesiae militantis pulcritudini Ecclesiae triumphantis; sive propter hoc, quod istud Sacramentum in suo supremo ponit et disponit hominem ad gratiam perfectionis, et gratia perfecta in pluralitate donorum Spiritus sancti consistit; sive propter hoc, quod istud Sacramentum ordinat ad dignissimum ministerium, quod est consecratio dominici corporis, ad quam non statim est convolandum, sed per gradus paulative ascendendum, cum[^p635-2] illud Sacramentum propter sui nobilitatem et reverentiam multa debeat habere ministeria inferiora. — Omnibus his modis accipitur ratio pluralitatis in gradibus ordinum; et secundum aspectum ad has rationes plurificandi sumitur sufficientia graduum ecclesiasticorum diversimode a diversis.

Quidam enim sumunt penes distinctionem membrorum Ecclesiae, quae attenditur secundum *dona gratiarum*, quae determinat Apostolus primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^p635-3] dicens: *Alii datur per Spiritum sermo sapientiae* etc.; et isti dicunt, *novem* esse ordines secundum genera gratiarum, quae ibi ponuntur, quae sunt novem. Unde adaptant sic: *Alii datur per Spiritum sermo sapientiae*, scilicet episcopo; *alii sermo scientiae*, scilicet sacerdoti, qui debet scire ligare et solvere; *alii fides*, scilicet diacono, qui debet Evangelium nuntiare, in quo fides nostra continetur; *operatio virtutum* subdiacono, qui aggreditur opera perfectionis; *interpretatio sermonum* acolytho, cuius est alios illuminare et tenebras effugare; *gratia sanitatum* exorcistae; *genera linguarum* psalmistae; *prophetia* lectori; et *discretio spirituum* ostiario, qui admittit bonos et repellit malos. — Sed iste modus sumendi non est omnino competens, quoniam ista dona[^p635-4] gratiarum non eisdem, sed diversis conveniunt membris; omnes autem ordines eisdem dantur, licet successive.

Secundi sumunt aliquantulum aptius penes *conformitatem exempli ad exemplatum*[^p635-5]; dicunt enim, quod sicut in angelica hierarchia est distinctio ordinum penes *purgare, illuminare* et *perficere*, sic et in ecclesiastica. Unde *novem* sunt ordines, secundum quod sumsit hos tres actus triplicatos. Primo enim actui *purgationis* respondent tres: quoniam aut purgari habet *exterius*, aut *interius*, aut *partim sic, partim sic*. Si *exterius* per segregationem corporalem[^p635-6] a malis; sic est ostiarius, qui admittit bonos et excludit malos. Si *interius*; sic est postremus inter inferiores, scilicet acolythus, quia talis non purgat tenebras corporales, cum lumen ferat de die, sed spirituales. Si *partim sic, partim sic*; sic exorcista, qui purgat a vexatione diabolica, quae est quodam modo *intra* respectu corporis, quodam modo *extra* respectu animae, quia non illabitur daemon animae, licet obsideat corpus. — Similiter quantum ad actum *illuminationis* tres ordines accipiuntur, secundum quod triplex est lumen, scilicet *plenum, subsequens* et *antecedens*. Lumen *plenum* est in doctrina evangelica, scilicet doctrina Christi, quae spectat ad diaconos; lumen *subsequens* in doctrina apostolica, quae spectat ad subdiaconos; lumen *praecedens* in prophetica[^p635-7], quae spectat ad lectores. — Similiter secundum opus *perfectionis* sive consummationis triplex est ordo: quia quaedam est consummatio *prima*, utpote per gratiam baptismi et poenitentiae, haec debetur sacerdotibus; quaedam *excellentior*, et haec episcopis, quorum est ordinare et consecrare abbates et virgines; quaedam *excellentissima*, utpote consecrare episcopos et archiepiscopos, et haec pertinet ad Summum Pontificem, quia est «pater patrum[^p635-8]», in quo est plenitudo auctoritatis. Et sic status istius ordinationis *consummatur* in unitate et *descendit* per gradus novem, ut sic conformetur Ierusalem caelesti. Et iste novenarius reducitur ad ternarium actum, ut sic ascendat et configuretur beatissimae Trinitati: nam *purgatio* ad bonitatem, *illuminatio* vero ad sapientiam, sed *consummatio* ad potestatem. Et sic regnum Ecclesiae per Spiritum sanctum et Filium *traditur Deo et Patri*[^p635-9], dum ad ipsam supremam et paternam unitatem reducitur, ultra quam non est cogitare ascensum. — Et iste modus est satis probabilis; tamen adhuc aliquantulum a proprietate recedit, dum non accipitur ordinum distinctio per id quod est proprium sibi et intrinsecum.

Tertii adhuc sumunt aliquantulum aptius penes *gratiam*, ad quam ordinat ordo. Quoniam enim ordinat ad gratiam perfectam, quae septiformis est, ideo ordinum ecclesiasticorum septem competit esse
<!-- page 636 -->
gradus, ut ordo ostiarii respondeat dono *timoris*, per quod recedit homo a malo; ordo sacerdotii dono *sapientiae*, quia gustat et administrat ipsum lignum vitae, ipsum panem caelestem, in quo est omnis sapor[^p636-1]; ordines intermedii respondent *intermediis* donis. — Et iste adhuc modus satis est probabilis et magis attingit ad sufficientiam ordinum vere assignandam quam aliquis praedictorum.

Licet autem omnes hi modi ex dictis magistrorum tracti sint; nam primus ex dictis Isidori[^p636-2], secundus ex dictis Dionysii, tertius ex dictis Hugonis et Magistri; sed tamen adhuc videtur aliquid rationabilius posse dici, si quartum modum sumendi attendamus, qui est penes id, ad quod ordo ordinatur; et hoc quidem est ad corpus Christi verum dispensandum ad utilitatem corporis Christi mystici. Unde in sacerdotio est status, in quo est consummatio potestatis, et utraque potestas in ipso concurrit, scilicet *conficiendi* corpus Christi verum et *absolvendi* mysticum. Hic autem ordo nobilissimus debet habere ordines sibi subministrantes secundum exigentiam huius duplicis potentiae. Unde quidam ministrant quantum ad corpus Christi *verum*; et hi sunt ordines ipsi sacerdotio propinquiores. Nam dupliciter est ministrare: aut accipiendo hostias a plebe, et hoc est subdiaconi; aut offerendo sacerdoti, et hoc est diaconi et illud est principale eorum officium, sicut expresse innuit Isidorus[^p636-3]; et hinc est, quod sic denominantur: unde diaconus quasi *minister*, et subdiaconus quasi *subminister*. — Alii inferiores subministrant sive subserviunt praeparando corpus Christi *mysticum* ad hoc, quod possit perduci ad verum digne percipiendum; et ad hoc sunt quatuor ordines, secundum quod quadrupliciter potest ad hoc praeparari: primo modo admittendo ad locum sacrum: et hoc est ostiariorum; secundo praebendo documentum, et hoc est lectorum; tertio praestando auxilium, et hoc exorcistarum; quarto monstrando bonum exemplum, et hoc ceroferariorum sive acolythorum, ad quos pertinet, *ut luceat lux eorum coram hominibus, ut videant*[^p636-4] etc.

