title: Dist. 1, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Doubts on the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 28 -->

### Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de definitione Sacramenti, quam ponit Magister: *Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum*. Videtur enim male assignare, eo quod videtur aliis convenire[^1], quae non sunt Sacramenta, et tamen sunt sacrae rei signum, ut est hoc nomen *Deus*. *Si dicas*, quod sit signum rei sacrae et ut sacrae; tunc hoc nomen *sanctum* et *sanctificans* est Sacramentum. *Si tu dicas*, quod hoc intelligitur de signo visibili; tunc ergo ratio haec non est *convertibilis*[^2].

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod Sacramentum accipitur tripliciter, scilicet *communiter* et *proprie* et *propriissime*; et secundum hoc Magister dat tres definitiones. Et prima est Sacramenti *largissime* accepti[^3]. — Potest tamen dici secundum Hugonem aliter[^4], quod illa non est *definitio*, sed *nominis interpretatio*; et Magister non intendit ibi definitionem Sacramenti ponere, sed nominis interpretationem sive verbi notificationem. Et ex prima interpretatione habetur, quod Sacramentum sit signum rei sacrae; ex secunda, quod sit signum visibile rei sacrae et sanctificantis; ex tertia, quod sit signum[^5] rei sacrae et sanctificantis, ita quod ad illam habendum efficaciter ordinat suscipientem; et sic dicitur proprie Sacramentum, et ita venatur Magister definitionem Sacramenti. Si ergo prima ratio *determinetur* per has conditiones, tunc dicetur ratio Sacramenti; si autem in sua *generalitate intelligatur*, sic solum est *interpretatio nominis*, non *definitio convertibilis*[^6].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma.* Videtur enim non bene definiri, quia corpus Christi verum est Sacramentum[^7], character est Sacramentum, et tamen neutrum est visibilis forma. *Si tu dicas*, quod *visibile* sumitur ad visibile *sensu exteriori*,

<!-- page 29 -->

secundum quod dicitur Genesis tertio[^8]: *Vidit igitur mulier*; et ad visibile quantum ad *sensum communem*, secundum quod dicitur Exodi vigesimo: *Cunctus populus videbat voces* etc.; et ad visibile *secundum intellectum*, secundum quod dicitur Genesis primo: *Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona*; obiicitur contra hoc, quod gratia secundum istum modum videndi[^9] non est invisibilis: ergo male dicitur invisibilis gratiae. Propter hoc quaeritur: quomodo accipitur ibi *visibilis*; et quare magis signi *visibilis* quam *audibilis*, cum vox sit signum magis expressivum? Et iterum, cum Sacramentum sit compositum, quaeritur, quomodo sit forma.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *visibile* accipitur ibi pro sensibili *sensu exteriori*, maxime quantum ad duos sensus *disciplinales*[^10]; unde *visibile* comprehendit *audibile*. Sed magis dicitur visibile quam audibile propter hoc, quod ratio *signandi*, ut infra[^11] videbitur, magis residet penes elementum; et hoc est perceptibile visu, et utrumque concurrit ad Sacramentum. — Quod obiicitur de charactere[^12], dicendum, quod non est Sacramentum, nisi quia annexum est sensibili sive visibili exteriori, et Magister definit principaliter quod est exterius. — Quod obiicitur de forma, dicendum, quod *forma* uno modo dicitur *perfectio rei*; alio modo *paradigma* sive *exemplar*[^13]; tertio modo dicitur forma quasi *foris manens*, id est aliqua similitudo exterius repraesentans; et sic accipitur in proposito.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sacramentum eius rei similitudinem gerit, cuius est signum*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Sacramentum est res corporalis, et gratia res spiritualis: ergo cum nulla sit convenientia in aliqua qualitate inter illa, non est similitudo[^14].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *similitudo* duobus modis attenditur: uno modo secundum *unius rationis proprietatem* sive naturae participationem; alio modo secundum *unius formae comparationem*. Prima dicitur similitudo *proportionis*, secunda dicitur similitudo *proportionalitatis*. Sacramentum[^15] gerit similitudinem gratiae secundo modo, non primo, pro eo quod, sicut aqua abluit carnem, ita gratia mundat animam; et sicut oleum lenit exterius, ita gratia interius. Et haec similitudo est in quatuor terminis[^16].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cinis vitulae aspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis, non animae.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia immunditia carnis non amovebatur, immo plus[^17] caro inficiebatur.

**Respondeo:** Immunditia carnis dicitur, non quia pure erat carnalis, sed quia erat *irregularitas* contracta ex solo actu carnali; sicut erat tangere mortuum, ex quo dicebatur *immundus*, non quia macula erat[^18] in anima vel in carne, sed quia ex hoc aliquam contraxerat irregularitatem, ut non esset idoneus ingredi in templum[^19].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sed purificabatur secundum Legem die tertio et septimo*;

<!-- page 30 -->

unde hoc erat, quod sacerdos erat purificandus[^20] secundum Legem, cum idem non debeat esse causa purificationis et inquinationis?

**Respondeo:** Ratio huius erat *litteralis*, *allegorica* et *moralis*: *litteralis*, quia tangebat cinerem animalis mortui, et summus etiam sacerdos in peccato populi communicabat; ideo in poena[^21] contrahendi immunditiam communicabat. *Allegorica* ratio est, quia in hoc significabatur, quod immunditia Iudaeorum non erat totaliter auferenda usque ad finem, quando *reliquiae Israel salvae fient*, ad Romanos nono[^22]. *Moralis* vero ratio erat, quia illa immunditia significabat, quod homo debeat se reputare immundum; et sacerdos, qui pro aliis purificandis orat, debet se reputare immundum, quia aliena peccata debet reputare quasi sua; vel etiam debet credere, se in illo officio aliquid commisisse, iuxta illud Gregorii[^23]: «Bonarum mentium est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est».

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Mundabant etiam interdum a corporali lepra illa legalia*; quia, si hoc verum erat, tunc ergo illa erant maioris virtutis, quam sint ista.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *mundare* dicuntur, quia mundatum ostendebant. — Et *si tu quaeras*, respondeo: dicendum, quod magna; quia leprosi eiiciebantur extra castra et non poterant redire, nisi[^24] purificarentur et iudicio sacerdotis essent mundi. — Sed tunc *obiicies*: cum lepra sit morbus incurabilis, videtur, quod nullus mundaretur. Dici potest, quod aliqui *radicitus* habebant causam morbi, et isti nunquam mundabantur, nec secundum veritatem nec secundum iudicium sacerdotis. Aliqui vero habebant *signa*[^25], et isti mundari poterant, id est mundati ostendi, cum illa signa iam cessabant.

### Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Triplici ex causa instituta sunt Sacramenta.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia unius rei unicus est finis: ergo videtur, quod una sola sit causa principalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod una est causa principalis, scilicet animae ornatus sive reparatio; sed quia anima plures habet potentias, possunt fines plurificari penes illas, uno tamen principali fine existente. Est enim in nobis vis *regitiva*[^26], et quantum ad hanc est *eruditio*; est vis *irascibilis*, et quantum ad hanc est *humiliatio*; est *concupiscibilis*, et quantum ad hanc, ne fastidiat, est *exercitatio*. — Vel aliter: *eruditio* quantum ad *cognitivam*, *humiliatio* quantum ad *affectivam*, sed *exercitatio* quantum ad *operativam*[^27].

### Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *dum homo rebus sensibilibus, quae natura infra ipsum sunt, subiicitur*. Videtur enim in hoc perverti ordo: quia anima est supra huiusmodi creaturas: ergo si eis se subiicit, pervertitur in hoc ordo naturalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod subiicere se his rebus potest homo quatuor considerationibus: aut propter *peccati meritum*, aut propter *Dei praeceptum*, aut quia sunt *gratiae signum*, aut quia in eis *statuit summum bonum* et finem ultimum. Primis tribus de causis est meritorium, et nulla inordinatio. Propter *peccati* enim *meritum* est aliquis infra illa, et ita eius subiectio respectu talium est ordinata. Item, qui propter *praeceptum* se subiicit ordinate facit, quia se subiicit magis praecepto quam rei sensibili[^28]. Et qui propter *significationem*, magis signato subiicit se quam signo. Sed in quarta consideratione ordo pervertitur, et est peccatum; et sic non spectat ad propositum.

### Dub. IX.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Homo, qui ante peccatum sine medio Deum videbat.* Videtur enim dicere falsum: quia qui videt Deum sine medio videt Deum per essentiam, videt etiam *facie ad faciem*[^29]; sed omnis talis est beatus: ergo etc.

<!-- page 31 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *videre sine medio* est dupliciter: aut sine medio *adminiculante*, aut sine medio *obumbrante*. Primum medium est speculare, secundum aenigmaticum. Sine primo non erat homo[^30], sed erat sine secundo, in quod incidit per peccatum; et ideo, quia caecus erat, indiguit erudiri et manuduci; non sic in statu primo[^31].

### Dub. X.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Propter exercitationem similiter instituta sunt*; quia, si hoc verum est, cum *corporalis exercitatio ad modicum sit utilis*[^32], cum ergo Sacramenta sint corporales res: ergo ad modicum sunt utilia propter exercitationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *exercitari*[^33] in observantia ipsorum Sacramentorum potest esse dupliciter: aut in *solo exteriori ritu*, et sic ad modicum valet; aut *iuncta devotione mentis*, et sic non est corporalis, sed quodam modo spiritualis, ac per hoc multum utilis[^34].

### Dub. XI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *duo sunt, in quibus consistunt Sacramenta, scilicet res et verba*. Videtur enim, quod male dividat, quia omne verbum est res. — Item, videtur, quod dividat *insufficienter*, quia Hugo[^35] dicit, quod consistunt in *rebus*, *dictis* et *factis*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *res* arctatur hic ad visibilia, et Magister strictius accipit Sacramenta, quam Hugo: quia ille accipiebat, quamcumque institutionem honestatis in Dei Ecclesia Sacramentum esse, Magister vero strictius accipit[^36].

