title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 621 -->

### Articulus I. *De ordinibus quoad characteris impressionem.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum in omnibus ordinibus imprimatur character.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur primo, quod in omnibus imprimatur character:

1. Per definitionem ordinis[^1]: « Ordo est signaculum, in quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato »: si ergo haec est recta ratio, competit omnibus ratio signaculi; sed non est signaculum materiale, sed spirituale, hoc autem est character: ergo etc.

2. Item, omne Sacramentum iterari potest, quod non imprimit characterem; sed nullus ordo potest iterari, sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur in distinctione sequenti[^2]: ergo in singulis imprimitur character.

3. Item, character est signaculum impressum, configurans nos Domino Iesu Christo; sed Dominus omnes ordines exhibuit, sicut Magister inducendo probat in littera[^3]: si ergo in omnibus eidem configuramur, videtur, quod in omnibus character imprimatur.

4. Item, impressio characteris sive signaculi est ad distinctionem secundum aliquem statum; sed in omni ordine ponitur quis in statu ministrandi determinato: ergo in omni ordine imprimitur character.

**Contra:** 1. Character est signaculum spirituale: ergo in illis solis imprimitur, in quibus datur aliqua potestas nova et spiritualis; sed potestas omnium ordinum inferiorum est corporalis, ut aperire ostium sive custodire, prophetias dicere, candelabra deferre: ergo in his nullo modo imprimitur character.

2. Item, character est signaculum, quod respicit sive habet imprimi in imagine ad configurandam ipsam Deo; sed actus quorundam ordinum solum sunt circa ministeria inferiora: ergo si talia non spectant ad imaginem configurandam Deo, patet etc.

3. Item, character est signaculum indelebile: ergo si collocat hominem in aliquo statu, impossibile est ab illo statu recedere, quin fiat contumelia Sacramento[^4]; sed qui sunt in minoribus ordinibus constituti possunt licite redire ad laicatum: ergo in eis character non imprimitur.

4. Item, character est signaculum perpetuum, quod manet in anima separata: ergo non debet imprimi nisi ad actum perpetuum; sed actus ministerialis istorum ordinum inferiorum non est perpetuus: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** In omnibus ordinibus character imprimitur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod character in solo ordine sacerdotali imprimitur, sed in ordinibus inferioribus solum
<!-- page 622 -->
disponitur quis ad talis characteris susceptionem. Propter suam enim nobilitatem de congruo exigit ordines inferiores habere praevios. — Sed cum ordines inferiores, saltem sacri[^5], sint de perfectione Sacramenti, et in his fiat segregatio perpetua clericorum a laicis; non videtur in solo sacerdotio character imprimi.

Et ideo dixerunt alii, quod character imprimitur in *omnibus ordinibus sacris*, sed non in minoribus. Et huius signum est, quia isti non possunt laicis commisceri, alii vero sic. — Sed cum nullus ordo iterari possit, et quilibet habeat aliquid de ratione Sacramenti; videtur, quod in quolibet sit aliquid, quod habet rationem *rei* et *signi* et rationem *signaculi perpetui*; hoc autem characterem dicimus: non igitur videtur, quod in illis solis imprimatur.

Et ideo est tertia opinio probabilior, quod in *omnibus ordinibus* character imprimatur, sicut rationes expresse ostendunt. Cum enim character sit signaculum distinctivum et perpetuum et Christo configurativum; et hoc est in omnibus ordinibus reperire: non est dubitandum, characterem in omnibus imprimi.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est signaculum spirituale; dicendum, quod in omnibus ordinibus datur potestas vel *spiritualis de se*, vel *ad spiritualem ordinans*. Unde potestas *ostiarii* est ad admittendum homines ad divinum sacrificium; potestas *lectoris* non solum ad excitandum auditum exteriorem, verum etiam interiorem; et sic de aliis, sicut melius patebit, quando agetur de distinctione ordinum[^6].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de configuratione, dicendum, quod character ordinis, ut est consummativus[^7], animam configurat Deo secundum imaginem ut assimilatam *Deo*; et hoc fit in ordine supremo. — Vel dicendum, quod magis proprie configurat tale signaculum *Christo*; unde cum Christus triplex habuerit officium, scilicet *ministri* in agendo, *pugilis* in patiendo, *redemptoris* in moriendo; triplex fuit Sacramentum, secundum quod homo Christo configuratur his tribus modis; unde tantum triplex est Sacramentum, in quo fit characteris impressio. Nam baptismus configurat *morienti* et *redimenti*, unde consepelitur homo in mortem[^8]; confirmatio configurat *patienti* et *pugnanti*, ideo signum crucis fit in fronte; sed ordo configurat *ministranti* et *operanti*, sicut recte in littera[^9] ostenditur. Et quia in omnibus configuratur quis Christo secundum plus et minus, ideo in omnibus character imprimitur.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de indelebilitate et perpetuitate, dicendum, quod character omnium ordinum manet in anima sive revertentis ad laicatum, sive morientis ut *signaculum distinctivum*; et hoc vel ad gloriam, si bene usus est, vel ad ignominiam, si male; nec oportet, quod maneat semper quantum ad *usum ministerii*, quia iste usus quodam modo convertitur in praemium[^10]. Et per hoc patet ultimum.

english:
<!-- page 621 -->

### Article I. *On the orders as regards the impression of a character.*
### Question I. *Whether a character is impressed in all orders.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown first that a character is impressed in all [orders]:

1. From the definition of order[^1]: « An order is a seal, in which spiritual power is handed over to the one ordained »: if therefore this is the correct account, the account of a seal befits all [orders]; but it is not a material seal, but a spiritual one, and this is a character: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, every Sacrament that does not impress a character can be repeated; but no order can be repeated, as Augustine says, and as is had in the following distinction[^2]: therefore in each single [order] a character is impressed.

3. Likewise, a character is an impressed seal, configuring us to the Lord Jesus Christ; but the Lord displayed all the orders, as the Master proves by adducing [them] in the text[^3]: if therefore in all of them we are configured to the same [Christ], it seems that in all of them a character is impressed.

4. Likewise, the impression of a character or seal is for distinction according to some state; but in every order one is placed in a determinate state of ministering: therefore in every order a character is impressed.

**On the contrary:** 1. A character is a spiritual seal: therefore it is impressed only in those [orders] in which some new and spiritual power is given; but the power of all the lower orders is bodily, such as to open the door or to guard [it], to recite prophecies, to carry the candelabra: therefore in these a character is in no way impressed.