Et sic patet, quod miro modo procedit ordo a multitudine in unitatem. Nam principalis gradus est *unus*, cui subservientes debent esse *duo* — quia enim a primo deficiunt, cadunt in dualitatem — et rursus subservientes duobus sunt *quatuor*, quia deficiunt etiam ab illis. — Et sic patet perfectio et consummatio ordinum et distinctio in numero septenario secundum gradus potestatum, quae sunt essentiales ordini; quarum numerus et sufficientia sumitur penes id, ad quod directae sunt. — His visis, obiecta de facili satis patent. Quod enim obiicitur, quod sunt septem, concedendum.

1. Quod vero obiicitur, quod sunt tres, per[^p636-5] Dionysium; dicendum, quod Dionysius sub ministris comprehendit septem gradus, qui omnes administrant sacerdoti.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo triplici actu, dicendum, quod distinctio ordinum non sumitur penes illum triplicem actum, sed potius secundum actum ministrandi; et si etiam sumeretur, adhuc non valeret, quia illi[^p636-6] plurificantur, ut patet in Angelis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod imitatur supernam Ierusalem; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod suo statui competit. In illa autem superna Ierusalem ordines assignantur supremi, inferiores et medii secundum aspectus *diversos*, sicut patet in distinctione hierarchiarum angelicarum[^p636-7]; ordines autem ecclesiastici sumuntur per comparationem ad *unum* principaliter, quia ad hoc sunt; et hinc est, quod nec illo modo plurificantur nec in tot membra, in quot ordines angelici[^p636-8].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the orders are seven, or more, or fewer.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether the orders are seven, or more, or fewer. And that there are only seven:

1. This the master Hugh expressly says[^p634-4]; the Master also says [it] in the text.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because a sign ought to correspond to the truth; but in this Sacrament the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit is given[^p634-5]: therefore it seems that, if grades are assigned in the order, they ought to be seven.

But that they ought to be only three, it seems:

1. By the authority of Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*[^p634-6], where he posits only three grades, namely ministers, priests, and bishops.

2. Likewise, this seems by reason: because the distinction of grades ought to be according to the hierarchical acts; but these acts are only three, namely «to purge, to illuminate, and to perfect[^p634-7]»: therefore it seems that there are only three grades or orders.

But that there are more, it seems:

3. Because the Church militant imitates the [Church] triumphant, according to what is said in Exodus twenty-five[^p634-8]: *Look, and make [it] according to the exemplar, which was shown to you* etc.; but in that [Church] there is distinction and grade among the Angels according to the ninefold number: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the greater the withdrawal from the principle, the more it is stretched out into multitude[^p634-9]; but the ecclesiastical hierarchy is farther distant from the principle of all, the most high God, than the angelic: therefore it ought to be distinguished by more grades and orders than the angelic: therefore there ought to be more orders than nine.

There is therefore a question: on account of what in this Sacrament is there a distinction of grades more than in another; and on account of what in the sevenfold number?

> **Conclusion.** The orders are seven and ordained to one priesthood.

**I respond:** It must be said that all agree in this, namely that a distinction of grades befits this Sacrament, whether on account of this, that in it the members of the Church are ordered in the mystical body according to diverse operations and graces, according to what the Apostle says in the first to the Corinthians, chapter twelve[^p635-1]; or on account of this, that according to this Sacrament the beauty of the Church militant is configured and conformed to the beauty of the Church triumphant; or on account of this, that this Sacrament in its highest [grade] sets and disposes man toward the grace of perfection, and perfect grace consists in the plurality of the gifts of the Holy Spirit; or on account of this, that this Sacrament ordains toward the most worthy ministry, which is the consecration of the Lord's body, to which one is not to hasten at once, but to ascend little by little through grades, since[^p635-2] this Sacrament, on account of its nobility and reverence, ought to have many lower ministries. — In all these ways the ground of plurality in the grades of the orders is taken; and according to the regard to these grounds of multiplying, the sufficiency of the ecclesiastical grades is derived in diverse ways by diverse [authors].

For some take [it] according to the distinction of the members of the Church, which is attended to according to the *gifts of graces*, which the Apostle determines in the first to the Corinthians, chapter twelve[^p635-3], saying: *To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom* etc.; and these say that there are *nine* orders according to the kinds of graces which are there posited, which are nine. Whence they adapt [it] thus: *To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom*, namely to the bishop; *to another the word of knowledge*, namely to the priest, who ought to know how to bind and to loose; *to another faith*, namely to the deacon, who ought to announce the Gospel, in which our faith is contained; *the working of powers* to the subdeacon, who undertakes the works of perfection; *the interpretation of discourses* to the acolyte, whose [task] is to illuminate others and to put darkness to flight; *the grace of healings* to the exorcist; *the kinds of tongues* to the psalmist; *prophecy* to the lector; and *the discernment of spirits* to the doorkeeper, who admits the good and repels the evil. — But this way of taking [it] is not altogether fitting, since these gifts of graces[^p635-4] do not belong to the same, but to diverse members; whereas all the orders are given to the same [persons], though successively.

The second [group] take [it] somewhat more fittingly according to the *conformity of the copy to the exemplar*[^p635-5]; for they say that just as in the angelic hierarchy there is a distinction of orders according to *purging, illuminating,* and *perfecting*, so also in the ecclesiastical. Whence there are *nine* orders, according as it took these three acts tripled. For to the first act, of *purgation*, three correspond: since one must be purged either *exteriorly*, or *interiorly*, or *partly thus, partly thus*. If *exteriorly*, by bodily segregation[^p635-6] from the evil; thus is the doorkeeper, who admits the good and excludes the evil. If *interiorly*; thus is the last among the lower [ones], namely the acolyte, since such a one does not purge bodily darkness, since he bears the light by day, but spiritual [darkness]. If *partly thus, partly thus*; thus the exorcist, who purges from the diabolical vexation, which is in a certain way *within* with respect to the body, in a certain way *without* with respect to the soul, since the demon does not glide into the soul, although he besiege the body. — Likewise, as regards the act of *illumination*, three orders are received, according as the light is threefold, namely *full, subsequent,* and *antecedent*. The *full* light is in the evangelical teaching, namely the teaching of Christ, which pertains to deacons; the *subsequent* light in the apostolic teaching, which pertains to subdeacons; the *preceding* light in the prophetic[^p635-7], which pertains to lectors. — Likewise, according to the work of *perfection* or consummation the order is threefold: since there is a *first* consummation, as [that] through the grace of baptism and of penance, this is owed to priests; another *more excellent*, and this to bishops, whose [task] is to ordain and to consecrate abbots and virgins; another *most excellent*, as [that] to consecrate bishops and archbishops, and this pertains to the Supreme Pontiff, since he is «father of fathers[^p635-8]», in whom is the fullness of authority. And thus the state of this ordination is *consummated* in unity and *descends* through nine grades, so that it may thus be conformed to the heavenly Jerusalem. And this ninefold [number] is reduced to the ternary act, so that it may thus ascend and be configured to the most blessed Trinity: for *purgation* [is directed] to goodness, *illumination* indeed to wisdom, but *consummation* to power. And thus the kingdom of the Church is *handed over to God and the Father*[^p635-9] through the Holy Spirit and the Son, while it is reduced to that supreme and paternal unity, beyond which no ascent can be thought. — And this way is probable enough; yet it still withdraws somewhat from propriety, since the distinction of orders is not taken according to that which is proper and intrinsic to it.