### Dub. XII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quia *promittebant et significabant tantum*. Videtur enim male dicere: quia aut promittebant illis qui erant illius temporis, aut futuris. Futuris non, quia non promittit aliquis aliquid alicui, nisi ille sit. Si illis qui tunc erant; constat, quod ad Sacramenta novae legis illi non pervenerunt: ergo decepti erant in promissione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hic accipitur promissio non gratiae iustificantis, sed gloriae; et illa promittebant, sed non dabant, quia ianua nondum erat aperta; haec autem promittunt et dant, cum ianua sit aperta a Christo[^37].

---

english:
### Doubts on the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is a doubt about the definition of a Sacrament which the Master sets down: *A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing.* For it seems to be ill assigned, because it seems to fit other things[^1] which are not Sacraments and yet are signs of a sacred thing, as is this name *God*. *If you say* that it is a sign of a sacred thing and as sacred; then this name *holy* and *sanctifying* is a Sacrament. *If you say* that this is understood of a visible sign; then therefore this account is not *convertible*[^2].

**I respond:** To this some say that "Sacrament" is taken in three ways, namely *commonly*, *properly*, and *most properly*; and accordingly the Master gives three definitions. And the first is of a Sacrament taken *most broadly*[^3]. — Yet it can be said, with Hugh, otherwise[^4], that this is not a *definition* but an *interpretation of the name*; and the Master does not intend there to set down a definition of a Sacrament, but an interpretation of the name, or a notification of the word. And from the first interpretation it is had that a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing; from the second, that it is a visible sign of a sacred and sanctifying thing; from the third, that it is a sign[^5] of a sacred and sanctifying thing, in such a way that it efficaciously orders the recipient to obtaining it; and thus it is called a Sacrament properly, and so the Master hunts down the definition of a Sacrament. If therefore the first account be *determined* by these conditions, then it will be called the account of a Sacrament; but if it be *understood in its generality*, then it is only an *interpretation of the name*, not a *convertible definition*[^6].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *A Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace.* For it seems not to be well defined, since the true body of Christ is a Sacrament[^7], the character is a Sacrament, and yet neither is a visible form. *If you say* that *visible* is taken with respect to what is visible *by the exterior sense*,

according to what is said in Genesis chapter three[^8]: *The woman therefore saw*; and with respect to the visible as regards the *common sense*, according to what is said in Exodus chapter twenty: *And all the people saw the voices*, etc.; and with respect to the visible *according to the intellect*, according to what is said in Genesis chapter one: *God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good*; one objects against this that grace, according to this mode of seeing[^9], is not invisible: therefore it is ill said to be of invisible grace. On account of this it is asked: in what sense is *visible* taken there; and why rather of a *visible* than of an *audible* sign, since the voice is a more expressive sign? And again, since a Sacrament is composite, it is asked how it is a form.

**I respond:** It must be said that *visible* is taken there for the sensible by the exterior sense, especially as regards the two *disciplinal* senses[^10]; whence the *visible* comprehends the *audible*. But it is rather called visible than audible on account of this, that the account of *signifying*, as will be seen below[^11], rather resides in the element; and this is perceptible by sight, and both concur in the Sacrament. — As to the objection about the character[^12], it must be said that it is not a Sacrament except because it is annexed to something sensible or visible exteriorly, and the Master defines principally what is exterior. — As to the objection about the form, it must be said that *form* in one way is called the *perfection of a thing*; in another way, a *paradigm* or *exemplar*[^13]; in a third way, form is called as it were *remaining outwardly*, that is, some likeness representing exteriorly; and so it is taken in the matter at hand.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *A Sacrament bears the likeness of that thing of which it is the sign.* For it seems to be ill said, since a Sacrament is a corporeal thing, and grace a spiritual thing: therefore, since there is no agreement in any quality between them, there is no likeness[^14].

**I respond:** It must be said that *likeness* is considered in two ways: in one way according to the *property of one nature* or the participation of a nature; in another way according to the *comparison of one form*. The first is called the likeness of *proportion*, the second is called the likeness of *proportionality*. A Sacrament[^15] bears the likeness of grace in the second way, not the first, for the reason that, just as water washes the flesh, so grace cleanses the soul; and just as oil soothes exteriorly, so grace [soothes] interiorly. And this likeness is in four terms[^16].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *The ashes of the heifer, when sprinkled, sanctify the defiled unto the cleansing of the flesh, not of the soul.* For it seems to say something false, since the uncleanness of the flesh was not removed, but rather the flesh was the more[^17] infected.

**I respond:** It is called uncleanness of the flesh, not because it was purely carnal, but because it was an *irregularity* contracted from a carnal act alone; just as touching a dead body, from which one was called *unclean*, not because there was a stain[^18] in the soul or in the flesh, but because from this he had contracted some irregularity, so that he was not fit to enter into the temple[^19].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *But he was purified according to the Law on the third and the seventh day*;

whence was it that the priest had to be purified[^20] according to the Law, since the same thing ought not to be the cause both of purification and of defilement?

**I respond:** The reason for this was *literal*, *allegorical*, and *moral*: *literal*, because he touched the ash of a dead animal, and the high priest too shared in the sin of the people; therefore in the penalty[^21] of contracting it he shared in the uncleanness. The *allegorical* reason is that in this it was signified that the uncleanness of the Jews was not to be wholly taken away until the end, when *the remnant of Israel shall be saved*, to the Romans chapter nine[^22]. But the *moral* reason was that that uncleanness signified that a man ought to reckon himself unclean; and the priest, who prays for the purifying of others, ought to reckon himself unclean, since he ought to reckon the sins of others as if his own; or also he ought to believe that he has committed something in that office, according to that saying of Gregory[^23]: «It belongs to good minds to acknowledge fault there where there is no fault».

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Those legal observances also sometimes cleansed from corporeal leprosy*; for, if this were true, then those things were of greater power than these are.

**I respond:** It must be said that they are called *to cleanse* because they showed cleansed. — And *if you ask* what utility there was, I respond: it must be said, a great one; because lepers were cast out beyond the camp and could not return unless[^24] they were purified and were clean by the judgment of the priest. — But then *you will object*: since leprosy is an incurable disease, it seems that no one would be cleansed. It can be said that some had the cause of the disease *radically*, and these were never cleansed, neither according to truth nor according to the judgment of the priest. But others had [only] *signs*[^25], and these could be cleansed, that is, shown to be cleansed, when those signs now ceased.

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Sacraments were instituted from a threefold cause.* For it seems to be ill said: since of one thing there is one end: therefore it seems that there is only one principal cause.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is one principal cause, namely the adornment or repair of the soul; but because the soul has several powers, the ends can be multiplied with respect to them, while one principal end nevertheless exists. For there is in us the *governing* power[^26], and as regards this there is *instruction*; there is the *irascible* power, and as regards this there is *humiliation*; there is the *concupiscible*, and as regards this, lest it grow weary, there is *exercise*. — Or otherwise: *instruction* as regards the *cognitive* [power], *humiliation* as regards the *affective*, but *exercise* as regards the *operative*[^27].

### Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *while a man subjects himself to sensible things which are by nature beneath him*. For it seems that in this the order is perverted: since the soul is above creatures of this kind: therefore if it subjects itself to them, the natural order is perverted in this.

**I respond:** It must be said that a man can subject himself to these things under four considerations: either on account of the *merit of sin*, or on account of the *precept of God*, or because they are a *sign of grace*, or because in them he *establishes the highest good* and ultimate end. From the first three causes it is meritorious, and there is no disorder. For on account of the *merit of sin* one is beneath them, and so his subjection with respect to such things is ordered. Likewise, he who subjects himself on account of the *precept* acts in an ordered way, because he subjects himself rather to the precept than to the sensible thing[^28]. And he who [subjects himself] on account of the *signification* subjects himself rather to the thing signified than to the sign. But in the fourth consideration the order is perverted, and it is sin; and thus it does not pertain to the matter at hand.

### Doubt IX.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Man, who before sin saw God without a medium.* For it seems to say something false: because he who sees God without a medium sees God through his essence, sees also *face to face*[^29]; but everyone such is blessed: therefore, etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to see without a medium* is twofold: either without a *supporting* medium, or without an *obscuring* medium. The first medium is the mirror, the second the riddle. Man was not without the first[^30], but he was without the second, into which he fell through sin; and therefore, because he was blind, he needed to be instructed and led by the hand; not so in the first state[^31].

### Doubt X.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *They were instituted likewise for the sake of exercise*; for, if this be true, since *bodily exercise is profitable to little*[^32], then, since the Sacraments are bodily things, therefore they are of little profit for the sake of exercise.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to be exercised*[^33] in the observance of the Sacraments themselves can be twofold: either in the *bare exterior rite*, and thus it avails to little; or *joined with devotion of mind*, and thus it is not bodily, but in a certain way spiritual, and through this much profitable[^34].

### Doubt XI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *there are two things in which the Sacraments consist, namely the thing (res) and the words*. For it seems that he divides ill, since every word is a thing. — Likewise, it seems that he divides *insufficiently*, since Hugh[^35] says that they consist in *things*, *words [spoken]*, and *deeds [done]*.

**I respond:** It must be said that *thing* (res) is here restricted to visible things, and the Master takes the Sacraments more strictly than Hugh: for the latter took whatever institution of decency in the Church of God to be a Sacrament, but the Master takes them more strictly[^36].

### Doubt XII.

Likewise it is asked about this which Augustine says, that *they only promised and signified*. For it seems to say something false: since either they promised to those who were of that time, or to those to come. Not to those to come, since no one promises anything to anyone unless he exist. If to those who were then, it is established that they did not attain to the Sacraments of the new law: therefore they were deceived in the promise.