2. Likewise, a character is a seal which regards, or is to be impressed upon, the image so as to configure it to God; but the acts of certain orders are only about the lower ministries: therefore if such [acts] do not pertain to configuring the image to God, it is evident etc.

3. Likewise, a character is an indelible seal: therefore if it places a man in some state, it is impossible to withdraw from that state without an affront being done to the Sacrament[^4]; but those who are constituted in the minor orders can lawfully return to the lay state: therefore in them a character is not impressed.

4. Likewise, a character is a perpetual seal, which remains in the separated soul: therefore it ought not to be impressed except for a perpetual act; but the ministerial act of those lower orders is not perpetual: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** In all orders a character is impressed.

**I respond:** It must be said that some wished to say that a character is impressed only in the sacerdotal order, but that in the lower orders one is only
<!-- page 622 -->
disposed to the reception of such a character. For on account of its nobility [the sacerdotal order] by congruity requires that the lower orders precede [it]. — But since the lower orders, at least the sacred ones[^5], belong to the perfection of the Sacrament, and in these there occurs a perpetual segregation of the clergy from the laity, it does not seem that a character is impressed in the priesthood alone.

And therefore others said that a character is impressed in *all the sacred orders*, but not in the minor ones. And a sign of this is that these [in sacred orders] cannot mingle with the laity, whereas the others can. — But since no order can be repeated, and each has something of the account of a Sacrament, it seems that in each there is something which has the account of *thing* and *sign* and the account of a *perpetual seal*; and this we call a character: therefore it does not seem that it is impressed in those [sacred orders] alone.

And therefore there is a third, more probable opinion, that a character is impressed in *all orders*, as the arguments expressly show. For since a character is a distinctive and perpetual seal that configures to Christ, and this is to be found in all the orders, it is not to be doubted that a character is impressed in all.

1. To that which is objected, that it is a spiritual seal, it must be said that in all orders a power is given, either *spiritual in itself* or *ordering to the spiritual*. Hence the power of the *doorkeeper* is for admitting men to the divine sacrifice; the power of the *lector* is not only for stirring up the exterior hearing, but also the interior; and so of the others, as will better appear when the distinction of the orders is treated[^6].

2. To that which is objected concerning configuration, it must be said that the character of order, insofar as it is consummative[^7], configures the soul to God according to the image as assimilated to *God*; and this occurs in the highest order. — Or it must be said that such a seal more properly configures to *Christ*; whence, since Christ had a threefold office, namely of *minister* in acting, of *fighter* in suffering, of *redeemer* in dying, there was a threefold Sacrament, according to which man is configured to Christ in these three modes; whence there is only a threefold Sacrament in which the impression of a character takes place. For baptism configures to the *dying* and *redeeming* one, whence a man is buried together [with Christ] into death[^8]; confirmation configures to the *suffering* and *fighting* one, and therefore the sign of the cross is made on the forehead; but order configures to the *ministering* and *working* one, as is rightly shown in the text[^9]. And because in all [three] one is configured to Christ according to more and less, therefore in all a character is impressed.

3. 4. To that which is objected concerning indelibility and perpetuity, it must be said that the character of all the orders remains in the soul, whether of one returning to the lay state or of one dying, as a *distinctive seal*; and this either for glory, if he has used it well, or for ignominy, if badly; nor is it necessary that it remain always as regards the *use of the ministry*, because that use is in a certain manner converted into reward[^10]. And by this the last [objection] is evident.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 13.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 13.

la: Cap. 1, ubi adducuntur verba August., II. contra Epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. n. 28. — De charactere cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. per totam.

en: Chapter 1, where the words of Augustine are adduced, *Against the Letter of Parmenianus* Book II, c. 13. n. 28. — On the character cf. above d. 6. p. I. throughout.

la: Hic c. 5. seqq. — Verbo *exhibuit* Vat. praemittit *in semelipso*, cod. E a secunda manu *in se*.

en: Here c. 5 ff. — To the word *exhibuit* [displayed] the Vatican [edition] prefixes *in semelipso* [in himself], codex E by a second hand [reads] *in se* [in himself].

la: Cfr. supra pag. 600, nota 7.

en: Cf. above p. 600, note 7.

la: Scilicet subdiaconatus et diaconatus; qui non vocantur *minores*, sed cum sacerdotio *maiores*. Cfr. infra dub. 5.

en: Namely the subdiaconate and the diaconate; which are not called *minor* [orders], but, together with the priesthood, *major* [orders]. Cf. below dubium 5.

en: Article 2. q. 1 and 4.

la: Ita cod. E, alii codd. male *conservativus*, edd. *conservantis*.

en: Thus codex E; the other codices wrongly [read] *conservativus*, the editions *conservantis*.

la: Rom. 6, 4: *Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem.* Cfr. Col. 2, 12. — Post *unde* Vat. addit *in ipso* et inferius voci *fronte* cum ed. I praemittit *media*.

en: Romans 6, 4: *For we are buried together with him by baptism into death.* Cf. Colossians 2, 12. — After *unde* [whence] the Vatican [edition] adds *in ipso* [in him], and lower down, to the word *fronte* [forehead], together with edition I, it prefixes *media* [middle].

la: Hic c. 5. seqq. — De principio huius solut. (*configurat Christo*) cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 2. ad quaest. incid. 2. — Mox post *in omnibus* secunda manus in cod. bb addidit *ordinibus*.

en: Here c. 5 ff. — On the beginning of this solution (*it configures to Christ*) cf. above d. 6. p. I. q. 2. in reply to incidental question 2. — Just after *in omnibus* [in all] a second hand in codex bb added *ordinibus* [orders].