The third [group] still take [it] somewhat more fittingly according to the *grace* to which the order ordains. For since it ordains toward perfect grace, which is sevenfold, therefore it befits that there be seven of the ecclesiastical orders: as
grades, so that the order of doorkeeper corresponds to the gift of *fear*, through which man withdraws from evil; the order of priesthood to the gift of *wisdom*, since he tastes and administers the very tree of life, the very heavenly bread, in which is all savor[^p636-1]; the intermediate orders correspond to the *intermediate* gifts. — And this way too is probable enough and attains more to the sufficiency of the orders to be truly assigned than any of the aforesaid.

But although all these ways are drawn from the sayings of the masters — for the first from the sayings of Isidore[^p636-2], the second from the sayings of Dionysius, the third from the sayings of Hugh and the Master — yet still it seems that something more reasonable can be said, if we attend to the fourth way of taking [it], which is according to that to which the order is ordained; and this indeed is toward the dispensing of the true body of Christ for the benefit of the mystical body of Christ. Whence in the priesthood there is the state in which is the consummation of power, and each power concurs in it, namely of *confecting* the true body of Christ and of *absolving* the mystical [body]. This most noble order, however, ought to have orders subministering to it according to the exigency of this twofold power. Whence some minister with respect to the *true* body of Christ; and these are the orders nearer to the priesthood itself. For it is to minister in two ways: either by receiving the hosts from the people, and this is [the office] of the subdeacon; or by offering to the priest, and this is [the office] of the deacon and that is their principal office, as Isidore expressly intimates[^p636-3]; and hence it is that they are so named: whence the deacon [is] as it were a *minister*, and the subdeacon as it were a *subminister*. — Others, lower, subminister or subserve by preparing the *mystical* body of Christ to the end that it may be able to be led to the true [body] to be worthily received; and to this [end] there are four orders, according as one can be prepared for this in fourfold manner: in the first way by admitting to the sacred place: and this is [the office] of doorkeepers; in the second by furnishing instruction, and this is [the office] of lectors; in the third by rendering aid, and this [the office] of exorcists; in the fourth by showing a good example, and this [the office] of taper-bearers or acolytes, to whom it pertains, *that their light may shine before men, that they may see*[^p636-4] etc.

And thus it is clear that the order proceeds in a wonderful way from multitude into unity. For the principal grade is *one*, to which those subserving ought to be *two* — since indeed they fall short of the first, they fall into duality — and again those subserving the two are *four*, since they fall short also of those. — And thus is clear the perfection and consummation of the orders and the distinction in the sevenfold number according to the grades of powers, which are essential to the order; whose number and sufficiency is taken according to that to which they are directed. — These things seen, the objections are sufficiently clear with ease. For what is objected, that they are seven, is to be conceded.

1. But as to what is objected, that they are three, through[^p636-5] Dionysius; it must be said that Dionysius comprehends under the ministers seven grades, which all administer to the priest.

2. To that which is objected concerning that threefold act, it must be said that the distinction of orders is not taken according to that threefold act, but rather according to the act of ministering; and even if it were taken [thus], it still would not hold, since those are multiplied[^p636-6], as is clear in the Angels.

3. To that which is objected, that it imitates the heavenly Jerusalem; it must be said that it is true, according as it befits its state. But in that heavenly Jerusalem the orders are assigned as supreme, lower, and middle according to *diverse* regards, as is clear in the distinction of the angelic hierarchies[^p636-7]; but the ecclesiastical orders are taken by comparison to *one* principally, since they are [directed] to this; and hence it is that they are neither multiplied in that way nor into as many members as [there are] angelic orders[^p636-8].

---

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. III. c. 5. — Magister hic in lit. c. 1. seqq.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments*, book II, part III, c. 5. — The Master here in the text, c. 1 ff.

la: Ut insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. et 3. — Superius pro *ratione*, quod praebent codd. G I K M O P Q, alii codd. et edd. *necesse.*

en: As is intimated here in the Master's text, c. 2 and 3. — Above, for *ratione* (by reason), which codices G, I, K, M, O, P, Q furnish, the other codices and the editions [read] *necesse* (necessarily).

en: [Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*,] c. 5, part I, § 6.

la: Secundum Dionys. loc. cit. § 3, et de Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 2.

en: According to Dionysius, at the place cited, § 3, and *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 3, § 2.

la: Vers. 40. Cfr. supra pag. 614, nota 2.

en: Verse 40. Cf. above, p. 614, note 2.

la: Vide supra pag. 508, nota 10. et 11.

en: See above, p. 508, notes 10 and 11.

la: Vers. 4. seqq.

en: Verse 4 ff.

la: Pro *cum* codd. H P *ad ostendendum, quod.* Superius pro *ordinat* edd. *ordinatur.*

en: For *cum* (since) codices H, P [read] *ad ostendendum, quod* (to show that). Above, for *ordinat* (ordains) the editions [read] *ordinatur* (is ordained).

la: Vers. 8. seqq.: *Alii quidem per Spiritum datur sermo* etc.

en: Verse 8 ff.: *To one indeed through the Spirit is given the word* etc.

la: Codd. H V bb *dicta*, edd. *differentia*, quae etiam pro *conveniunt* substituunt *convenit.* Pro primo *eisdem* codd. *eidem.*

en: Codices H, V, bb [read] *dicta* (said), the editions *differentia* (difference), which also for *conveniunt* (belong) substitute *convenit* (belongs). For the first *eisdem* (to the same) codices [read] *eidem* (to the same one).

la: Codd. E Z *exemplar*, plures codd. *exemplum.*

en: Codices E, Z [read] *exemplar* (exemplar), several codices *exemplum* (copy).

la: Edd. supplent *bonorum.*

en: The editions supply *bonorum* (of the good).

la: Codd., superius pro *in doctrina apostolica* posito *ad doctrinam apostolicam*, hic substituunt *ad propheticam* (cod. F tum superius tum hic omittit *ad*, servato accusativo).

en: The codices, having above set *ad doctrinam apostolicam* (to apostolic teaching) for *in doctrina apostolica* (in apostolic teaching), here substitute *ad propheticam* (to the prophetic) (codex F both above and here omits *ad*, keeping the accusative).

la: Ut dicitur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 11. — Pro *quia est* cod. G *qui est.* Plures codd. omittunt *utpote consecrare episcopos et archiepiscopos*, nonnulli omittunt cum edd. *et* ante *archiepiscopos.*

en: As is said here in the Master's text, c. 11. — For *quia est* (since he is) codex G [reads] *qui est* (who is). Several codices omit *utpote consecrare episcopos et archiepiscopos* (as [that] to consecrate bishops and archbishops), some omit with the editions *et* (and) before *archiepiscopos* (archbishops).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 24: *Deinde finis, cum tradiderit regnum Deo et Patri, cum evacuaverit omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem.* — Post *nam purgatio* edd. supplent *pertinet seu reducitur.* Aliquanto superius pro *ternarium actum* plures codd. *ternarium actuum*, cod. E *ternarium actuum numerum.*

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:24: *Then the end, when he shall have handed over the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have made void all principality and power and might.* — After *nam purgatio* (for purgation) the editions supply *pertinet seu reducitur* (pertains, or is reduced). Somewhat above, for *ternarium actum* (ternary act) several codices [read] *ternarium actuum* (ternary of acts), codex E *ternarium actuum numerum* (the ternary number of acts).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 182, nota 3. et pag. 184, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, p. 182, note 3, and p. 184, note 3.