**I respond:** It must be said that here the promise is taken not of justifying grace, but of glory; and that [grace] they promised but did not give, because the gate was not yet open; but these [Sacraments of the new law] promise and give, since the gate has been opened by Christ[^37].

---

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *communicare*. Mox pro *sacrae rei signum* codd. F aa (H a secunda manu) *sacrae rei signa*.

en: The editions, with very many codices, read *communicare*. Shortly after, for *the sign of a sacred thing* codices F, aa (and H by a second hand) read *signs of a sacred thing*.

la: Secundum Aristot. VI. Topic. c. 2. (c. 3.), definitio non est bona, quae non est convertibilis cum definito: Nam huiusmodi oratio non *conversim* praedicabitur de re, eo quod non omnibus inest, quae sub eadem specie sunt.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* VI c. 2 (c. 3), a definition is not good which is not convertible with the defined: for a statement of this kind will not be predicated *convertibly* of the thing, since it is not present in all those things which are under the same species.

la: In cod. P secunda manus scribit de praedictis: *Respondeo. Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod Sacramentum accipitur dupliciter: active et passive. Passive dictum accipitur impropriissime; signum enim proprie dicitur Sacramentum et non signatum; et hoc modo passio Christi et resurrectio et huiusmodi dicuntur Sacramenta, quia sunt sacra signata, vel dicuntur effective Sacramenta, quia ab ipsis habent Sacramenta virtutem. — Active vero dictum accipitur tripliciter, scilicet communiter, proprie et propriissime; et secundum hoc Magister dat tres definitiones. Prima est Sacramenti largissime accepti, secundum quod Sacramentum convenit omnibus signis rem sacram, creatam, ordinatam vel ordinabilem ad salutem significantibus, sive ad hoc sint principaliter instituta, sive non; et secundum hoc res significata est visibilis vel invisibilis. Secunda est Sacramenti proprie et stricte accepti, secundum quod convenit signis rem sacram significantibus ex institutione, quae res sacra est tantum invisibilis; et haec est communis Sacramentis veteris et novae legis. Tertia est Sacramenti propriissime et strictissime accepti, quae propria est Sacramentis novae legis.*

en: In codex P a second hand writes regarding the foregoing: *I respond. To this some say that "Sacrament" is taken in two ways: actively and passively. Taken passively, it is taken most improperly; for a sign is properly called a Sacrament, and not the thing signified; and in this way the Passion of Christ and the Resurrection and the like are called Sacraments, because they are sacred things signified, or are called Sacraments effectively, because the Sacraments have their power from them. — But taken actively, it is taken in three ways, namely commonly, properly, and most properly; and accordingly the Master gives three definitions. The first is of a Sacrament taken most broadly, according to which "Sacrament" fits all signs that signify a sacred thing, created, ordered or orderable to salvation, whether they be principally instituted for this or not; and according to this the thing signified is visible or invisible. The second is of a Sacrament taken properly and strictly, according to which it fits signs signifying a sacred thing by institution, which sacred thing is only invisible; and this is common to the Sacraments of the old and the new law. The third is of a Sacrament taken most properly and most strictly, which is proper to the Sacraments of the new law.*

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

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

la: Edd. addunt *visibile*, refragantibus plurimis codd. Mox pro *ad illam*, quod habent codd. HI et contextus exigit, alii codd. et edd. *ad illud*. Aliquanto inferius pro *determinetur* codd. AFHZ *determinatur*, et pro *dicetur* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *diceretur*.

en: The editions add *visible*, against very many codices. Shortly after, for *to it* (fem.), which codices HI have and the context requires, the other codices and the editions read *to it* (neut.). Somewhat further below, for *be determined* codices AFHZ read *is determined*, and for *will be called* the editions with some codices read *would be called*.

la: Idem dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. I. m. I, et q. ij. m. I; B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. I; Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. Locc. citt. solvuntur etiam duo seqq. dubia.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. I m. I, and q. 2 m. I; Blessed Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. I; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1 q. 3. In the places cited the two following doubts are also resolved.

la: Cfr. infr. lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 6. seq., et ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — De charactere vide infra d. 6. p. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Pro *verum* cod. H *vere*. Inferius post *sumitur* edd. addunt *communiter*.

en: Compare below, the text of the Master, d. VIII c. 6 f., and the Commentary there, part II a. 2 q. 1. — On the character, see below d. 6 part 1 q. 1 ff. — For *true* codex H reads *truly*. Below, after *is taken*, the editions add *commonly*.

la: Vers. 6. — Locus seq. est Exod. 20, 18; tertius Gen. 1, 31. — Secundum locum (Exod. 20, 18.) August., II. Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 72, sic exponit: *Solet quaeri, quomodo populus videbat vocem, cum vox non ad visum, sed potius ad auditum pertinere videatur? Sed... videre solet pro generali sensu poni, non solum corporis, verum etiam animi...... Nam: vide, quid sonet, solemus dicere; audi, quid luceat, non solemus.* Cfr. X. Confess. c. 35. n. 54.

en: Verse 6. — The next passage is Exod. 20, 18; the third, Gen. 1, 31. — On the second passage (Exod. 20, 18) Augustine, *Questions on the Pentateuch* II q. 72, expounds thus: *It is wont to be asked how the people saw the voice, since the voice seems to pertain not to sight but rather to hearing? But... "to see" is wont to be used for a general sense, not only of the body but also of the mind...... For "see what it sounds like" we are wont to say; "hear what shines," we are not wont [to say].* Compare *Confessions* X c. 35 n. 54.

la: Ex codd. HQ supplevimus *secundum istum modum videndi*, pro quo codd. BKaa (D a secunda manu) *secundum hoc*. Post pauca pro *accipitur ibi visibilis*, quod exhibent codd. AH (K a secunda manu), alii codd. cum edd. *accipitur ibi invisibilis*, quae lectio responsioni inferius datae non congruit. Subinde post *vox sit signum* permulti codd. non bene omittunt *magis*.

en: From codices HQ we have supplied *according to this mode of seeing*, for which codices BKaa (D by a second hand) read *according to this*. A little after, for *the visible is taken there*, which codices AH (K by a second hand) exhibit, the other codices with the editions read *the invisible is taken there*, which reading does not agree with the response given below. Thereupon, after *the voice is a sign*, very many codices wrongly omit *more*.

la: Scilicet visum et auditum, qui maxime deserviunt ad scientiam sive disciplinam acquirendam. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 24. dub. 2. — Edd. *disciplinabiles*.

en: Namely sight and hearing, which most serve for acquiring knowledge or discipline. Compare III Sent. d. 24 dub. 2. — The editions read *teachable* (*disciplinabiles*).

la: Dist. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I.

en: Distinction 3, part I, a. I, q. I.

la: Cod. I a secunda manu *de corpore Christi et de charactere*, et dein *quod non sunt..... nisi quia annexa sunt sensibili*.

en: Codex I by a second hand reads *of the body of Christ and of the character*, and then *which are not..... except because they are annexed to something sensible*.

la: Forma enim sive causa formalis dividitur *in intrinsecam* et *extrinsecam*, quae vocatur etiam exemplaris. Cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph., text. 22. seqq. (VI. c. 7.) — De forma tertio modo accepta vide Aristot., Praedicam. c. de Qualitate, ubi tanquam quartam speciem qualitatis *figuram* et *formam* recenset; haec tangitur infra d. 6. p. I. q. I. in corp.; d. 48. a. 2. q. 3. in fine, et d. 49. p. I. q. I. ad 5. B. Albert., in Praedicam. c. de Qualitate, c. 9. ait: *Dicitur enim forma, quasi foris manens secundum nomen, et sic modus continentiae in terminatione linearum et superficierum dicitur forma. Et haec forma est species qualitatis.* Idem docet Alex. Hal. S. p. IV. q. 3. m. I. n. 1, ubi adducit etiam pro hoc illud Rom. 5, 14: *Qui [Adam] est forma futuri*, i. e. figura sive similitudo, ut dicit Glossa.

en: For form, or formal cause, is divided *into the intrinsic* and *the extrinsic*, which latter is also called exemplary. Compare Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII text. 22 ff. (VI c. 7). — On form taken in the third way, see Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter on Quality, where he reckons *figure* and *form* as the fourth species of quality; this is touched on below d. 6 part I q. I in the body; d. 48 a. 2 q. 3 at the end, and d. 49 part I q. I ad 5. Blessed Albert, on the *Categories*, the chapter on Quality, c. 9, says: *For it is called "form" as it were "remaining outwardly" according to the name, and thus the mode of containment in the bounding of lines and surfaces is called form. And this form is a species of quality.* The same is taught by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 3 m. I n. 1, where he also adduces for this that text of Rom. 5, 14: *Who [Adam] is the form of the one to come*, i.e. the figure or likeness, as the Gloss says.

la: Nam sicut convenientia in *substantia* constituit identitatem, convenientia in *quantitate* aequalitatem, ita convenientia in *qualitate* similitudinem, ut docet Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 16. et 20. (IV. c. 9. et 15.).

en: For just as agreement in *substance* constitutes identity, agreement in *quantity* equality, so agreement in *quality* [constitutes] likeness, as Aristotle teaches, *Metaphysics* V text. 16 and 20 (IV c. 9 and 15).

la: Codd. GKVaa addunt *ergo*.

en: Codices GKVaa add *therefore*.

la: Aristot., I. Magnor. Moral. c. 31. (34.): *Proportionale in quatuor nihilominus perficitur; nam quemadmodum A ad B, ita C ad D.* Cfr. V. Ethic. c. 3. — De differentia *proportionis* et *proportionalitatis* vide Boeth., II. de Arithmet. c. 40, et I. Sent. d. I. a. 3. q. I. ad I, et ibid. scholion.

en: Aristotle, *Magna Moralia* I c. 31 (34): *The proportional is nonetheless completed in four [terms]; for as A is to B, so C is to D.* Compare *Ethics* V c. 3. — On the difference between *proportion* and *proportionality*, see Boethius, *On Arithmetic* II c. 40, and I Sent. d. I a. 3 q. I ad I, and the scholion there.

la: Codd. IZaa *potius*.

en: Codices IZaa read *rather*.

la: Codd. K aa *esset*.

en: Codices K, aa read *was* (subjunctive, *esset*).