la: Edd. *praemium vel supplicium.*

en: The editions [read] *praemium vel supplicium* [reward or punishment]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec quaestio intime cohaeret cum alia quaestione, scilicet: utrum omnes ordines sint Sacramenta. *Antiqui* doctores, excepto Durando (hic q. I. n. 9.), hoc affirmarunt « probabilius » etiam quoad ordines *minores*; unde cum S. Bonav. S. Thom. (hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 35. a. 2.) reprobat 2. opinionem hic in corp. relatam. Durand. vero docet, quod « *ordo* proprie et simpliciter dictus, et qui est Sacramentum, est solum *sacerdotium*, comprehendendo sub sacerdotio episcopatum, qui est sacerdotium completum et perfectum; ceteri autem dicuntur ordines *secundum quid* nec sunt Sacramenta, sed potius quaedam sacramentalia, antecedentia ad sacerdotium de congruitate et non de necessitate ». — Sed de *numero* ordinum quaestio redit infra a. 2. q. 1, et ibid. q. 3. specialiter de *episcopatu* ut est ordo et Sacramentum. — Nostra autem aetate plerique docent, quatuor ordines minores et probabilius etiam subdiaconatum non imprimere characterem nec esse Sacramenta; tamen presbyteratum et episcopatum certo habere rationem Sacramenti, et probabilius etiam diaconatum.
De hac 1. quaestione praeter citatos: Scot., hic q. unica n. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 17. 25. 26. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — Durand., loc. cit. et praecipue q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** De 2. quaestione Scot. (loc. cit. n. 11.) resolvit, « plures esse characteres, et probabilius, quod alterius speciei ». Omnes tamen ad unum finem ordinantur et unum Sacramentum constituunt, ut supra p. I. a. 2. q. 4. probatum est. Rem tangit S. Thom. locis citt. et q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 37. a. 2.
De eadem: B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 23. 34. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. ad 2. — Durand., loc. cit. — Dionys. Carth. rem tangit hic q. 3. 5.

**III.** Solutio 3. quaestionis est communis; non autem hic comprehenditur etiam episcopatus, de quo cfr. infra a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3. Cfr. S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 5; Suppl. q. 35. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. n. 9.

**IV.** Quoad 4. quaestionem plurimi coaevi strictius quam Bonav. sustinent, quod tantum in porrectione instrumentorum cum verbis eam comitantibus imprimatur character. Plerique hoc generaliter intelligunt de omnibus ordinibus, etiam de sacerdotio, quod scilicet tradatur per calicis cum vino et patenae
<!-- page 623 -->
cum pane porrectionem, diaconatus autem per dationem libri Evangeliorum. Hoc disertis verbis etiam in Decreto pro Armenis ponitur. Sed iam amicus S. Bonaventurae Petr. a Tar. a generali regula excipit diaconatum et presbyteratum, quos tradi asserit impositione manuum. Hoc Durand. restringit ad diaconatum. — Cum autem orientalis Ecclesia utrumque sacrum Ordinem sola manuum impositione conferat, et Decretum pro Armenis quoad tradita de ritibus in Sacramentorum administratione observandis videatur esse potius instructio practica quam nova definitio dogmatica; recentiores theologi potius sententiae Petri a Tar. favent quoad ordines, quibus ratio Sacramenti certo competit. Hinc *speculative* loquendo, nunc valde probabile esse censetur, in collatione sacerdotii *manuum impositionem* cum forma *essentialiter* requiri, non vero *unctionem manuum*; multi etiam dicunt, contradicentibus aliis, ritum tangendi instrumenta esse tantum loco *materiae accidentalis*.
De eadem 4. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 8. seq. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Suppl. q. 37. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 38. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. n. 6. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question is intimately connected with another question, namely: whether all the orders are Sacraments. The *ancient* doctors, with the exception of Durandus (here q. I. n. 9.), affirmed this « as more probable » even as regards the *minor* orders; whence, together with St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas (here q. I. a. 2. subquestion 2; Supplement q. 35. a. 2.) rejects the 2nd opinion related here in the body. But Durandus teaches that « an *order* properly and simply so called, and which is a Sacrament, is the *priesthood* alone, comprehending under the priesthood the episcopate, which is the complete and perfect priesthood; but the rest are called orders *in a qualified sense* and are not Sacraments, but rather certain sacramentals, antecedent to the priesthood by congruity and not by necessity ». — But the question about the *number* of the orders recurs below in a. 2. q. 1, and in the same place q. 3. specially concerning the *episcopate* as it is an order and a Sacrament. — In our age, however, most [theologians] teach that the four minor orders and, more probably, also the subdiaconate do not impress a character nor are Sacraments; but that the presbyterate and episcopate certainly have the account of a Sacrament, and, more probably, also the diaconate.
On this 1st question, besides those cited: Scotus, here q. unica n. 8. — B. Albert, here a. 17. 25. 26. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 3. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 2. — Durandus, loc. cit. and especially q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** On the 2nd question Scotus (loc. cit. n. 11.) resolves « that there are several characters, and, more probably, that they are of a different species ». Yet all are ordered to one end and constitute one Sacrament, as was proved above p. I. a. 2. q. 4. St. Thomas touches on the matter in the places cited and q. 2. a. 1; Supplement q. 37. a. 2.
On the same: B. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 23. 34. — Peter of Tarantasia, loc. cit. subquestion 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. ad 2. — Durandus, loc. cit. — Dionysius the Carthusian touches on the matter here q. 3. 5.

**III.** The solution of the 3rd question is the common one; here, however, the episcopate is not also comprehended, concerning which cf. below a. 2. q. 3. fundamentum 3. Cf. St. Thomas, here q. I. a. 2. subquestion 5; Supplement q. 35. a. 5. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2. a. 3. subquestion 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. n. 9.

**IV.** As regards the 4th question, very many of [Bonaventure's] contemporaries hold, more strictly than Bonaventure, that a character is impressed only in the handing over of the instruments with the words accompanying it. Most understand this generally of all the orders, even of the priesthood, namely that it is conferred by the handing over of the chalice with wine and of the paten
<!-- page 623 -->
with bread, but the diaconate by the giving of the book of the Gospels. This is put in express words also in the Decree for the Armenians. But already the friend of St. Bonaventure, Peter of Tarantasia, excepts from the general rule the diaconate and the presbyterate, which he asserts are conferred by the imposition of hands. Durandus restricts this to the diaconate. — But since the Eastern Church confers both sacred Orders by the imposition of hands alone, and the Decree for the Armenians, as regards what is handed down about the rites to be observed in the administration of the Sacraments, seems to be rather a practical instruction than a new dogmatic definition, more recent theologians rather favor the opinion of Peter of Tarantasia as regards the orders to which the account of a Sacrament certainly belongs. Hence, *speculatively* speaking, it is now held to be highly probable that in the collation of the priesthood the *imposition of hands* with the form is *essentially* required, but not the *anointing of the hands*; many also say, with others contradicting, that the rite of touching the instruments is only in place of an *accidental matter*.
On the same 4th question: Scotus, here q. unica n. 8. f. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 3; Supplement q. 37. a. 5. — B. Albert, here a. 38. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 3. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. n. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