la: Vide VII. Etymolog. c. 12, et II. de Eccles. Officiis, c. 5. seqq., quorum sententia exhibetur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. seqq. — De *tertio* modo cfr. supra p. I. dub. 2.

en: See *Etymologies* VII, c. 12, and *On the Ecclesiastical Offices* II, c. 5 ff., whose opinion is presented here in the Master's text, c. 5 ff. — On the *third* way cf. above, part I, dub. 2.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 9. et 10. — Immediate post *ex* cod. K (I a secunda manu) substituimus *et hinc est* pro *et hoc est.* Aliquanto superius pro *ipsi sacerdotio*, quod cod. K omittit, permulti codd. *Christi*, vel cum ed. 1 *Christo.*

en: Here in the Master's text, c. 9 and 10. — Immediately after, from codex K (and I, by a second hand) we have substituted *et hinc est* (and hence it is) for *et hoc est* (and this is). Somewhat above, for *ipsi sacerdotio* (to the priesthood itself), which codex K omits, very many codices [read] *Christi* (of Christ), or with edition 1 *Christo* (to Christ).

la: Matth. 5, 16. Cfr. infra dub. 2.

en: Matthew 5:16. Cf. below, dub. 2.

la: Cod. F *secundum.*

en: Codex F [reads] *secundum* (according to).

la: Ita edd. cum aliquot codd., plurimi codd. *illa*, codd. G H *omnia illa.*

en: Thus the editions with some codices; very many codices [read] *illa* (those), codices G, H *omnia illa* (all those).

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 9. per totam. — Post *aspectus* codd. et ed. 1 addunt *ad*; lectio esset bona, si mutarent *diversos* in *diversa.*

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 9, throughout. — After *aspectus* (regards) the codices and edition 1 add *ad* (to); the reading would be good, if they changed *diversos* (diverse, masc.) into *diversa* (diverse, neut.).

en: See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands for printed pp.634–636 (PDF 654–656; offset pdf = printed + 20) under the VOL II OVERRIDE — the IA djvu OCR of this two-column region is cascade-scrambled and, for the whole p.636 footer block, dropped entirely. OCR (raw lines 68916–69132) served only as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Read left column top→bottom, then right column, both body and footer.

**Page-span correction.** The auto-chunked skeleton gave `printed_pages: [635, 636]`, but page-verification against the bands shows q.4 physically *opens* on p.634: the running head `DIST. XXIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. IV.` and the p.635 body both begin with the Respondeo continuation ("…competit gra-|duum distinctio…"), so the title, all fundamenta/ad-oppositum arguments, the *Conclusio*, and the opening of the Respondeo sit in the lower portion of p.634 (shared with q.3's tail). Corrected to `[634, 635, 636]` / pdf `[654, 655, 656]`.

**Shared-page footer splits.**
- **p.634** — footer series shared with q.3 (`bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a2-q3`, still skeleton). q.3 holds nn.1–3 (n.1 = *episcopus* / superintendens etymology; n.2 = Psalm 132:2, Aaron's unguent; n.3 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*); q.4 holds nn.4–9. When q.3 is promoted, confirm it claims nn.1–3.
- **p.636** — footer series shared with the following *Dubia circa litteram Magistri* (`bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-dubia`). The *Dubia* header + Dub. I begin (full-width) in the lower half of p.636, below q.4's two columns. q.4 holds nn.1–8; n.9 (*Codd. L R S T planius implet*) belongs to Dub. I's Respondeo ("…et tunc bene patet⁹ officium…") — NOT claimed here.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Article II's master-scholion sits in this article's q.1 (`bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a2-q1`); both [^p634-3]-adjacent q.3 cross-refs and this question's [^p636-8] (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) point back to it.

**OCR corrections silently made from the bands** (band authoritative): p.634 n.6 `Cap. 5` (OCR "Cap. S"); p.634 n.9 `pag. 508` (OCR "pag. 308"); the entire p.636 footer block (OCR-dropped) recovered from a widened left band regenerated at split 2120. Marginal editorial glosses printed in the outer margins (*Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Respondeo*, *De actu purgandi/illuminandi/perficiendi*, *Notandum*, *Non placet perfecte*, *Modus 3/4*, *Duplex potentia*, *Distinctio*, *Ordines sacri ministrantes / minores*, *Magis placet*) are Quaracchi's summaries, not Bonaventure's text, and are trimmed.

**[?] flags.** None — every reading was legible in the bands.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 24, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XXIV, Pars I)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XXIV, Part I)

source_text:
<!-- page 619 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de ordine istius Sacramenti ad praecedentia. Videtur enim male ordinari: quia hoc Sacramentum est ordinatum ad dispensandum omnia alia Sacramenta: ergo inter omnia alia videtur esse primum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de ordine: aut in *comparatione ad alterum,* respectu cuius est; aut *absolute respectu subiecti,* in quo est. Si in *comparatione;* sic verum est, quod Sacramentum ordinis in dispensatione[^1] debet praecedere et *praecedit* omnia Sacramenta, prout ordinate suscipiuntur. Alio modo, prout consideratur *respectu subiecti* sui; sic, quia nemo ordinandus est, qui non sit dispositus per aliqua Sacramenta antea, maxime per baptismum, hoc modo sequitur necessario; et ideo baptismus, quia primo recipitur inter Sacramenta, ianua Sacramentorum appellatur[^2].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod in Sacramento *septiformis gratiae septem sunt gradus.*
<!-- page 620 -->
Videtur enim male dicere, quia dona Spiritus sancti sunt connexa[^3]; et isti gradus non sunt connexi necessario nec simul: ergo non videtur, quod istud Sacramentum sit gratiae septiformis. — Item, nulla videtur esse connexio horum ordinum ad dona Spiritus sancti[^4], quia ostium custodire ad nullum donorum Spiritus sancti pertinere videtur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verbum Magistri per quandam *appropriationem* intelligendum est, non per *proprietatem,* ita quod dona Spiritus sancti divisim dentur in ordinibus singulis; sed usus horum donorum septem his septem gradibus competenter aptari possunt, et hoc ascendendo a minori usque ad summum[^5].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *corona regale decus significat.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia dicitur Exodi decimo nono[^6] sacerdotibus, quod sunt *regnum sacerdotale:* ergo secundum hoc sacerdotium adiacet[^7] regno, non e converso: ergo magis deberet dicere *regnum decorum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod differentia est inter novum et vetus testamentum, inter comparationem sacerdotii et regni. Quoniam enim vetus testamentum erat adhuc carnalium et carnaliter viventium[^8], ideo potestas saecularis erat principalior, et potestas sacerdotalis erat minor. Et ideo signanter dicebatur in Lege *regnum sacerdotale,* quia sacerdotium pendebat ex regno. Sed contra in nova dicitur, primae Petri capitulo secundo[^9]: *Regale sacerdotium,* quia principalius est nunc sacerdotium quam regnum, et potestas spiritualis quam temporalis sive carnalis; sic enim competebat statui gratiae.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Usus tonsurae ecclesiasticae a Nazaraeis exortus est.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia umbra est evacuata per veritatem: unde nullus modo debet legem Nazaraeorum observare, ergo nec ritum nec tonsuram.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ritus iste et usus non fuit inchoatus secundum *veritatem,* sed secundum *signationem;* signabatur enim, quod illi qui erant Domino dedicandi, deberent ab aliis segregari; in nulla autem parte corporis sic competit signari, sicut competit in capite[^10].