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 4. a. 1. ad 8; B. Albert., hic a. 9. seq.; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Compare here the text of the Master, c. 4. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 3 m. 4 a. 1 ad 8; Blessed Albert, here a. 9 f.; Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text.

la: Ita codd. FH, in ceteris et edd. minus apte *purificans*. Nam sacerdos, qui tetigit cinerem vaccae rufae, immundus fuit et purificandus (Num. 19, 7. 10; 19, 21.), licet ipse alios mundaret.

en: So codices FH; in the rest and in the editions, less aptly, *purifying*. For the priest who touched the ash of the red heifer was unclean and to be purified (Num. 19, 7. 10; 19, 21), although he himself cleansed others.

la: Ita codd. KV, alii cum edd. *poenam*.

en: So codices KV; the others, with the editions, read *penalty* (accusative, *poenam*).

la: Vers. 27. — Hanc rationem insinuat Raban., II. in Num. 19, 6, ubi de ritu expiationis ex cinere vaccae rufae.

en: Verse 27. — Rabanus suggests this reason, II [Commentary] on Numbers 19, 6, where [he treats] of the rite of expiation from the ash of the red heifer.

la: Libr. XI. Registr. Epist. 64. respons. ad 10. interrog. August., ubi textus originalis *etiam ibi aliquo modo culpas suas* pro *ibi culpam*. — Superius post *vel etiam* cod. V repetit *quia*. — De hoc dub. cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 4. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 5. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. ad 3.

en: [Gregory,] *Register* Book XI, Letter 64, in answer to the 10th question of Augustine, where the original text reads *there too in some way their own faults* for *fault there*. — Above, after *or also*, codex V repeats *because*. — On this doubt compare Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 3 m. 4 a. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, here q. I a. 5 little-question 3 ad 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3 q. 2 ad 3.

la: Codd. FH bene *donec*. Paulo ante pro *castra* codd. AE ILVW *castrum*.

en: Codices FH rightly read *until*. A little before, for *camp* (plural) codices AE, ILVW read *camp* (singular).

la: Cod. Z supplet *leprae*. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Codex Z supplies *of leprosy*. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text.

la: Sive rationalis, cuius proprium est, ut ait Aristot., V. Topic. c. I, *principare* ad concupiscibile et irascibile etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 720, nota 1. — Codd. GK aa *cognitiva*. Pro *tamen* cod. cc (K a secunda manu) *tantum*.

en: Or rational, whose property is, as Aristotle says, *Topics* V c. I, *to rule* over the concupiscible and the irascible, etc. Compare vol. III p. 720, note 1. — Codices GK, aa read *cognitive*. For *nevertheless* codex cc (K by a second hand) reads *only*.

la: Dub. hoc solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 2. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I. Locc. citt. solvitur etiam seq. dub.

en: This doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 5 m. 2 a. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here q. I a. 2 little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. I. In the places cited the following doubt is also resolved.

la: Ita codd. FHLP, alii codd. et ed. I, sive in prima sive in secunda propositione praemissa quaedam male omittunt; Vat. legit: *Nam cum propter peccati demeritum et Dei praeceptum homo Sacramentis se subiicit, quia sunt gratiae signum, magis praecepto quam rei insensibili se subiicit: et ideo est ordinatio.*

en: So codices FHLP; the other codices and edition I, whether in the first or the second proposition, wrongly omit some of the premised matter; the Vatican edition reads: *For when on account of the demerit of sin and the precept of God a man subjects himself to the Sacraments, because they are a sign of grace, he subjects himself rather to the precept than to the insensible thing: and therefore it is an ordering.*

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12. — In Vat. desideratur *videt Deum sine medio*.

en: [The] Epistle, I Cor. 13, 12. — In the Vatican edition *sees God without a medium* is wanting.

la: Cod. U *primus homo*. Inferius pro *indiguit* codd. MO *indigebat*, cod. B *indigens*, edd. perperam *indignus erat*.

en: Codex U reads *the first man*. Below, for *needed* codices MO read *was needing*, codex B *needing*, the editions wrongly *was unworthy*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. I. m. 2. a. 1; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Compare II Sent. d. 23 a. 2 q. 3; Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. I m. 2 a. 1; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here about the text.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 4, 8.

en: [The] Epistle, I Tim. 4, 8.

la: Cod. Z *exercitatio*. Circa finem responsionis post *sed*, refragantibus codd. F G H O X, alii et edd. addunt *etiam*, et cod. F substituit *propter hoc* pro *per hoc*.

en: Codex Z reads *exercise* (noun, *exercitatio*). Near the end of the response, after *but*, against codices F G H O X, the others and the editions add *also*, and codex F substitutes *on account of this* for *through this*.

la: Hoc dub. solvunt etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 2. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1, ad 4.

en: This doubt is also resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 5 m. 2 a. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 2 little-question 1, ad 4.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 6.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments* Book I, part IX, c. 6.

la: Hoc dub. etiam tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 15; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1.

en: This doubt is also treated by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 5 m. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 15; St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1 a. 2 and about the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1 q. 1.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 18. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro *gratiae* edd. *gratia*. Subinde pro *et illa* cod. G *quam illa*.

en: Compare III Sent. d. 18 a. 2 q. 3. — Above, for *of grace* (*gratiae*) the editions read *grace* (*gratia*). Thereupon, for *and that* codex G reads *than that*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.28–31 (PDF pp.48–51; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 3582–3919) as the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is the **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI for Distinction I, Part I** — **twelve doubts (Dub. I–XII)** on the Master's text. **No prior skeleton existed for this chunk** (the auto-chunker missed the Pars I dubia block); the file was created fresh. This chunk **CLOSES Distinction I, Part I.** The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered (one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed) through every Respondeo and every footer, so the PDF column-band read is authoritative for those regions per the override; the OCR supplied the marker spacing and the clean *videtur*/argument prose.

**Boundary repair (2026-06-16).** The original promotion stopped at **Dub. IX** and wrongly forwarded Dub. X–XII to the Pars II divisio. In fact the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` block for d.1 Pars I runs to **Dub. XII**, and the Pars II `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I. / Pars II.` semantic opener begins only at raw **L3918** (its `DIVISIO TEXTUS` body at L3933, the *Post partem prooemialem…* paragraph), on the p.31 R-column. The `DIST. I. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS — 31` line at raw L3874 is a **page-top running head**, not the divisio's semantic start. Dub. X–XII (raw ~L3887–L3917, interleaved by the two-column layout: Dub. X label L3887, Dub. XI label L3909 in the L col; Dub. XII label L3890 in the R col) were transcribed from the p.31 L-col (Dub. X, Dub. XI opener) and R-col (Dub. XI continuation, Dub. XII).

**Structure.** A dubia chunk: `has_scholion: false` (dubia carry no scholion), no `quaestio`/`articulus`/`pars` article fields beyond `pars: 1`. Twelve doubts, each a short objection (*Videtur enim...*) against a phrase of Lombard's *littera* followed by a *Respondeo*. Dub. I (definition *Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum*); Dub. II (*invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma*); Dub. III (*eius rei similitudinem gerit*); Dub. IV (cinis vitulae); Dub. V (purified on the third and seventh day); Dub. VI (cleansing from leprosy); Dub. VII (threefold cause of institution); Dub. VIII (subjection to sensible things); Dub. IX (seeing God without a medium before sin); **Dub. X (*Propter exercitationem similiter instituta sunt* — bodily exercise profits to little); Dub. XI (*duo sunt, in quibus consistunt Sacramenta, scilicet res et verba* — res vs verba, Hugh's threefold rebus/dictis/factis); Dub. XII (*promittebant et significabant tantum*, Augustine — promise of glory not justifying grace, gate opened by Christ).**

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.28** (running head "28 ... SENTENTIARUM"): q6's Opinio 3 / Conclusio / Corollarium fill the L-top and R-top; then the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (spans both columns) and Dub. I begin (L-bottom), Dub. I's Respondeo continues onto the R column with Dub. II opening at R-bottom. Footer series 1–11; **q6 already claimed nn.1–4** (its body markers, ending at the *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* redirect), so this chunk picks up **p.28 nn.5–11** → [^1]–[^7].
- **p.29** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. DUBIA. — 29"): Dub. II continuation + Dub. III (L col); Dub. III Respondeo + Dub. IV + Dub. V opening (R col). Footer series 1–12 → [^8]–[^19] (n.6 spills from the L footer into the R footer).
- **p.30** (running head "30 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): Dub. V Respondeo + Dub. VI + Dub. VII opening (L col); Dub. VII Respondeo + Dub. VIII + Dub. IX *videtur* (R col). Footer series 1–10 → [^20]–[^29].
- **p.31** (page-top running head "DIST. I. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS — 31"): **Dub. IX's Respondeo** (L-top, ending *...non sic in statu primo²*), then **Dub. X + Dub. XI opener** (L-col) and **Dub. XI continuation + Dub. XII** (R-col); the Pars II `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I. / Pars II.` opener begins only after Dub. XI on the L-col / after Dub. XII on the R-col (raw L3918). Footer series 1–8 → [^30]–[^37] (n.1–2 Dub. IX; n.3–5 Dub. X; n.6–7 Dub. XI; n.8 Dub. XII). **p.31 n.9 onward (n.9 *Edd. formam et substantiam* — the divisio's *eius formam sive integritatem et substantiam*) belongs to the Pars II divisio, NOT this chunk.**

**Apparatus count = 37** (p.28: 7 [nn.5–11]; p.29: 12 [nn.1–12]; p.30: 10 [nn.1–10]; p.31: 8 [nn.1–8]). All keyed to body markers in both languages. The four per-page footer-restart series are merged into one consecutive [^1]–[^37] run for this file. p.31 markers: n.1→[^30] (Dub. IX *homo*), n.2→[^31] (Dub. IX *primo*), n.3→[^32] (Dub. X *utilis*, I Tim. 4,8), n.4→[^33] (Dub. X *exercitari*, Cod. Z), n.5→[^34] (Dub. X *multum utilis*, parallels), n.6→[^35] (Dub. XI *Hugo*, de Sacram. I p.IX c.6), n.7→[^36] (Dub. XI *strictius accipit*, parallels), n.8→[^37] (Dub. XII *a Christo*, Cfr. III Sent. d.18).