---

translators_notes:
- **Vol IV override / provenance:** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p62{1,2,3}-{L,R}-*`), which are authoritative for this two-column cascade-shattered volume; the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 67645–67797) was used only as the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 20` (pp. 621–623 = pdf 641–643).
- **Page verify:** running heads confirm `DIST. XXIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` / `622` / `623`. Frontmatter `printed_pages` corrected from [622, 623] to **[621, 622, 623]** — the Article I opener + Quaestio I title + all four *videtur* arguments + the *Contra* begin on p. 621 (the preceding *divisio*/TRACTATIO occupies the top of p. 621 and belongs to `d24-p2-divisio`). The clipped p. 622 bands were regenerated at split 2120 (L) / 1780 (R) per the standard vol4 fix.
- **Shared-page footer split (p. 621):** p. 621's source-notes **1–2** anchor in the *divisio*/TRACTATIO text ("Magister in littera…"; "…quod vocem etc.") and are the property of `bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-divisio`; this chunk claims only p. 621 source-notes **3–6** (→ [^1]–[^4]). The apparent OCR tick after *imprimatur* in the Quaestio I title is a stray mark, not a footnote anchor (notes 1–2 are consumed by the divisio, and the title carries no footer text).
- **Scholion disposition:** the Article I SCHOLION (OCR garbled the header as `SCHOLIOK`; the band clearly reads **SCHOLION**) has four sections **I–IV that cover all four questions of Article I** (I → this q1; II → q2; III → q3; IV → q4). It is rendered here in full (La + En) as the last subsection of q1; the sibling chunks q2/q3/q4 therefore carry no scholion (`has_scholion: false`), which is correct, not a dropout. Scholion IV runs off the bottom of p. 622 and continues across the top of p. 623 (before `QUAESTIO II`); the `<!-- page 623 -->` break falls mid-sentence at "…calicis cum vino et patenae | cum pane porrectionem…". The scholion's inline source-reference lists ("De hac 1. quaestione…", etc.) are scholion body, not page apparatus.
- **Apparatus count:** 10 footnotes claimed (p. 621 notes 3–6; p. 622 notes 1–6). p. 623 contributes no numbered footers to this chunk (its footers belong to q2, which opens below the scholion tail).
- **No unresolved `[?]` flags.** Two citation digits verified against the bands where the djvu OCR diverged: scholion I "Suppl. q. **35**. a. 2." (OCR read 33) and scholion II "Scot. (loc. cit. n. **11**.)" (OCR read "M.") — both resolved from the 450 dpi bands.
- **Aside (not this chunk):** the q2 band title reads *Utrum in diversis ordinibus diversi characteres imprimantur*, which differs from the current `d24-p2-a1-q2` frontmatter `title_la` ("Utrum character ordinis sit unus vel plures"). Flagged for the q2 promotion pass; not edited here.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 623 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in diversis ordinibus diversi characteres imprimantur.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in diversis ordinibus diversi characteres imprimantur. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia ordo omnis, naturaliter loquendo, est signaculum[^1]: ergo cum sint plures ordines, sunt ergo plura signacula; sed illa signacula spiritualia characteres appellantur: ergo etc.

2. Item, potestates ordinum sunt simpliciter diversae, sicut patet in ostiario et acolytho — claudere enim ostium et ferre cereum, sive corporaliter, sive spiritualiter intelligatur, est actus omnino diversus — si ergo potestates distinguuntur per actus[^2], et signacula distinguentia secundum diversitates potestatum: ergo diversi characteres.

3. Item, signum debet respondere signato, et signatum signo: si ergo septiformis gratia datur[^3], quae est res ultima; et exteriora signa in diversis ordinibus simpliciter sunt diversa; videtur ex hoc, quod characteres, qui sunt signata et signa, sint diversi.

4. Item, si in quolibet ordine imprimitur unus character; cum in quolibet ordine imprimatur, ut supra[^4] probatum est, tunc idem character iteratur; sed hoc est impossibile, et hoc facere est contumeliam facere Sacramento: videtur igitur, quod post primum ordinem, qui alium recipit, nihil recipiat, sed Sacramento contumeliam faciat. Sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. In Sacramento baptismi non imprimitur nisi unus character, et similiter in Sacramento confirmationis: ergo pari ratione in Sacramento ordinis.

2. Item, Sacramentum ordinis essentialius respicit characterem quam aliquod aliud Sacramentum, in quo character imprimitur: si ergo ordo unum est Sacramentum[^5], quantumcumque plurificetur, videtur, quod unus character in eo imprimatur.

3. Item, si plures et diversi characteres imprimuntur, aut ergo diversitate specifica, aut numerali. Non numerali, quia impossibile est, plura accidentia eiusdem speciei esse in eodem subiecto[^6]. Si specifica; sed ex diversis secundum formam et speciem, manentibus diversis, non fit unum, nisi unum sit materiale respectu alterius: si ergo character respectu characteris non est materialis et specie differt, ergo nunquam faciunt unum Sacramentum, si diversi sunt.

4. Item, natura inferior non facit per plura quod potest facere per unum[^7], ergo nec natura superior: si ergo ordinati per unum characterem possunt distingui, sicut et baptizati; videtur, quod unus solus character in ordine imprimatur.

Quaeritur ergo, quae sit necessitas, quare plures characteres imprimantur.

### Conclusio.

> In diversis ordinibus diversi imprimuntur characteres.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod inter opinantes, in omnibus ordinibus esse characterem, duplex opinio esse consuevit.

Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod omnes ordines in uno charactere uniuntur, differente tamen secundum maiorem completionem et minorem, <!-- page 624 -->sicut si sigillum imprimatur in cera tenuiter et deinde fortius[^8] et amplius, paulative procedendo secundum plus et plus, quousque veniatur ad statum perfectum. Si autem quaeras, quae sit ratio talis impressionis; respondent breviter, quod hoc est propter characteris imperfectionem. — Sed si hoc esset, tunc impossibile esset promoveri ad sequentem ordinem, omisso priori, quod est contra iura[^9] — Si hoc verum esset, non esset differentia inter ordines nisi secundum magis et minus; quod est manifeste falsum, cum potestates in diversis ordinibus sint ad diversa ordinatae. — Postremo, si hoc esset, character reciperet magis; sed quaeritur, quare non reciperet minus; quodsi hoc esset, tunc esset delebilis. Quare etiam characteres aliorum Sacramentorum magis et minus non recipiunt, ut dicatur « baptizatus, vel confirmatus magis et minus[^10] »? Quod cum non sit conveniens dicere, non est conveniens hanc positionem ponere.