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about the ordering of this Sacrament in relation to what precedes. For it seems to be badly ordered: because this Sacrament is ordained for dispensing all the other Sacraments: therefore among all the others it seems to be first.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking about order: either *in comparison to another,* in respect of which it is; or *absolutely, in respect of the subject* in which it is. If *in comparison,* then it is true that the Sacrament of order in dispensing[^1] ought to precede, and *does precede,* all the Sacraments, insofar as they are received in due order. In another way, insofar as it is considered *in respect of* its own *subject;* thus, because no one is to be ordained who is not disposed by some Sacraments beforehand, especially by baptism, in this way it follows necessarily; and therefore baptism, because it is received first among the Sacraments, is called the gate of the Sacraments[^2].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that in the Sacrament *of sevenfold grace there are seven grades.*
For it seems to be badly said, because the gifts of the Holy Spirit are connected[^3]; and these grades are not connected necessarily nor simultaneously: therefore it does not seem that this Sacrament is [the Sacrament] of sevenfold grace. — Likewise, there seems to be no connection of these orders to the gifts of the Holy Spirit[^4], because to guard the door seems to pertain to none of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said that the word of the Master is to be understood by a certain *appropriation,* not by *propriety,* as though the gifts of the Holy Spirit were given dividedly in the individual orders; but the use of these seven gifts can fittingly be adapted to these seven grades, and this by ascending from the lowest up to the highest[^5].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that *the crown signifies royal honor.* For it seems to be badly said, because it is said in Exodus, chapter nineteen[^6], to the priests, that they are *a priestly kingdom:* therefore according to this the priesthood is adjacent[^7] to the kingdom, not conversely: therefore he ought rather to say *a comely kingdom.*

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a difference between the new and the old testament, [and] between the comparison of priesthood and kingship. For since the old testament was still of carnal men and of those living carnally[^8], therefore the secular power was the more principal, and the priestly power was the lesser. And therefore it was pointedly said in the Law *a priestly kingdom,* because the priesthood depended on the kingdom. But on the contrary in the new [testament] it is said, in the first [epistle] of Peter, chapter two[^9]: *A royal priesthood,* because now the priesthood is more principal than the kingdom, and the spiritual power than the temporal or carnal; for thus it befitted the state of grace.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The use of the ecclesiastical tonsure arose from the Nazarites.* For it seems to be badly said, because the shadow has been emptied out by the truth: hence no one now ought to observe the law of the Nazarites, therefore neither the rite nor the tonsure.

**I respond:** It must be said that this rite and use was not begun according to *truth,* but according to *signification;* for it was signified that those who were to be dedicated to the Lord ought to be set apart from others; but in no part of the body is it so fitting to be marked as it is fitting on the head[^10].

---

la: Ita codd. F G K O R S T bb, alii et edd. *dispensante.* Inferius post *Alio modo* cod. U addit *est loqui de eo.* Subinde pro *sic* cod. aa *primo.*

en: Thus codices F, G, K, O, R, S, T, bb, others and the editions [read] *dispensante* ("in dispensing," ablative). Below, after *Alio modo* ("in another way"), codex U adds *est loqui de eo* ("is to speak of it"). Then, for *sic,* codex aa [reads] *primo* ("first").

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. dub. 2. et d. 7. a. 3. q. 3; B. Albert., hic a. I; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, d. 2, dub. 2, and d. 7, a. 3, q. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 1; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 36. q. 2. — Mox *nec* cod. A *sed nec,* plures codd. *sed,* cod. G *licet.*

en: See Book III of the Sentences, d. 36, q. 2. — Presently, [for] *nec* codex A [reads] *sed nec,* several codices *sed,* codex G *licet.*

la: Codd. addunt *ut videtur.*

en: The codices add *ut videtur* ("as it seems").

la: Scil. ut *ostiariis* attribuatur timor, qui est principium sive ostium sapientiae; *exorcistis* scientia etc. Cfr. infra p. II. a. 2. q. 4. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Namely, that to the *doorkeepers* is attributed fear, which is the beginning or door of wisdom; to the *exorcists* knowledge, etc. Cf. below, p. II, a. 2, q. 4. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Vers. 6: *Et vos eritis mihi in regnum sacerdotale et gens sancta.*

en: Verse 6: *And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.*

la: Sensus est: *adiacet* ut adiectivum suo substantivo. — Mox pro *deberet* cod. K *debebat.*

en: The sense is: it *is adjacent* as an adjective to its substantive. — Presently, for *deberet* codex K [reads] *debebat.*

la: Cfr. Hebr. 7, 16, et supra pag. 500, nota 4.

en: Cf. Hebrews 7:16, and above, p. 500, note 4.

la: Vers. 9.

en: Verse 9.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. et supra a. I. q. I. ad 4. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. I. quaestiunc. I. ad 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. ad 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 1. ad 3.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4, and above, a. 1, q. 1, ad 4 [and] 5; Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1, subquestion 1, ad 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, subquestion 2, ad 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1, ad 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol4-p619-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p620-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 67437–67574), which is fairly clean running prose for these dubia and served as the base for marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation. Editorial marginal glosses on these pages (*Notandum.* twice in the p.619 right column belonging to the neighboring a2-q4 solutio; *Nota* beside the Dub. III Respondeo on p.620) are trimmed — not Bonaventure's text.

**Dubia count: 4** (Dub. I–IV). No scholion.

**Page-verify correction (skeleton frontmatter was wrong):** the dubia occupy the bottom of printed p.619 and the **top ~half of p.620 only.** Dub. IV ends "…sicut competit in capite⁸," and immediately below (spanning both columns, ~48 % down p.620) the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIV, Pars II** header + *De gradibus et dignitatibus ordinum* + *DIVISIO TEXTUS* begin. So Pars II starts on **p.620, not p.621**; `printed_pages` corrected from the skeleton's `[619,620,621]` → `[619,620]`, `pdf_pages` → `[639,640]`. This chunk claims **no** Pars II text and **no** Pars II footer (p.620 note 9 *Hic c. 5. seqq.* is the first Pars II note — excluded).

**Seam with a2-q4 (SHARED page 619):** the top of p.619 (both columns) carries the tail of `bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-a2-q4` (Art. II q. 4 conclusion, Respondeo "…sicut et *numerus,*" and the right-column solutio ending "…unum Sacramentum faciunt⁶"). The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header + Dub. I begin below that tail (Dub. I in p.619-L bottom; Dub. I Respondeo continues into p.619-R; Dub. II opener at p.619-R bottom). Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per printed page, and **p.619 footer notes 1–6 belong to a2-q4** (1 *Nam secundum Aristot. II de Anima… potentiae specificantur per obiecta;* 2 *Cfr. supra d. 16 p. I dub. I… non omnino integrales;* 3 *Cfr. infra p. II a. I q. 2 ad 3;* 4 *Vide tom. II pag. 626… cod. Z addit vel virtuales;* 5 *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. II;* 6 *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*). This dubia chunk claims **only p.619 notes 7, 8** → [^1], [^2]. `bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-a2-q4.md` is still a SKELETON — when promoted it must claim p.619 notes 1–6 (verify the split then).