**Scholion: ABSENT — `has_scholion: false`.** A dubia block carries no scholion; the article-master scholion lives in q5 §II (covering q6). Confirmed by the page layout (the dubia run straight into the Pars II `DIVISIO TEXTUS` with no `SCHOLION` header).

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q6`:** q6's Notes forwarded that (a) q6 claims **only p.28 footer nn.1–4**, so the dubia must start its p.28 footer band at **n.5**, picking up nothing from q6 — honored: [^1] = p.28 n.5 (*communicare* / *sacrae rei signum*), [^2] = n.6 (*Secundum Aristot. VI. Topic.*), [^3] = n.7 (*In cod. P secunda manus* — the long cod. P alternate Respondeo); (b) q6 forwards no body splice — honored: this chunk opens fresh with *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram...* on the p.28 L col, grammatically self-contained, immediately after q6's *...secundum has duas vias⁴* on the R col; (c) the q6/dubia seam on shared p.28 is clean (q6's Corollarium ends before the DUBIA header). All three honored.

**Cross-chunk hand-off FORWARDED to the Pars II divisio (`bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-divisio`, semantic opener raw L3918 [`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I. / Pars II. / De circumcisione et annexis`], body `DIVISIO TEXTUS` at L3933, printed p.31, PDF 51):** This Pars I dubia chunk ends with **Dub. XII's Respondeo** on the p.31 R-col (*...cum ianua sit aperta a Christo⁸*) — Dub. X, XI, XII are now INSIDE this chunk (boundary repair, see above). The Pars II divisio begins at the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I. / Pars II.` opener (raw L3918), whose body opens *Post partem prooemialem et principalem Magister ponit hic partem incidentem…* (raw L3933). **CORRECTED footer hand-off forward:** this chunk now claims **p.31 footer nn.1–8** (Dub. IX *homo¹*/*primo²*; Dub. X nn.3–5; Dub. XI nn.6–7; Dub. XII n.8). **The p.31 footer band for the Pars II divisio begins at n.9** — `n.9 Edd. formam et substantiam` (keyed to the divisio's *eius formam sive integritatem et substantiam*); the divisio's first three footers (per the later subagent's read) are `Cod. U primus homo` / `Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 6` / `Edd. formam et substantiam` — note the first two of those sigla (*Cod. U primus homo*, *Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 6*) actually belong to THIS chunk's p.31 nn.1 and 6 (Dub. IX and Dub. XI), so the divisio's true first own footer on p.31 is **`Edd. formam et substantiam` (n.9)**. Whatever chunk takes the Pars II divisio must start its p.31 footer band at **n.9**, picking up nothing from this dubia. The Pars I dubia forward no body splice into the divisio (the divisio opens fresh with the `COMMENTARIUS` header). Note that the **`DIST. I. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS` page-top running head appears on p.31** because the page is shared: this Pars I dubia chunk holds Dub. IX–XII + footer nn.1–8, and the Pars II divisio holds everything from the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I.` opener onward + footer nn.9+.

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla (A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, Q, U, V, W, Z, aa, bb, cc), cross-references (II Sent. d.23 / d.24; III Sent. d.3 / d.24 / d.33 / d.34; I Sent. d.1; IV Sent. lit. Magistri d.VI / d.VIII / d.48 / d.49; *tom. III pag. 720*), and the patristic/Aristotelian citations (Hugh *de Sacram.* I p.IX c.2; Augustine *Quaest. in Pentateuch.* II q.72 + *Confess.* X c.35; Gregory *Register* XI Ep.64; Rabanus *in Num.*; Aristotle *Topics* V/VI, *Metaphysics* V/VII, *Categories* de Qualitate, *Magna Moralia* I, *Ethics* V; Boethius *de Arithmet.* II) resolved cleanly against the PDF column bands. The OCR garbled several glyphs (*defmitione* for *definitione*, *lilleram*/*litleram* for *litteram*, *Sacraraentum* for *Sacramentum*, *eiiciebanlur* for *eiiciebantur*, *regitiva*/*yhregitiva* in the footer, *coroiiaiium*-type fragments in the q6 tail) — all resolved against the PDF.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 1, Part 2, Dubia

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 44 -->

### Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Fuit tamen inter illa Sacramenta Sacramentum quoddam* etc. Quare magis excipit Sacramentum circumcisionis quam alia? Videtur enim quod potius deberet excipere alia; quia, si Sacramenta posterius instituta sunt efficaciora[^7], videtur, quod potius deberet excipere Sacramenta, quae instituta sunt in Lege, quam circumcisionem, quae est instituta ante.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circumcisio inter omnia Sacramenta Legis fuit efficacius Sacramentum. — *Si quaeras*, quae sit ratio sive causa efficiens; dico, quod pactio divina, quae in hac specialiter[^8] fuit, et ideo hoc Sacramentum efficacem habebat ordinationem ad curationem originalis. — *Si autem quaeritur*: quare magis in hoc fuit pactio? dicendum, quod ratio huius est duplex: prima, quia, sicut baptismus est ianua et fundamentum Sacramentorum novae legis, ita in circumcisione vetus lex sumsit fundamentum et exordium. — Alia ratio erat, quia circumcisio erat in remedium originalis peccati, quantum ad quod reus minime est culpabilis, et tamen multum impotens se iuvare, ut patet in parvulis; et ideo decuit divinam misericordiam, ut efficacius remedium praepararet[^9].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Beda: *Idem salutiferae curationis auxilium circumcisio* etc.; quia, si hoc verum est, ergo in circumcisione ita datur gratia virtutum adiutrix, sicut in baptismo. *Si tu dicas*, quod non sequitur: idem, ergo hoc, immo est ibi *consequens*[^10]; hoc non solvit: quia ipse excipit; sed exceptio non fit ab aliquo nisi intellecto *universaliter*; nihil enim est dictum: homo

<!-- page 45 -->

currit praeter Socratem[^11]: ergo intelligitur generaliter de omni remedio. — Item, baptismus ante passionem non aperiebat ianuam: ergo non habebat maiorem efficaciam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod facienda est vis in verbo Bedae et quantum ad hoc quod dicit *idem*, et quantum ad hoc quod dicit *curationis*. Quantum ad hoc quod est *idem*, quia dicit convenientiam in *forma*, non in *quantitate*[^12]; quantum ad hoc quod est *curationis*; quia dicit convenientiam in *remedio contra malum*, non prout *habilitat ad bonum*. — Et per hoc solvuntur illa duo obiecta. Vult enim dicere Beda, quod sicut baptismus digne suscipientem mundat ab originali et actuali, sic circumcisio. Unde quantum ad *remotionem culpae* est convenientia, sed non quantum ad *apertionem ianuae* nec quantum ad *habilitatem*, ratione cuius baptismus semper excessit[^13].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Tamen in sinu Abrahae post mortem*; quid sit iste *sinus Abrahae*. Et Glossa dicit Lucae decimo sexto[^14]: «Sinus Abrahae est requies beatorum pauperum»; sed illa est regnum caelorum, et hoc est visio Dei: ergo circumcisi, qui moriebantur, habebant visionem beatam, cui contradicit sequens littera[^15].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *sinus Abrahae* potest dici requies, in qua fuit Abraham; et hoc attribuitur Abrahae propter perfectionis fidei exemplum quasi primarium. — Vel *sinus Abrahae* dicitur requies Dei Patris, qui dicitur *Abraham*, quia summus pater est omnium, maxime fidelium[^16]. Utroque modo dictus dicit idem, ex diversa tamen ratione dicendi. Dupliciter potest dici *requies*: aut per *ablationem omnis mali*, et sic fuit locus, in quo sancti Patres exspectabant Christum, et ita intelligit hic; aut per *collationem omnis boni*, et sic est locus gloriae et paradisus, ad quem locum nunc optamus et oramus, mortuorum animas pervenire[^17].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Nec ei soli praecepta fuit circumcisio, sed et semini eius.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia secundum hoc videtur, quod Ismael[^18] et omnes de stirpe Abrahae tenerentur ad circumcisionem. *Si tu dicas mihi*, quod tenebantur illi soli, de quibus nasciturus erat Christus: ergo secundum hoc illi soli de tribu Iuda fuissent obligati. — Item videtur, quod non illi soli, sed omnes: quia, si circumcisio erat in remedium, et tale remedium, quod omnibus proderat, et omnes eo aequaliter indigebant: ergo videtur, quod cum circumcisio non esset bona, nisi quia *praecepta*, quod omnibus esset praecepta, cum omnibus prodesset. Sed contra hoc est, quod, sicut dicit Hugo[^19] et Gregorius super prologum Iob, «Iob non legitur circumcisus, et tamen creditur fuisse de stirpe Esau».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in datione circumcisionis duo considerantur, scilicet *institutio* et *praeceptum*. *Institutio* fuit contra morbum originalis peccati, ut esset remedium; et sicut morbus ille omnes respicit, ita et institutio. Sed *praeceptio* fuit in *pactum*; et Dominus pactum fecit cum Abraham de certitudine nativitatis Christi et de terra promissionis[^20]: et ideo illi soli intelliguntur praecepto astricti, ad quos se extendit pactum, et hi fuerunt omnes filii Israel. Et ideo omnes *poterant* circumcidi et omnibus erat utilis; sed hi soli *tenebantur*, ad quos se extendit pactum et qui terram recepturi erant. Et ideo, cum dicit Magister, quod data est

<!-- page 46 -->

*semini*[^1] sub praecepto; stricte accipit *semen* pro his qui de Iacob fuerunt generati. — Et sic patet responsio de Iob. Tamen non est omnino certum, de qua stirpe fuerit, quia aliqui dicunt, quod fuit de Nachor[^2]. Quod autem Abraham omnes vernaculos et Ismaelem circumcidit, hoc fuit iustitiae *superabundantis*.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *fiebat die octavo*. Videtur enim non bene dictum, quia, dato quod parvulus natus esset in Sabbato, praeceptum Sabbati erat maius, unde et in Decalogo continetur[^3]: ergo magis deberent differre quam in Sabbato circumcidere: ergo non in die octavo.