Et ideo dicitur aliter et probabilius, quod in diversis ordinibus diversi imprimuntur characteres. — Ratio autem huius est ista, quia non solum qui ad Dei cultum assumuntur distinguuntur ab aliis, immo etiam inter ministrantes ordo est et distinctio. Et ulterius, gradus illi et potestates ministrandi, si semel dantur, nunquam auferuntur, etiam si ad altius ministerium elevetur qui in minori ministraverat. Et ideo in diversis ordinibus diversa signacula debent imprimi, secundum quae nobis diversitas potestatum ministrandi et perpetuitas innotescat; tale autem signaculum est character: et ideo in diversis ordinibus diversi imprimuntur characteres. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Sacramento baptismi et confirmationis, patet responsio, quod non est simile, pro eo quod non ponunt ita diversitatem, sicut ponit ordinis Sacramentum, quod de sui ratione implicat diversitatem graduum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod character essentialiter est Sacramentum; dicendum, quod verum est, sed non, nisi prout comparatur ad ulterius signatum. Sicut ergo una linea est scriptura[^11], et duae et tres et quatuor; et tamen multarum linearum aggregatio ad unam sententiam exprimendam non est una scriptura: sic in proposito est intelligendum, quia omnis talis animae configuratio ordinatur ad hoc, quod ei inscribatur signaculum, secundum quod homo Dei minister perfectus esse iudicatur. Et cum Sacramentum dicat quid ad alterum, et characteres uniuntur secundum quod ad alterum; ideo plures characteres unum faciunt[^12] Sacramentum.

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum differant specie, vel numero; dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de characteribus: aut *in se*, aut *prout uniuntur* in unitate et integritate Sacramenti. Si *in se*, sic differunt sicut diversae species numeri, sicut binarius et ternarius; si *prout uniuntur* in unitate Sacramenti, sic, quemadmodum binarius et ternarius constituunt senarium et habent rationem partis constitutivae, et complementum ponitur in senario[^13]; sic intelligendum est in proposito suo modo, non sic simile omnino.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, iam patet responsio, quoniam istud verum est et locum habet, quando per unum potest ita fieri, ut per plura[^14]; hoc autem in proposito non est sic, pro eo quod oportet, ordinatos non solum ab aliis, sed etiam inter se distingui[^15].

---

english:
<!-- page 623 -->

### Question II. *Whether in different orders different characters are impressed.*

Secondly it is asked whether in different orders different characters are impressed. And that they are, it seems:

1. Because every order, naturally speaking, is a seal[^1]: therefore, since there are several orders, there are therefore several seals; but those spiritual seals are called characters: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the powers of the orders are simply diverse, as is clear in the doorkeeper and the acolyte — for to shut the door and to carry the candle, whether it be understood bodily or spiritually, is an altogether diverse act — if therefore the powers are distinguished by acts[^2], the seals too that distinguish [them are distinguished] according to the diversities of the powers: therefore [there are] diverse characters.

3. Likewise, a sign ought to correspond to the thing signified, and the thing signified to the sign: if therefore the sevenfold grace is given[^3], which is the ultimate reality; and the outward signs in the different orders are simply diverse; it seems from this that the characters, which are things signified and signs, are diverse.

4. Likewise, if in each order one character is impressed; since in each order it is impressed, as was proved above[^4], then the same character is repeated; but this is impossible, and to do this is to do an outrage to the sacrament: it seems therefore that after the first order, one who receives another would receive nothing, but would do an outrage to the sacrament. But this is unfitting: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. In the sacrament of baptism only one character is impressed, and likewise in the sacrament of confirmation: therefore by parity of reasoning [only one] in the sacrament of order.

2. Likewise, the sacrament of order regards the character more essentially than any other sacrament in which a character is impressed: if therefore order is one sacrament[^5], however much it be multiplied, it seems that one character is impressed in it.

3. Likewise, if several and diverse characters are impressed, then [they are diverse] either by specific diversity or by numerical. Not by numerical, since it is impossible that several accidents of the same species be in the same subject[^6]. If by specific; but from things diverse according to form and species, remaining diverse, one thing is not made, unless one be material with respect to the other: if therefore a character, with respect to a character, is not material and differs in species, then they never make one sacrament, if they are diverse.

4. Likewise, a lower nature does not do through several [things] what it can do through one[^7], therefore neither [does] a higher nature: if therefore the ordained can be distinguished through one character, just as the baptized [are], it seems that one character alone is impressed in order.

It is asked, therefore, what is the necessity why several characters are impressed.

### Conclusion.

> In different orders different characters are impressed.

**I respond:** It must be said that among those who hold that in all orders there is a character, a twofold opinion has been customary.

For some have wished to say that all the orders are united in one character, differing however according to greater completion and lesser, <!-- page 624 -->just as if a seal be impressed in wax lightly and then more firmly[^8] and fully, proceeding gradually according to more and more, until one arrives at the perfect state. But if you ask what is the ground of such an impression, they answer briefly that this is on account of the imperfection of the character. — But if this were so, then it would be impossible to be promoted to a following order with the prior one omitted, which is contrary to the laws[^9] — If this were true, there would be no difference between the orders except according to more and less; which is manifestly false, since the powers in the different orders are ordered to diverse [things]. — Finally, if this were so, the character would receive more; but it is asked why it would not receive less; and if this were so, then it would be delible. Why also do the characters of the other sacraments not receive more and less, so that it be said "one baptized, or confirmed, more and less[^10]"? And since it is not fitting to say this, it is not fitting to posit this position.

And therefore it is said otherwise and more probably that in different orders different characters are impressed. — Now the ground of this is this, that not only are those who are taken up for the worship of God distinguished from others, but rather even among those who minister there is order and distinction. And further, those grades and powers of ministering, if once given, are never taken away, even if he who had ministered in a lesser [order] be elevated to a higher ministry. And therefore in different orders different seals ought to be impressed, by which the diversity of the powers of ministering and their perpetuity may become known to us; but such a seal is the character: and therefore in different orders different characters are impressed. — And the reasons showing this are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the sacrament of baptism and of confirmation, the answer is clear, that it is not similar, on this account, that they do not posit diversity in such a way as the sacrament of order posits [it], which of its own nature implies a diversity of grades.