**Page-split / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.619** (PDF 639): dubia footers **7** (*Ita codd. F G K O R S T bb… dispensante* — Dub. I "in dispensatione⁷") → [^1]; **8** (*Cfr. supra d. 2 dub. 2…* — Dub. I "appellatur⁸") → [^2]. (Notes 1–6 = a2-q4, excluded.)
- **Printed p.620** (PDF 640): dubia footers **1–8** (all dubia). Left-column footers **1** (*Vide III. Sent. d. 36 q. 2* — Dub. II "connexa¹") → [^3], **2** (*Codd. addunt ut videtur* — Dub. II "sancti²") → [^4], **3** (*Scil. ut ostiariis attribuatur timor…* — Dub. II "summum³") → [^5], **4** (*Vers. 6: Et vos eritis…* — Dub. III "nono⁴") → [^6]; right-column footers **5** (*Sensus est: adiacet ut adiectivum…* — Dub. III "adiacet⁵") → [^7], **6** (*Cfr. Hebr. 7,16…* — Dub. III "viventium⁶") → [^8], **7** (*Vers. 9* — Dub. III "secundo⁷") → [^9], **8** (*Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 4…* — Dub. IV "capite⁸") → [^10]. **Note 9** (*Hic c. 5. seqq.*) is Pars II's — excluded.

**Page break:** falls mid-Dub. II, between the opener ("…*septiformis gratiae septem sunt gradus.*") on p.619-R foot and "Videtur enim male dicere…" on p.620-L top. `<!-- page 620 -->` placed at that sentence boundary.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia bodies and all 10 footers read cleanly from the PDF column bands; footer numbers 7–8 (p.619) and 1–8 (p.620) confirmed against both column footer sub-columns.

**Apparatus count: 10 entries** (p.619: 2 dubia notes of 8 on the page, notes 7–8; p.620: 8 dubia notes of 9 on the page, notes 1–8, excluding the Pars II note 9).


title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master, Part II

source_text:
<!-- page 636 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: *Habiturus partem cum his qui bene verbum Dei ministraverunt.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia, cum tales habuerint *aureolam,* videtur, quod omnes lectores habeant *aureolam,* et ita omnes sacerdotes.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dici potest, quod officium lectoris est non tantum prophetiam nudam *legere,* sed etiam *exponere*; et tunc bene patet[^1] officium, quoniam non solum legit corticem litterae, sed etiam explicat arcanum prophetiae; et tunc est praedicator et doctor et meretur aureolam. Quodsi tantum officium accipiat et non impleat, non habebit ex hoc aureolam, quia aureola non redditur voluntati, vel <!-- page 637 --> officio per se, sed voluntati iunctae cum actu praerogativae alicuius. — Posset tamen dici, quod illud intelligitur quantum ad meritum *substantiale*[^2].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *ab archidiacono accipiunt candelabrum* etc. Videtur enim male dicere: quia archidiaconus non potest ordinare, ergo nec dare vasa, in quibus significetur potestas.

Item quaeritur, quis sit actus *principalior* acolythorum, an ministrare de *cereo,* an ministrare de *urceolo.* Et videtur, quod de *urceolo,* quia secundum istum actum quodam modo iungitur cum officio subdiaconi. — Sed ad oppositum est, quia unusquisque ordo denominatur a digniori et principaliori[^3]; sed acolythi dicuntur quasi *ceroferarii.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *potestas* traditur ab episcopo, sed archidiaconus tradit urceolum et candelabrum, ut significetur, quod talis ministrat subdiacono, et hoc primum incipit circa altare ministrare. Archidiaconus autem dicitur *princeps ministerii*[^4].

Quod obiicitur, quis actus principalior; dicendum, quod actus, a quo denominantur, qui est ferre cereos, quia hunc actum habent in quadam completione; sed actum ministrandi habent in imperfectione quantum ad ministrationem aquae. Subdiaconus autem completius hunc actum habet. — Alia ratio est, quia in ferendo cereos significatur potestas, quam habet in dando *bonum exemplum*[^5]; et quia hoc est cuiusdam superpositionis, sed in ministratione aquae subiectio: ideo etc.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *levitae ex nomine auctoris vocati sunt.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia sacerdotium novae legis evacuat sacerdotium *veteris*[^6], ergo pari ratione ministerium evacuat ministerium: ergo non debent amplius levitae dici.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ad diaconum pertinet assistere sacerdotibus*: quia, cum unius ordinis unus sit actus et una potestas, videtur, quod male assignet diacono novem actus, sicut intelligitur *ex littera*[^7]: ergo aut diaconus complectitur novem ordines et novem characteres, aut non bene nec vere assignantur ei huiusmodi actus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *levitae*[^8] proprio nomine appellantur *diaconi,* in quo nomine clauditur proprius eorum actus et principalis, scilicet ministrare sacerdoti specialiter et immediate in sacris. Ad diaconos enim pertinet corpus Domini transferre, in primitiva Ecclesia etiam sanguinem *dispensare*[^9]; unde immediate isti sacerdotibus assistunt et ministrant. Et quando datur eis potestas ad hunc actum, tunc est dicendum, characterem imprimi. Unde cum novem vel circa illud in littera assignentur, intelligendum, quod alii sunt *annexi,* hi *principales.* — Et si tu quaeras: quare vocantur levitae? dicendum, quod non ideo dicuntur *levitae,* quia officium habeant levitarum, sed quia consimile illi et per illud officium *praefiguratum*[^10].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de divisione, quam ponit de actibus sacerdotalibus, qui sunt: *corpus Domini conficere, orationes dicere, dona Dei benedicere.* Videtur enim, quod cum actus ligandi et solvendi sit multo nobilior, quod Magister deberet assignare ipsi[^11] sacerdoti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod isti actus sunt proprii sacerdotum et respiciunt sacerdotem secundum se; sed actus ligandi et solvendi respicit confessionem: ideo *supra*[^12] de hoc actu in Sacramento de poenitentia sive tractatu determinatum est; et ideo Magister non repetit hic.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *canones duos tantum sacros appellari censent.* Videtur <!-- page 638 --> enim falsum esse, quia subdiaconatus etiam ordo est sacer, quod patet, quia ibi vovetur continentia et *castitas*[^13]. Item, subdiaconus tangit vasa sacra: ergo videtur etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ordines sacri dicuntur, quia sacrum exigunt ministrum, secundum illud Isaiae quinquagesimo *secundo*[^14]: *Mundamini qui fertis vasa Domini*; unde quia contingunt res sacratas, sacri debent esse; et omnes isti tres dicuntur sacri. Alio modo stricte dicitur sacer ordo, quia ipsum sacrum dispensat et quodam modo tractat, deferendo et aliis administrando; et sic presbyter et *diaconus*[^15]. Tertio modo sacrum dicitur propriissime, quia sacram rem conficit; et hoc competit ordini supremo, et ideo *sacerdos* appellatur.