**Ad hoc respondent quidam,** quod ob reverentiam Sabbati debebat differri, et praeceptum de Sabbato datum praeiudicabat illi. Sed tamen non oportet hic dubitare, quia Dominus dicit Ioannis septimo[^4], quod *circumcisionem accipit homo in Sabbato, ut non solvatur lex Moysi*. Propter hoc dicendum, quod opus circumcisionis propter curationem mentis erat spirituale, et ita Sabbatum non solvebat nec ei repugnabat, quia prohibebatur in Lege solum *opus servile*[^5].

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *fiebat cultro petrino*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia in institutione circumcisionis factae ipsi Abrahae nulla fit mentio de cultro petrino[^6]. — Item, quae utilitas vel necessitas de cultro petrino, cum ferrum sit multo aptius?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod culter petrinus est *de substantia*, sed quantum ad *observantiam*, non quantum ad *efficaciam* nec quantum ad *significantiam*[^7b]. Et hoc patet, quia, si aliquis circumcideretur cultro ferreo, idem esset effectus; et in huius rei signum non fuit facta mentio in *institutione*, fuit tamen in sequenti *praecepti renovatione* facta sub Iosue, quinto[^8b]: *Fac tibi cultros lapideos*, in quo significatur, quod per *petram Christum* omnes circumcidendi erant; significatur et duritia ipsorum et duritia Legis. Hoc autem congruitatis erat, non necessitatis; unde dicitur, quod Iudaei non circumcidunt nunc cultris petrinis[^9b].

### Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *duae sunt res huius Sacramenti*. Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si duae sunt res, ergo videtur, quod duplex sit hic Sacramentum, aut Sacramentum est multiplex.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *res* huius Sacramenti duobus modis est: uno modo illa quam *significat et donat*; alio modo illa quam *significat faciendam*. Illa autem res erat propria et principalis, quam *significabat et donabat*; et haec erat una principaliter, scilicet curatio ab originali. Illa vero, quam *significabat faciendam*, contingit esse duplicem secundum duplicem statum, scilicet *viae* et *gloriae*, secundum quod duplex est spiritualis circumcisio, scilicet *a culpa* et *a miseria*; et utraque fit per *petram Christum*, et sic in octava[^10b].

### Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Abrahae nihil contulit circumcisio*. Videtur enim falsum dicere: quia Abraham melius et fidelius fecit quam alii: ergo videtur, quod aliis nihil tribuat, si sibi non tribuit, de quo magis videtur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *nihil conferre*, hoc potest esse dupliciter: aut quia non est *indigentia a parte recipientis*, aut quia non est *quod adiuvet in ea*; et ex prima causa nihil contulit, non quia esset in se inefficax, sed quia Abraham non indigebat[^11b].

---

english:
### Doubts on the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is a doubt about this which the Master says: *Yet among those Sacraments there was a certain Sacrament*, etc. Why does he except the Sacrament of circumcision rather than others? For it seems that he ought rather to except others; because, if the Sacraments instituted later are more efficacious[^7], it seems that he ought rather to except the Sacraments that were instituted under the Law, than circumcision, which was instituted before.

**I respond:** It must be said that circumcision was, among all the Sacraments of the Law, the more efficacious Sacrament. — *If you ask* what is the reason or efficient cause; I say that it is the divine pact, which was especially in this[^8], and therefore this Sacrament had an efficacious ordination toward the cure of original [sin]. — *But if it is asked*: why was the pact rather in this? it must be said that the reason for this is twofold: first, because, just as baptism is the gate and foundation of the Sacraments of the new law, so in circumcision the old law took its foundation and beginning. — The other reason was that circumcision was for a remedy against original sin, with respect to which the guilty one is least culpable, and yet very powerless to help himself, as is plain in little ones; and therefore it befitted the divine mercy that it should prepare a more efficacious remedy[^9].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Bede says: *The same aid of saving cure, circumcision*, etc.; because, if this be true, then in circumcision the grace that aids the virtues is given just as in baptism. *If you say* that it does not follow: "the same, therefore this," but rather there is here a *consequent*[^10]; this does not resolve it: because he himself excepts; but an exception is not made from anything unless it be understood *universally*; for nothing is said [when one says]: a man

runs except Socrates[^11]: therefore it is understood generally of every remedy. — Likewise, baptism before the Passion did not open the gate: therefore it did not have a greater efficacy.

**I respond:** It must be said that emphasis must be placed on Bede's word both as regards what he says, *the same*, and as regards what he says, *of cure*. As regards what is *the same*, because he asserts an agreement in *form*, not in *quantity*[^12]; as regards what is *of cure*, because he asserts an agreement in the *remedy against evil*, not insofar as it *enables for the good*. — And by this those two objections are resolved. For Bede means that, just as baptism cleanses the worthy recipient from original and actual [sin], so does circumcision. Whence, as regards the *removal of fault* there is an agreement, but not as regards the *opening of the gate*, nor as regards the *enabling*, by reason of which baptism always surpassed it[^13].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Yet in the bosom of Abraham after death*; what this *bosom of Abraham* is. And the Gloss says, on Luke chapter sixteen[^14]: «The bosom of Abraham is the rest of the blessed poor»; but that is the kingdom of heaven, and this is the vision of God: therefore the circumcised who died had the blessed vision, which the following text contradicts[^15].

**I respond:** It must be said that the *bosom of Abraham* can be called the rest in which Abraham was; and this is attributed to Abraham on account of the example of the perfection of his faith, as it were the primary one. — Or the *bosom of Abraham* is called the rest of God the Father, who is called *Abraham*, because he is the highest father of all, especially of the faithful[^16]. Said in either way, it means the same, yet from a different manner of speaking. *Rest* can be spoken of in two ways: either by the *removal of every evil*, and thus it was the place in which the holy Fathers awaited Christ, and so he understands it here; or by the *bestowal of every good*, and thus it is the place of glory and paradise, to which place we now desire and pray that the souls of the dead may come[^17].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which the Master says: *Nor was circumcision commanded to him alone, but also to his seed.* For it seems to be ill said: because according to this it seems that Ishmael[^18] and all of the stock of Abraham were bound to circumcision. *If you say to me* that those alone were bound, of whom Christ was to be born: therefore according to this those alone of the tribe of Judah would have been obligated. — Likewise it seems that not those alone, but all: because, if circumcision was for a remedy, and such a remedy as profited all, and all alike needed it: therefore it seems that, since circumcision would not be good except because *commanded*, it would be commanded to all, since it would profit all. But against this is that, as Hugh[^19] and Gregory say on the prologue of Job, «Job is not read to have been circumcised, and yet is believed to have been of the stock of Esau».

**I respond:** It must be said that in the giving of circumcision two things are considered, namely *institution* and *precept*. The *institution* was against the disease of original sin, that it might be a remedy; and as that disease regards all, so also the institution. But the *precept* was unto a *pact*; and the Lord made a pact with Abraham concerning the certainty of the nativity of Christ and concerning the land of promise[^20]: and therefore those alone are understood to be bound by the precept to whom the pact extended, and these were all the sons of Israel. And therefore all *could* be circumcised and it was useful to all; but these alone *were bound*, to whom the pact extended and who were to receive the land. And therefore, when the Master says that it was given

to the *seed*[^1] under precept; he takes *seed* strictly for those who were begotten of Jacob. — And thus the response concerning Job is plain. Yet it is not altogether certain of what stock he was, since some say that he was of Nachor[^2]. But that Abraham circumcised all his home-born slaves and Ishmael, this was of *superabounding* justice.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *it was done on the eighth day*. For it seems not well said, because, granted that a little one were born on the Sabbath, the precept of the Sabbath was greater, whence it is also contained in the Decalogue[^3]: therefore they ought rather to defer than to circumcise on the Sabbath: therefore not on the eighth day.

**To this some respond** that out of reverence for the Sabbath it ought to be deferred, and the precept given concerning the Sabbath prejudged it. But yet there is no need here to doubt, because the Lord says, in John chapter seven[^4], that *a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses be not broken*. On account of this it must be said that the work of circumcision, on account of the cure of the mind, was spiritual, and so it did not break the Sabbath nor was repugnant to it, because in the Law only *servile work*[^5] was forbidden.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *it was done with a stone knife*. For it seems to be ill said, because in the institution of the circumcision made to Abraham himself no mention is made of a stone knife[^6]. — Likewise, what utility or necessity is there of a stone knife, since iron is much more apt?

**I respond:** It must be said that the stone knife belongs *to the substance*, but as regards *observance*, not as regards *efficacy* nor as regards *signification*[^7b]. And this is plain, because, if anyone were circumcised with an iron knife, the effect would be the same; and as a sign of this thing no mention was made of it in the *institution*, yet it was made in the subsequent *renewal of the precept* made under Joshua, chapter five[^8b]: *Make thee knives of stone*, in which it is signified that all were to be circumcised through the *rock [which is] Christ*; both their hardness and the hardness of the Law are also signified. But this was a matter of fittingness, not of necessity; whence it is said that the Jews do not now circumcise with stone knives[^9b].