2. To that which is objected, that the character is essentially a sacrament; it must be said that this is true, but only insofar as it is compared to a further thing signified. Just as, therefore, one line is a writing[^11], and two and three and four [lines are]; and yet the aggregation of many lines to express one sentence is not one writing: so it must be understood in the matter at hand, since every such configuration of the soul is ordered to this, that a seal be inscribed upon it, according to which a man is judged to be a perfect minister of God. And since a sacrament expresses something [directed] to another, and the characters are united according to what [is directed] to another; therefore several characters make[^12] one sacrament.

3. To that which is asked, whether they differ in species or in number; it must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking of characters: either *in themselves*, or *as they are united* in the unity and integrity of the sacrament. If *in themselves*, they differ thus as the diverse species of number, as the number two and the number three; if *as they are united* in the unity of the sacrament, thus, just as two and three constitute six and have the character of a constitutive part, and the completion is placed in the six[^13]; so it must be understood in the matter at hand, in its own way, not altogether similar in this respect.

4. To that which is objected last, the answer is already clear, since that is true and has its place when through one [thing] it can be done just as through several[^14]; but this is not so in the matter at hand, on this account, that the ordained must be distinguished not only from others, but also among themselves[^15].

---

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 13. — Pro *ordo omnis*, quod habent codd. Q bb, maior pars codd. *ordo esse*, plures tantum *ordo*, ed. 1 *ordinis esse*, Vat. *ordo secundum esse*, quae etiam cum aliquot codd. *essentialiter* pro *naturaliter* et mox post *plura signacula* cum ed. 1 addit *spiritualia*.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 13. — For *ordo omnis* ("every order"), which codd. Q bb have, the greater part of the codices [read] *ordo esse*, several only *ordo*, ed. 1 *ordinis esse*, the Vatican [edition] *ordo secundum esse*, which also, with some codices, [reads] *essentialiter* for *naturaliter*, and soon after, following *plura signacula*, together with ed. 1, adds *spiritualia*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 619, nota 1. — Post *distinguentia* codd. FNaa addunt *sunt*.

en: Cf. above, p. 619, note 1. — After *distinguentia* codd. FNaa add *sunt*.

la: Cod. G addit *in diversis ordinibus*, ut insinuat Magister, hic in lit. c. 2. (Cfr. Comment. p. I. dub. 2.). Idem cod. G inferius post *ex hoc* legit: *quod etiam characteres sint diversi, qui* etc. Nos secuti cod. K (I a secunda manu) supplevimus in fine arg. *sint diversi* (codd. Q bb *sunt diversi*); cod. O pro *et signa* substituit *sunt diversa*, secunda manus in cod. P *sunt diversa sicut et signa*.

en: Cod. G adds *in diversis ordinibus*, as the Master intimates, here in the text, c. 2. (Cf. the Commentary, p. I, dub. 2.). The same cod. G, below, after *ex hoc*, reads: *that the characters too are diverse, who* etc. We, following cod. K (I by a second hand), have supplied at the end of the argument *sint diversi* (codd. Q bb *sunt diversi*); cod. O, for *et signa*, substitutes *sunt diversa*, [and] a second hand in cod. P [reads] *sunt diversa sicut et signa*.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Inferius pro *et hoc facere* Vat. *et hoc dicere*.

en: The preceding question. — Below, for *et hoc facere* the Vatican [edition reads] *et hoc dicere*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra p. I. a. 2. q. 4.

en: As was shown above, p. I, a. 2, q. 4.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 119, nota 8. — Seq. propos. insinuatur ab Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 49. (VI. c. 13.).

en: See vol. II, p. 119, note 8. — The following proposition is intimated by Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII, text 49 (VI, c. 13).

la: Secundum Aristot.; cfr. tom. III. pag. 277, nota 1.

en: According to Aristotle; cf. vol. III, p. 277, note 1.

la: Ita codd. L aa bb, a quibus cod. E discedit tantum in eo, quod pro *tenuiter* substituit *tenera*; cod. K (I a secunda manu) *tenera tenet ideam fortius*, cod. U *teneri, ut ideam fortius et amplius paulative procedendo formet secundum* etc., alii codd. communiter cum edd. *tenuerit ideam fortius*. Superius pro *esse consuevit* cod. F *consuevit distingui*.

en: Thus codd. L aa bb, from which cod. E departs only in this, that for *tenuiter* it substitutes *tenera*; cod. K (I by a second hand) [reads] *tenera tenet ideam fortius*, cod. U *teneri, ut ideam fortius et amplius paulative procedendo formet secundum*, etc., the other codices commonly, together with the editions, *tenuerit ideam fortius*. Above, for *esse consuevit* cod. F [reads] *consuevit distingui*.

la: Vide quaest. seq. — Aliquanto inferius post *si hoc esset* edd. addunt *verum*.

en: See the following question. — Somewhat below, after *si hoc esset* the editions add *verum*.

la: Secundum August. supra pag. 99, nota 8. allegatum.

en: According to Augustine, cited above on p. 99, in note 8.

la: Edd. *scripta*.

en: The editions [read] *scripta*.

la: Vide supra p. I. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Inferius pro *faciunt* cod. F *possunt facere*.

en: See above, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — Below, for *faciunt* cod. F [reads] *possunt facere*.

la: Ut monstratum est supra p. I. a. 2. q. 4. in corp. Cfr. quaest. seq. ad 2, ubi de dissimilitudine huius exempli. — Superius pro *ternarius* edd. bis *quaternarius*. Cod. aa *quinarium* pro *senarium*. Mox post *suo modo* in cod. Q secunda manus addidit: *quod omnes characteres ordinantur et completam potestatem habent, quae completur in sacerdotio*.

en: As was shown above, p. I, a. 2, q. 4, in the body. Cf. the following question, at [reply] 2, where [it treats] of the dissimilarity of this example. — Above, for *ternarius* the editions twice [read] *quaternarius*. Cod. aa [reads] *quinarium* for *senarium*. Soon after *suo modo*, in cod. Q a second hand added: *that all the characters are ordered and have a complete power, which is completed in the priesthood*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Verbis *ita fieri* Vat. interserit *bene*.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 1, at [reply] 2. — Among the words *ita fieri* the Vatican [edition] inserts *bene*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `vol4-p623-{L,R}-*` and `vol4-p624-{L,R}-*` (VOL II/IV override: bands authoritative for cascade-shattered two-column footers; offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 67815–67937), which is fairly clean running prose here and served as the base for marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation.