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *ordo est signaculum sacrum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia Sacramentum est *elementum*; sed ordo est Sacramentum: ergo ordo est *elementum,* non ergo spirituale signaculum. — Item, cum in aliis *Sacramentis*[^16] imprimatur character, propter quid ordo magis definitur per *signaculum*? — Item quaeritur, quid sit *res,* et quid *signum* in Sacramento ordinis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in collatione ordinis est *collatio potestatis,* per quam homo ponitur in statu definito et gradu; et quoniam diversitas est in *potestatibus,* diversitas est in *signaculis,* et per consequens diversitas est et debet esse in exterioribus signis; aliter tamen: quia *signa* sunt simpliciter diversa, sed *potestates* conveniunt in eadem anima in hoc, quod uniformis ratio distinguendi reperitur in omnibus characteribus et ad unum ordinatis. Quoniam igitur *ordo* debet definiri per id quod commune est; et communitas non est a parte *elementi exterioris,* sed *signaculi impressi*: ideo magis definitur per id quam per elementum exterius; et *iterum,* magis hoc Sacramentum quam aliud, quoniam character plus habet hic rationem suam, id est rationem *distinguendi,* quam in aliis *Sacramentis*[^17].

---

english:
<!-- page 636 -->

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which is said: *He will have a share with those who have ministered the word of God well.* For it seems ill said, because, since such men have had the *aureole,* it seems that all lectors have the *aureole,* and thus all priests.

**I respond:** To this it can be said that the office of the lector is not only to *read* the bare prophecy, but also to *expound* it; and then the office is well evident[^1], since he not only reads the bark of the letter, but also unfolds the secret of the prophecy; and then he is a preacher and doctor and merits the aureole. But if he should receive the office only and not fulfil it, he will not have the aureole from this, because the aureole is not rendered to the will, or <!-- page 637 --> to the office by itself, but to the will joined with the act of someone's prerogative. — Yet it could be said that this is understood as regards *substantial* merit[^2].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *from the archdeacon they receive the candlestick,* etc. For it seems ill said: because the archdeacon cannot ordain, therefore neither can he give the vessels in which power is signified.

Likewise it is asked which is the *more principal* act of the acolytes, whether to minister with the *candle,* or to minister with the *cruet.* And it seems [to be] with the *cruet,* because according to this act it is in a certain way joined with the office of the subdeacon. — But on the contrary it stands, because each order is denominated from the more worthy and more principal[^3]; but the acolytes are called as it were *taper-bearers* (*ceroferarii*).

**I respond:** It must be said that *power* is handed over by the bishop, but the archdeacon hands over the cruet and candlestick, that it may be signified that such a one ministers to the subdeacon, and this first begins to minister about the altar. But the archdeacon is called the *prince of the ministry*[^4].

As to the objection, which act is more principal; it must be said that [it is] the act from which they are denominated, which is to carry the candles, because this act they have in a certain completion; but the act of ministering they have in imperfection as regards the ministration of water. But the subdeacon has this act more completely. — Another reason is that in carrying the candles is signified the power which he has in giving *good example*[^5]; and because this is of a certain superposition, but in the ministration of water [is] subjection: therefore etc.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *the levites are named from the name of their author.* For it seems ill said: because the priesthood of the new law abolishes the priesthood of the *old*[^6], therefore by parity of reasoning the ministry abolishes the ministry: therefore they ought no longer to be called levites.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *To the deacon it belongs to assist the priests*: because, since of one order there is one act and one power, it seems that he wrongly assigns nine acts to the deacon, as is understood *from the text*[^7]: therefore either the deacon comprises nine orders and nine characters, or such acts are not well nor truly assigned to him.

**I respond:** It must be said that the *levites*[^8] are by their proper name called *deacons,* in which name is enclosed their proper and principal act, namely to minister to the priest specially and immediately in sacred things. For to the deacons it belongs to transfer the body of the Lord, and in the primitive Church also to dispense the blood[^9]; whence immediately these assist and minister to the priests. And when power is given them to this act, then it must be said that a character is imprinted. Hence, since nine or thereabouts are assigned in the text, it must be understood that the others are *annexed,* these [are] *principal.* — And if you should ask: why are they called levites? it must be said that they are not called *levites* because they have the office of the Levites, but because [it is] similar to it and through it the office was *prefigured*[^10].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about the division which he sets down concerning the priestly acts, which are: *to confect the body of the Lord, to say the prayers, to bless the gifts of God.* For it seems that, since the act of binding and loosing is much nobler, the Master ought to assign it to the priest[^11] [himself].

**I respond:** It must be said that these acts are proper to priests and regard the priest according to himself; but the act of binding and loosing regards confession: therefore *above*[^12], concerning this act in the Sacrament of penance or [its] treatise, it was determined; and therefore the Master does not repeat [it] here.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *they judge only two canons to be called sacred.* For it seems <!-- page 638 --> false, because the subdiaconate also is a sacred order, which is evident, because there continence and *chastity*[^13] are vowed. Likewise, the subdeacon touches the sacred vessels: therefore it seems etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that orders are called sacred because they require a sacred minister, according to that [word] of Isaiah, chapter fifty-*two*[^14]: *Be cleansed, you who carry the vessels of the Lord*; whence, because they touch consecrated things, they ought to be sacred; and all these three are called sacred. In another way an order is strictly called sacred, because it dispenses the sacred thing and in a certain way handles [it], bearing [it] and administering [it] to others; and thus [the order of] presbyter and *deacon*[^15]. In a third way it is called sacred most properly, because it confects the sacred thing; and this belongs to the supreme order, and therefore he is called *priest.*

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *an order is a sacred seal.* For it seems ill said, because a Sacrament is an *element*; but an order is a Sacrament: therefore an order is an *element,* [and] not therefore a spiritual seal. — Likewise, since in other *Sacraments*[^16] a character is imprinted, why is an order rather defined by a *seal*? — Likewise it is asked what is the *thing (res)* and what the *sign (signum)* in the Sacrament of order.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the conferral of an order there is a *conferral of power,* by which a man is placed in a defined state and grade; and since there is diversity in the *powers,* there is diversity in the *seals,* and consequently there is and ought to be diversity in the exterior signs; yet otherwise: because the *signs* are not simply diverse, but the *powers* converge in the same soul in this, that a uniform account of distinguishing is found in all the characters and ordered to one [end]. Since therefore an *order* ought to be defined by that which is common; and community is not on the side of the *exterior element,* but of the *impressed seal*: therefore it is rather defined by that than by the exterior element; and *again,* this Sacrament [is defined so] rather than another, because the character here has more its own account, that is, the account of *distinguishing,* than in the other *Sacraments*[^17].