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *there are two things (res) of this Sacrament*. For it seems to be ill said: because, if there are two things, then it seems that this Sacrament is twofold, or that the Sacrament is manifold.

**I respond:** It must be said that the *thing* (res) of this Sacrament is in two ways: in one way that which it *signifies and gives*; in another way that which it *signifies as to be done*. But that thing which it *signified and gave* was the proper and principal one; and this was one principally, namely the cure from original [sin]. But that which it *signified as to be done* happens to be twofold according to a twofold state, namely of *the way* and of *glory*, according as the spiritual circumcision is twofold, namely *from fault* and *from misery*; and each is brought about through the *rock [which is] Christ*, and thus on the eighth [day][^10b].

### Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *circumcision conferred nothing on Abraham*. For it seems to say something false: because Abraham did better and more faithfully than others: therefore it seems that it bestows nothing on others, if it did not bestow on himself, of whom it seems the more [likely].

**I respond:** It must be said that *to confer nothing* can be in two ways: either because there is no *need on the part of the recipient*, or because there is no *that which would aid in it*; and from the first cause it conferred nothing, not because it was in itself inefficacious, but because Abraham did not need it[^11b].

---

la: Vide infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. — Quod circumcisio ante Legem sit instituta, dictum est supra a. 2. q. I. ad 4. — Superius post *quare* non pauci codd. addunt *ergo*.

en: See below d. 2 a. 1 q. 2. — That circumcision was instituted before the Law has been said above, a. 2 q. I ad 4. — Above, after *why*, not a few codices add *therefore*.

la: Cfr. supra p. I. q. 4. in fine et q. 5. — Superius pro *in hac* cod. Y *in hoc*.

en: Compare above, part I q. 4 at the end and q. 5. — Above, for *in this* (fem.) codex Y reads *in this* (neut.).

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. i. m. 7. a. 5. § I.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 1 m. 7 a. 5 § I.

la: Cod. U *fallacia consequentis*, de qua vide tom. I. pag. 628, nota 1. et pag. 691, nota 5. — Mox cod. F *excepit* pro *excipit*.

en: Codex U reads *the fallacy of the consequent*, on which see vol. I p. 628, note 1, and p. 691, note 5. — Shortly after, codex F reads *he excepted* for *he excepts*.

la: In Tractatu *de dictionibus syncategorematicis* (inter opera Petri Hispani), c. de *Dictionibus exceptivis*, circa illud *quod excipitur* datur haec regula: *Dictio exceptiva excipit partem actualiter existentem in suo toto. Ratio est, quia exceptio est extractio alicuius ab aliquo; sed ubicumque est extractio, ibi est actualiter aliquid quod aufertur, et aliquid quod relinquitur... ideo omnes istae sunt incongruae et falsae: omnis equus praeter Socratem currit, et: homo praeter Socratem currit; quia exceptum non est pars actualiter eius, a quo fit exceptio... et licet Socrates sit pars hominis, tamen non est actualiter in suppositione hominis, nisi addatur signum universale [omnis] ad hominem; ideo non sequitur: homo currit, ergo Socrates currit.*

en: In the Tractate *On Syncategorematic Words* (among the works of Peter of Spain), the chapter on *Exceptive Words*, concerning *that which is excepted* this rule is given: *An exceptive word excepts a part actually existing in its whole. The reason is that an exception is the extraction of something from something; but wherever there is extraction, there is actually something which is taken away, and something which is left behind... therefore all these are incongruous and false: "every horse except Socrates runs," and: "a man except Socrates runs"; because the excepted is not actually a part of that from which the exception is made... and although Socrates is a part of "man," yet he is not actually in the supposition of "man," unless the universal sign [every] be added to "man"; therefore it does not follow: "a man runs, therefore Socrates runs."*

la: Vide supra pag. 29, nota 7. — Pro *est idem* plures codd. *dicit idem*, et post *quia* codd. FH repetunt *idem*. Mox pro *quod est* cod. I *quod dicit*.

en: See above p. 29, note 7. — For *is the same* very many codices read *says the same*, and after *because* codices FH repeat *the same*. Shortly after, for *which is* codex I reads *which says*.

la: Cod. E *excellit*. — Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 7. a. 5. § 2.

en: Codex E reads *excels*. — Compare above a. 2 q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 4 m. 7 a. 5 § 2.

la: Vers. 22. — Glossa, *ordinaria* apud Strabum Lyranumque, delibata est ex Beda in hunc loc. — Pro *pauperum* Vat., etiam contra textum originalem, *parvum*; quae lectio per se videtur esse magis conveniens.

en: Verse 22. — The *ordinary* Gloss, in Strabo and Lyra, is drawn from Bede on this passage. — For *of the poor* the Vatican edition, even against the original text, reads *little*; which reading of itself seems to be more fitting.

la: Scilicet altera pars verbi Bedae hic in lit. Magist., c. 7. allegata: *Supernae pacis ingressum spe felici exspectabant.*

en: Namely the other part of Bede's word, here cited in the text of the Master, c. 7: *They awaited with happy hope the entry of the supernal peace.*

la: August., IV. de Anima et eius orig. c. 16. n. 24: *Sinum Abrahae intellige remotam sedem quietis atque secretam, ubi est Abraham. Et ideo Abrahae dictum, non quod ipsius tantum sit, sed quod ipse pater multarum gentium sit positus* [Gen. 17, 5.], *quibus est ad imitandum fidei principatu propositus, sicut Deum Abraham et Deum Isaac et Deum Iacob se Deus vocari voluit* [Exod. 3, 6.], *cum sit innumerabilium Deus.* Cfr. Serm. 14. (alias 110. de Tempore) c. 3. n. 4. — Superius pro *in qua fuit* codd. G I bb (F a secunda manu) *in qua est*, vel *fuit*.

en: Augustine, *On the Soul and its Origin* IV c. 16 n. 24: *Understand the bosom of Abraham to be the remote and secret seat of rest, where Abraham is. And therefore it is called Abraham's, not because it is his alone, but because he himself is set as the father of many nations* [Gen. 17, 5], *to whom he is set forth for imitation by the headship of faith, just as God willed himself to be called the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob* [Exod. 3, 6], *though he be the God of innumerable [others].* Compare *Sermon* 14 (otherwise 110, on the Season) c. 3 n. 4. — Above, for *in which he was* codices G I bb (F by a second hand) read *in which he is*, or *was*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 45. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — De ipso dubio vide B. Albert., hic a. 20; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Compare below d. 45 a. 1 q. 1 f. — On this doubt itself see Blessed Albert, here a. 20; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text.

la: Gen. 16, 11. seqq. — Inferius post *obligati* cod. U addit *et non alii*.

en: Gen. 16, 11 ff. — Below, after *obligated*, codex U adds *and not others*.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2: *Nam et Iob secundum quosdam de Esau stirpe fuisse creditur, qui tamen circumcisus fuisse non legitur.* Gregor., Praefat. in Iob, c. 2. n. 3, tantum dicit, quod Iob fuit «homo gentilis, homo sine Lege».

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments* Book I, part XII, c. 2: *For Job too, according to some, is believed to have been of the stock of Esau, who nevertheless is not read to have been circumcised.* Gregory, *Preface on Job* c. 2 n. 3, says only that Job was «a gentile man, a man without the Law».

la: Gen. 17, 7. seqq.

la: Codd. FH (bb a secunda manu) *semini Abrahae*.

en: Codices FH (bb by a second hand) read *to the seed of Abraham*.

la: Hieronym., Libr. hebraic. quaest. in Gen. 22, 20: *Primogenitus Nachor, fratris Abraham, de Melcha uxore eius, filia Aran, natus est Us, de cuius stirpe Iob descendit, sicut scriptum est in exordio voluminis eius: Vir fuit in terra Us, nomine Iob. Male igitur quidam aestimant, Iob de genere esse Esau; siquidem illud quod in fine libri ipsius habetur [secundum Septuaginta] Eo quod de Syro sermone translatus est; et quartus sit ab Esau, et reliqua quae ibi continentur, in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur.* Cfr. ibid. in 36, 33. Hieronymum sequuntur Isidor. de Ortu et obitu Patrum, c. 24. n. 38; Alcuin., Interrogat. in Gen. interrog. 210. Alteram sententiam tenent praeter Origenem, quem allegat Hieronym., Epist. 72. (alias 126.) n. 2, Athanas., Synopsis Script. S. n. 25; Chrysost., Homil. 7. de Poenitentia, n. 1; Ambros. in Ps. 36, 29. n. 63, et August. XVIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 47. — Mox respicitur Gen. 17, 23. seqq. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 3. a. 2. § 1. et m. 4. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 22; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2.

en: Jerome, *Book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis* 22, 20: *The first-born of Nachor, the brother of Abraham, by Melcha his wife, daughter of Aran, was Us, of whose stock Job descended, as is written in the opening of his book: "There was a man in the land of Us, by name Job." Wrongly therefore do some judge Job to be of the race of Esau; since that which is had at the end of his book [according to the Septuagint], "Because he was translated from the Syriac tongue; and that he is the fourth from Esau," and the rest that is there contained, is not had in the Hebrew volumes.* Compare the same place on 36, 33. Jerome is followed by Isidore, *On the Birth and Death of the Fathers*, c. 24 n. 38; Alcuin, *Questions on Genesis* question 210. The other opinion is held, besides Origen, whom Jerome cites, *Letter* 72 (otherwise 126) n. 2, by Athanasius, *Synopsis of Holy Scripture* n. 25; Chrysostom, *Homily* 7 *On Penitence* n. 1; Ambrose on Ps. 36, 29 n. 63, and Augustine, *On the City of God* XVIII c. 47. — Shortly after, Gen. 17, 23 ff. is referred to. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 4 m. 3 a. 2 § 1 and m. 4 a. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 22; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 2 little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3 a. 2.