**q1/q2 boundary.** The running head `DIST. XXIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` sits at raw L67798 (top of p.623), but the top of p.623 (both columns, through *…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.*) is the **tail of q1** (`bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a1-q1`) — the closing of q1's reply/source-list block, carrying no numbered footnote markers. The true semantic boundary is the centered **QUAESTIO II** header (raw L67815); this chunk begins there with *Secundo quaeritur…*. The q1-tail is not claimed here.

**Title corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter carried `title_la: "Utrum character ordinis sit unus vel plures"`, which is **not** the printed title. The bands (p.623-L/R-0) show the italic question-title as **Utrum in diversis ordinibus diversi characteres imprimantur** — matching the opening *Secundo quaeritur, utrum in diversis ordinibus…*. Title fields updated accordingly.

**Page span corrected: 623–624, not 623–625.** The skeleton frontmatter said pp.623–625. Verified against the bands and running heads: q2's replies end at *…etiam inter se distingui[^15]* and **QUAESTIO III** (*Utrum characteres diversorum ordinum sint essentialiter ordinati*) opens as a centered full-width header near the foot of p.624's left column (raw L67938), with q3's body beginning below it on p.624 and running onto p.625. So q2 = printed **623–624** (PDF 643–644); p.625 belongs to q3.

**Cross-chunk footer split (p.623 and p.624 shared pages).**
- **p.623** footer note-series **1–7** → [^1]–[^7]: all seven belong to q2. The q1-tail at the top of p.623 carries no footer markers, so no p.623 footer note migrates to q1.
- **p.624** footer note-series **1–9**: q2 claims notes **1–8** → [^8]–[^15]. **p.624 footer note 9** (*Extra tit. 43. c. 1: Si quis presbyter ordinatus deprehenderit…* — the decretal on the unbaptized presbyter) belongs to **QUAESTIO III**, which opens lower on the same page; it is not claimed here.

**Scholion: ABSENT.** q2 has no scholion of its own. The article's scholion belongs to q1 (`bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a1-q1`), as confirmed independently by q2's own last footer note, [^15] = *"Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."* ("See the scholion to the preceding question"). `has_scholion: false`. No scholion text falls inside the raw range 67815–67937, so nothing was dropped.

**Marginal editorial glosses trimmed** (not Bonaventure's text, per corpus convention): the side-margin labels *Quaestio incidens.* (beside *Quaeritur ergo, quae sit necessitas…*), *Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2. et conclusio.*, and *Ad quaest. incid.* (beside *…verat. Et ideo in diversis ordinibus diversa signacula…*). The centered structural headers *CONCLUSIO* and inline *Respondeo* are retained.

**Apparatus count = 15** (p.623: 7; p.624: 8), all keyed to body markers in both languages — within the normal 8–15 band for a full quaestio.

**[?] flags:** none. Codex sigla (L, aa, bb, E, K, U, F, G, O, P, Q, N), the internal cross-references (*supra* p. I a. 2 qq. 2/4; d. 1 p. 1 q. 1 ad 2; tom. II p. 119; tom. III p. 277), the Aristotle *Metaphysics* citation, and the number-analogy (binarius/ternarius/senarius) all resolved cleanly against the PDF 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 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 624 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum characteres diversorum ordinum sint essentialiter ordinati.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Footnote numbering restarts on each printed page in the Quaracchi edition; this quaestio spans printed pp. 624–626, and only its own markers are rendered here (see **Notes** for the shared-page splits).

Tertio quaeritur, utrum characteres diversorum ordinum sint essentialiter ordinati. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia maior est connexio ordinis ad ordinem quam ordinis ad baptismum, et characteris unius ordinis ad characterem alterius quam ad baptismalem; sed essentialis est ordinatio characteris ordinis ad baptismalem, sicut dicitur in decretali de Presbytero non baptizato, libro tertio[^1]: *Non baptizatus non potest ordinari* — unde si de facto ordinatus <!-- page 625 --> est, debet baptizari et post iterum per ordinem ordinari — ergo character ordinis essentiali ordine praesupponit baptismalem: ergo etc.

2. Item, ordo magis competit ordini quam numero; sed sic est in numeris, quod numerus posterior necessario praeexigit priorem, in figura similiter posterior antecedentem — unde nunquam est quaternarius sine ternario, nec tetragonus sine trigono[^2] — ergo nunquam est gradus secundus sine primo, nec tertius sine secundo, et sic de aliis.

3. Item, ex diversis formaliter non potest fieri unum, nisi ad invicem ordinentur[^3]; sed omnes ordines unum completum reddunt ministerium: ergo necesse est, quod ad invicem ordinentur.

4. Item, si quis scienter promoveretur ad ordinem posteriorem, priori omisso, hoc ipso suspenditur ab exsecutione, sicut dicitur in decretali[^4]; sed hoc non esset, nisi oporteret, ibi servari ordinem: ergo etc.

5. Item, ubicumque sunt gradus, oportet ponere ordinem; sed in Sacramento ordinis diversi ordines «sunt gradus spiritualium officiorum», sicut dicitur in littera[^5]: si ergo per characteres in illis gradibus situantur, videtur, quod sit ibi essentialis ordo.

**Contra:** 1. In his, in quibus est ordo essentialis, destructo priori, destruitur posterius; sed non habito priori ordine, nihilominus habetur posterior, sicut patet in ordinatis per saltum, qui non sunt reordinandi: ergo etc. *Maior* patet per se, *minor* probatur per illud quod dicitur distinctione quinquagesima secunda[^6], *Sollicitudo* etc., et Extra, de Clerico per saltum ordinato, *Tuae litterae* etc.

2. Item, characteres comparationem habent sicut potestates et actus ordinum, ad quos ordines comparantur; sed in illis potestatibus nullus omnino est ordo, sicut in potestate expellendi daemones et ferendi cereos: ergo nullus est ordo in talibus characteribus.

3. Item, in his quae respiciunt corporale et spirituale, prius est corporale quam spirituale[^7]; sed exorcizatio dicit liberationem a vexatione spirituum, sed acolythatus respicit officium illuminandi: ergo prior est ordo acolythi, quam sit exorcistae: non ergo recte ordinantur, cum unus dicatur ordo tertius, alter quartus.