---

la: Codd. L R S T planius *implet.*

en: Codices L R S T read [it] more plainly, *implet* ("fulfils," for *bene patet*).

la: Vide infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: See below, d. 33, a. 2, q. 3; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 470, nota 7. — Superius pro *quodam modo* cod. G *immediate.*

en: Cf. above, p. 470, note 7. — Higher up, for *quodam modo* codex G [reads] *immediate.*

la: In C. *Perlectis* (1, sumtus ex Epist. Isidori ad Ludifredum), d. 25. § 11. dicitur: *Archidiaconus enim imperat subdiaconis et levitis.* — Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 4. ad 4.

en: In the canon *Perlectis* (1, taken from Isidore's Letter to Ludifredus), d. 25, § 11, it is said: *For the archdeacon commands the subdeacons and the levites.* — Cf. above, a. 1, q. 4, ad 4.

la: Secundum Pontificale Romanum episcopus acolythos ordinandos admonet verbis Matth. 5, 16: *Luceat lux vestra* etc., et Phil. 2, 15: *In medio nationis pravae... lucetis sicut luminaria in mundo.* Vide etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 8, et Comment. a. 2. q. 4. — De hoc dubio cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 24. seq.; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. (ubi et de seqq. dubiis).

en: According to the Roman Pontifical, the bishop admonishes the acolytes to be ordained with the words of Matt. 5:16: *Let your light shine,* etc., and Phil. 2:15: *In the midst of a depraved nation... you shine as lights in the world.* See also here the text of the Master, c. 8, and the Commentary, a. 2, q. 4. — On this doubt, cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 24 f.; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2 (where also on the following doubts).

la: Cfr. Hebr. 7, 12, et supra p. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

la: Hic c. 10. — Edd. *novum actum* et paulo inferius *novum ordinem et novum characterem.* In codd. desideratur *ergo.*

en: Here c. 10. — The editions [read] *novum actum,* and a little lower *novum ordinem et novum characterem.* In the codices *ergo* is wanting.

la: Pro *levitae,* quod cod. aa omittit, alii codd. *diaconi.*

en: For *levitae,* which codex aa omits, other codices [read] *diaconi.*

la: Iustin., Apolog. I. pro Christian. n. 65: *Qui apud nos dicuntur diaconi panem et vinum et aquam, in quibus gratiae actae sunt* [ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος], *unicuique praesentium participanda distribuunt et ad absentes perferunt.* Cyprian., de Lapsis, n. 25: *Solemnibus adimpletis, calicem diaconus offerre praesentibus coepit* etc. Cfr. etiam Ambros., I. de Offic. ministr. c. 41. n. 214. (ad cuius loci explicationem in nota adiecta allegatur Concil. Aquisgr. c. 7, et Isidor., II. de Offic. eccles. c. 8: *Nam sicut in sacerdote consecratio, ita in ministro dispensatio Sacramenti est*); August., Serm. 304. (alias 37. de Diversis), c. 1. n. 1, et C. *Diaconos* (13.), seqq. d. 93. — Aliquanto inferius pro *cum novem vel* edd. *cum novum nihil.*

en: Justin, Apology I for the Christians, n. 65: *Those who among us are called deacons distribute the bread and wine and water, over which thanks have been given* [from the bread and wine and water that have been eucharistized], *to each of those present for their participation, and carry [them] to the absent.* Cyprian, On the Lapsed, n. 25: *When the solemn rites were completed, the deacon began to offer the chalice to those present,* etc. Cf. also Ambrose, On the Duties of Ministers I, c. 41, n. 214 (for the explanation of which passage, in an appended note, is adduced the Council of Aachen, c. 7, and Isidore, On the Offices of the Church II, c. 8: *For just as in the priest there is consecration, so in the minister there is dispensation of the Sacrament*); Augustine, Serm. 304 (alias 37, On Various Matters), c. 1, n. 1, and the canon *Diaconos* (13) and following, d. 93. — Somewhat below, for *cum novem vel* the editions [read] *cum novum nihil.*

la: Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 29.

en: Cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 29.

la: Cod. G *ipsum.*

en: Codex G [reads] *ipsum.*

la: Dist. 18. p. 1. et d. 19. per totam. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 35.

en: Distinction 18, part 1, and d. 19 throughout. — Bl. Albert resolves the same doubt, here a. 35.

la: Prima haec ratio omittitur in edd. et uno alteroque cod. Post *falsum esse* codd. B D F Q addunt *si hoc dicunt,* cod. E *si haec dicuntur.*

en: This first reason is omitted in the editions and in one or another codex. After *falsum esse,* codices B D F Q add *si hoc dicunt,* codex E *si haec dicuntur.*

la: Vers. 11. — Superius post *dicuntur* edd. supplent: *tribus modis. Primo large.* Pro *exigunt ministrum* cod. A *exhibent ministerium* (etiam plures alii codd. falso ponunt *ministerium*). Inferius pro *contingunt* codd. R S T *tangunt,* et pro *sacratas* plures codd. *sacras.*

en: Verse 11. — Higher up, after *dicuntur* the editions supply: *tribus modis. Primo large* ("in three ways. First broadly"). For *exigunt ministrum* codex A [reads] *exhibent ministerium* (several other codices also wrongly put *ministerium*). Lower down, for *contingunt* codices R S T [read] *tangunt,* and for *sacratas* several codices [read] *sacras.*

la: Ita codd. B P (F L a secunda manu), quorum lectio ex contextu comprobatur; alii codd. *presbyter et subdiaconus,* edd. *diaconus et subdiaconus* [sed subdiaconi est tantum sacra vasa tangere]. Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 36; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: So codices B P (F L by a second hand), whose reading is confirmed by the context; other codices [read] *presbyter et subdiaconus,* the editions *diaconus et subdiaconus* [but it belongs to the subdeacon only to touch the sacred vessels]. Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1. — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 36; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, subquestion 3, and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Scil. in baptismo et confirmatione; cfr. supra d. 6. p. 1. q. 4.

en: Namely in baptism and confirmation; cf. above, d. 6, p. 1, q. 4.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. seqq.; B. Albert. hic a. 37; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1 and following; Bl. Albert, here a. 37; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, subquestion 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, subquestion 2. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol4-p636-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p637-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p638-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 69133–69352), which for these dubia is fairly clean running prose and served as the base for footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation. The right column of pp. 637–638 is clipped when `colcrop.py` splits at the vol4 default `x=1880`; bands were regenerated at `split_x=1780` to recover the right column's left edge (page-verified).

**Six dubia (I–VI), no scholion.** Dub. I opens at the bottom of printed p. 636 (shared with `bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a2-q4`); Dub. I Respondeo continues onto p. 637; Dubs. II–IV on p. 637; Dub. V opens on p. 637 (right column bottom) and continues onto p. 638; Dub. VI on p. 638, ending "...quam in aliis *Sacramentis*⁵" immediately before `DISTINCTIO XXV.` (Cap. I, *De ordinatis ab haereticis*), which is **not** part of this chunk.

**Editorial marginal glosses trimmed** (not Bonaventure's text): *Notandum.* and *Quaest. incid. solvitur.* in the p. 637 right column (beside the Dub. III Respondeo); *Sacrum sumitur tripliciter.* beside the Dub. V Respondeo in the p. 638 left column; *Notandum* beside the Dub. VI Respondeo ("aliter tamen: quia signa sunt...") in the p. 638 right column.

**Cross-page footer split (SHARED pages):**
- **p. 636** — Quaracchi footer notes 1–8 belong to the sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a2-q4` (which claimed them). Only **note 9** (`Codd. L R S T planius implet.`) belongs to this dubia → `[^1]` (marker at Dub. I "et tunc bene patet").
- **p. 637** — all 11 footer notes belong to this dubia → `[^2]`–`[^12]`.
- **p. 638** — Bonaventure-commentary footer notes 1–5 belong to this dubia → `[^13]`–`[^17]` (Dub. V: 1–3; Dub. VI: 4–5). The subsequent `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block (Lombard's *littera* apparatus: *Can. Arianos* etc.) and the `DISTINCTIO XXV` body notes (Innocentius, Gregorius, Cyprianus) belong to **d.25**, not to this chunk.

**Resolved reading:** p. 637 note 11 reads `hic a. 35` on the band (the IA djvu OCR mis-rendered it `a. 33`); the band is authoritative here. No `[?]` flags remain.