en: Compare Exod. 20, 8 and Lev. 19, 3.

la: Vers. 23.

en: Verse 23.

la: Lev. 23, 3. et 28; Num. 29, 1. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 6. a. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. ad 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. et circa lit.

en: Lev. 23, 3 and 28; Num. 29, 1. — On this doubt compare Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 4 m. 6 a. 1; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 3 little-question 1 ad 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3 a. 3 and about the text.

la: Gen. 17, 10. seqq. — Edd. addunt *cum ferrum sit multo aptius*.

en: Gen. 17, 10 ff. — The editions add *since iron is much more apt*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. — Superius pro *est de substantia* plurimi codd. *non est de substantia*, quorum plures subinde pro *sed quantum* substituunt *nec quantum* vel *non quantum* (melius cod. N *nisi quantum... nunquam quantum ad efficaciam*) et pauci tandem *sed quantum ad significantiam* pro *nec quantum ad significantiam*.

en: Compare above a. 2 q. 2. — Above, for *belongs to the substance* very many codices read *does not belong to the substance*, of which several then for *but as regards* substitute *nor as regards* or *not as regards* (better codex N *unless as regards... never as regards efficacy*), and a few finally *but as regards signification* for *nor as regards signification*.

la: Vers. 2. — Mox respicitur I. Cor. 10, 4: *Petra autem erat Christus*, et Act. 7, 51: *Dura cervice* etc.

en: Verse 2. — Shortly after, I Cor. 10, 4 is referred to: *And the rock was Christ*, and Acts 7, 51: *Stiff-necked* etc.

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 6. a. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 2.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV q. 4 m. 6 a. 4; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 3 little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6 q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 38, nota 12. — Edd. addunt *die*. Aliquanto superius pro *erat propria* codd. K aa *est propria*.

en: Compare above p. 38, note 12. — The editions add *day*. Somewhat above, for *was proper* codices K, aa read *is proper*.

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 5. 7, ubi simile dicit de illis qui iam sanctificati spiritu ad baptismum accedunt.

en: See below the text of the Master, d. IV c. 5. 7, where he says the like concerning those who, already sanctified in spirit, approach baptism. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.44–46 (PDF pp.64–66; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 5320–5613) as the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is the **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI for Distinction I, Part II** (*De circumcisione et annexis*) — **eight doubts (Dub. I–VIII)** on the Master's text. The pre-existing skeleton's `## Latin` body was a mis-attributed duplicate of the Pars I dubia (Dub. I–XII, raw 3584–3917) and was entirely replaced. The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered (one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed) through every Respondeo and every footer, so the PDF column-band read is authoritative for those regions per the override; the OCR supplied marker spacing and the clean *videtur*/argument prose.

**This chunk CLOSES Distinction I.** Dub. VIII ends at *…sed quia Abraham non indigebat[^11b]* (p.46 R-col); the next semantic boundary is **DISTINCTIO II** (raw L5614, printed p.47, *De Sacramentis novae legis / Cap. I.*) — verified no d.2 content leaks into this chunk.

**Structure.** A dubia chunk: `has_scholion: false`, `pars: 2`, no `quaestio`/`articulus` fields. Eight doubts, each a short objection (*Videtur enim…*) against a phrase of Lombard's *littera* on circumcision, followed by a *Respondeo* (Dub. V's reply opens *Ad hoc respondent quidam* rather than the bare *Respondeo*). Dub. I (why the Master excepts circumcision among the Sacraments of the Law — its superior efficacy, the divine *pactio*); Dub. II (Bede *Idem salutiferae curationis auxilium* — *idem* = agreement in form not quantity, *curationis* = remedy not enabling); Dub. III (*in sinu Abrahae post mortem* — what the bosom of Abraham is); Dub. IV (*nec ei soli… sed et semini eius* — institution vs precept, the pact binds only Israel, the Job/Esau case); Dub. V (*fiebat die octavo* — circumcision on the Sabbath does not break it, only *opus servile* forbidden); Dub. VI (*fiebat cultro petrino* — the stone knife belongs to substance not efficacy; Joshua 5; *petra Christus*); Dub. VII (*duae sunt res huius Sacramenti* — the *res significata et donata* vs *res significata facienda*, twofold spiritual circumcision *a culpa* / *a miseria*); Dub. VIII (*Abrahae nihil contulit circumcisio* — "conferred nothing" because Abraham had no need, not because inefficacious).

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.44** (running head "44 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): the **top of both columns is the tail of the preceding question `d1-p2-a2-q3`** (its *Quarta positio* / *Ad obiecta* replies 1–4, ending *…aliquid abiiceret*); then the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (spans both columns) and **Dub. I** begin (L-col lower), Dub. I's Respondeo continuing onto the R-col, with **Dub. II** opening at R-bottom. Footer series 1–10; **a2-q3 already claimed nn.1–6** (its body markers), so this chunk picks up **p.44 nn.7–10** → [^7]–[^10] (efficaciora⁷, in-hac⁸, praepararet⁹ in Dub. I; consequens¹⁰ in Dub. II).
- **p.45** (running head "DIST. I. P. II. DUBIA. — 45"; the printed numeral reads "43" but is an OCR/print digit-mangle — the page follows p.44 and precedes p.46): Dub. II Respondeo + Dub. III (L-col); Dub. III Respondeo + Dub. IV (R-col). Footer series **1–10** → [^11], [^12]–[^17], [^18]–[^20] (n.1 = Socrates¹/exceptio rule, n.2 = quantitate², n.3 = excessit³, n.4 = Lucae-16⁴/Glossa, n.5 = sequens-littera⁵, n.6 = fidelium⁶/Augustine, n.7 = pervenire⁷, n.8 = Ismael⁸, n.9 = Hugo⁹/Job, n.10 = promissionis¹⁰).
- **p.46** (running head "46 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): Dub. IV Respondeo tail + Dub. V + Dub. VI (L-col); Dub. VI Respondeo tail + Dub. VII + Dub. VIII (R-col). Footer series **1–11** → [^1], [^2], [^3], [^4], [^5], [^6], [^7b], [^8b], [^9b], [^10b], [^11b] (n.1 = semini¹, n.2 = Nachor²/Jerome, n.3 = Decalogo³, n.4 = Ioannis-7⁴, n.5 = opus-servile⁵, n.6 = cultro-petrino⁶, n.7 = significantiam⁷, n.8 = Iosue-5⁸, n.9 = cultris-petrinis⁹/parallels, n.10 = in-octava¹⁰, n.11 = Abraham-non-indigebat¹¹).

**Apparatus count = 25** (p.44: 4 [nn.7–10]; p.45: 10 [nn.1–10]; p.46: 11 [nn.1–11]). The three per-page footer-restart series keep their original numerals; the p.46 series is suffixed `b` ([^1b]…) to disambiguate from p.45's [^1]–[^10] within the single Markdown footnote namespace. All keyed to body markers in both languages.

**Hand-off picked up ← `bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-a2-q3`:** a2-q3's Notes forwarded that (a) **p.44 is a SHARED page** — q3 closes at the top of p.44's R-col (*…aliquid abiiceret*) immediately above the DUBIA header, claiming only p.44 footers **nn.1–6**; this dubia must start its p.44 footer band at **n.7**, picking up nothing from q3. Honored: [^7] = p.44 n.7 (*Vide infra d.2 a.1 q.2…*), [^8] = n.8, [^9] = n.9, [^10] = n.10. (b) q3 forwarded **no body splice** — honored: this chunk opens fresh with *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…* on the p.44 L-col, grammatically self-contained. All honored.

**Hand-off FORWARDED:** none — this chunk closes Distinction I. **DISTINCTIO II** begins fresh at raw L5614 (printed p.47, PDF 67) with its own `Cap. I. / De Sacramentis novae legis` opener and its own per-page footer series; nothing is forwarded.

**[?] flags:** none. The p.45 running-head numeral OCRs as "43" but the page is unambiguously printed p.45 (it follows the "44 … SENTENTIARUM" head and precedes the "46 … SENTENTIARUM" head; the offset `pdf = printed + 20` and the body continuity confirm it). Codex sigla (E, F, G, H, I, N, U, Y, aa, bb), cross-references (II Sent. d.26/d.27/d.36/d.37; IV Sent. lit. Magistri d.IV; infra d.2 / d.45; supra pp.29/38; *tom. I pag.628/691*), and patristic/scriptural citations (Bede in lit. Magist. c.7; Gloss on Luke 16 from Bede; Augustine *de Anima et eius orig.* IV c.16 + *Serm.* 14; Hugh *de Sacram.* I p.XII c.2; Gregory *Praefat. in Iob*; Jerome *Quaest. hebr. in Gen.* + the Job-stock dossier; Peter of Spain *de dictionibus syncategorematicis*; Josue 5, John 7, I Cor. 10,4, Acts 7,51, Gen. 16/17) resolved cleanly against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF: *dnbitationes*→*dubitationes*, *htteram*/*lilleram*→*litteram*, *dubitalur*→*dubitatur*, *Fuil*→*Fuit*, *efflcaciora*→*efficaciora*, *circuincisionem*→*circumcisionem*, *Sacramenlum*→*Sacramentum*, *Magisler*→*Magister*, *Giossa*→*Glossa*, *eiiciebanlur*-type fragments, *consequens*, *praepararet*, *Ilem*→*Item*, *Imptismo*→*baptismo*, *iuvare*, *misericordiam*, *superabundantis*, *circumcidendi*, *Iosue*, *significantiam*, *indigebat* — all confirmed from the 450 dpi 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