4. Item, prius est quod liberat a malo, quam quod habilitat ad bonum; sed in secundo est habilitatio ad bonum, in tertio est liberatio a malo[^8]: ergo videtur, quod tertius ordo sit prior quam secundus. Sed ita videtur, quod nullus sit ordo certus inter istos gradus.

### Conclusio

> *Inter diversos ordines est ordo congruitatis, non necessitatis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est ordo necessitatis, et est ordo congruitatis. Si ergo loquamur de ordine istorum graduum ecclesiasticorum, dicendum quod non est ordinatio necessaria nec essentialis, pro eo quod ordo posterior haberi potest et suscipi sine priori. Si autem loquamur quantum ad ordinationem congruitatis, sic est ibi ordo, pro eo quod ad *bene esse* ministerii sequentis praeexigitur ordo sive potestas ministerii praecedentis. — Quemadmodum igitur, si quis velit ordinate procedere, prius debet *exordium* praemittere, post *narrationem* et post *ratiocinationem* et postremo *conclusionem*[^9]; tamen, si vellet, incipere posset a posteriori, licet non ita ordinate: sic in ordinibus oportet intelligi. Cum enim ordines *inferiores* ministrent *sacris*, et *sacri* ordines ministrent *sacerdotio*, et inferior gradus prior sit in ascendendo, et potestas ministerialis sit inferior: patet, quod ibi est ordo, non tamen *necessitatis*, quoniam potestates diversae sunt et per se ipsas obtineri et haberi possunt, licet non ita perfecte sine aliis.

Est igitur ordo in his gradibus secundum maiorem accessum ad ultimum gradum, scilicet sacerdotium. Unde primo homo introducitur in ecclesiam per *ostiarium*; secundo manuducitur per *lectorem* Prophetarum; tertio adiuvatur per *exorcistam*, ut liberetur a malo; quarto excitatur per <!-- page 626 --> acolythum, ut proficiat[^10] in bono: deinde sunt alii duo ordines, qui ministrant sacerdoti in oblatione sacrificii.

Et sic patet, quod est ibi ordo congruitatis non necessitatis. Nec valent illae rationes in contrarium de exorcista et acolytho, pro eo quod omnes ordines potestatem spiritualem dicunt, et pro eo quod eruditio praecedit liberationem a malo: et ideo concedendum est, quod sit ibi ordo in characteribus, sed non est ordo essentialis. — Sicut in elementis ordo est, tamen elementum sive litera ante ultimum scribi posset et prima litera ultimo, ordine retrogrado in scribendo, sed tamen ordinato post scripturam[^11]: sic et ordines possunt suscipi descendendo sive retrocedendo.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quoniam sicut tactum fuit supra[^12] in tractatu de baptismate, et in Concilio apud Compendium determinatum fuit, et decretalis Innocentii, de Presbytero non baptizato, confirmat — baptismus est fundamentum et ianua omnium Sacramentorum, et quoniam fundamento non existente, nihil potest superaedificari: ideo character baptismi alios praecedit essentiali ordine; non sic est in aliis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de numeris, dicendum, quod non est simile: quoniam numerus sequens habet praecedentem partem sui, sed non sic gradus sequens habet praecedentem partem sui, sed ut disponentem de congruo.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ex pluribus differentibus non fit unum, dicendum, quod verum est, quod non fit unum per essentiam, fit tamen unum Sacramento, quae est unitas in comparatione ad unum significandum perfecte[^13]; et Sacramentum ordinis non habet omnimode unitatem absolutam, sed per comparationem, ad quam unitatem constituendam non requiritur essentialis dependentia in partibus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ibi ultimo de saltu et de gradu, dicendum, quod illae duae rationes non ostendunt, quod non sit ibi nisi ordo congruitatis, quantum est de integritate Sacramenti; est tamen ibi ordo necessitatis, quantum est de obligatione praecepti, quo quis tenetur ordinate ascendendo, non saltando, ordinari[^14].

---

english:
<!-- page 624 -->

### Question III. *Whether the characters of the different orders are essentially ordered.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the characters of the different orders are essentially ordered. And that they are, it seems:

1. Because the connection of one order to another is greater than that of an order to baptism, and the connection of the character of one order to the character of another is greater than to the baptismal character; but the ordering of the character of an order to the baptismal one is essential, as is said in the decretal *On the Unbaptized Presbyter*, book three[^1]: *An unbaptized person cannot be ordained* — whence, if he has in fact been ordained, he must be baptized and afterward ordained again through [each] order — therefore the character of an order presupposes the baptismal one by an essential ordering: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, order befits an order more than [it befits] number; but it is so in numbers, that a later number necessarily presupposes the prior one, and likewise in a figure a later [figure presupposes] the antecedent one — whence there is never a quaternary without a ternary, nor a tetragon without a trigon[^2] — therefore there is never a second grade without the first, nor a third without the second, and so of the rest.

3. Likewise, out of things formally diverse a unity cannot come to be unless they are ordered to one another[^3]; but all the orders render one complete ministry: therefore it is necessary that they be ordered to one another.

4. Likewise, if anyone were knowingly promoted to a later order, the prior one having been omitted, by that very fact he is suspended from the exercise [of the order], as is said in a decretal[^4]; but this would not be so unless it were required that order be preserved therein: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, wherever there are grades, an order must be posited; but in the Sacrament of order the different orders «are grades of spiritual offices», as is said in the *littera*[^5]: if therefore they are set in those grades through the characters, it seems that there is an essential order there.

**On the contrary:** 1. In those things in which there is an essential order, when the prior is destroyed, the posterior is destroyed; but when the prior order is not had, the posterior is nonetheless had, as is clear in those ordained by a leap, who are not to be re-ordained: therefore etc. The *major* is clear of itself; the *minor* is proved by what is said at distinction fifty-two[^6], *Sollicitudo* etc., and in the *Extra*, *On a Cleric Ordained by a Leap*, *Tuae litterae* etc.

2. Likewise, characters stand in comparison as do the powers and acts of the orders, to which the orders are compared; but in those powers there is no order at all, as in the power of casting out demons and of carrying candles: therefore there is no order in such characters.

3. Likewise, in those things which regard the corporeal and the spiritual, the corporeal is prior to the spiritual[^7]; but exorcism denotes liberation from the vexation of spirits, whereas the acolythate regards the office of illumining: therefore the order of the acolyte is prior to that of the exorcist: therefore they are not rightly ordered, since the one is called the third order, the other the fourth.

4. Likewise, that which frees from evil is prior to that which enables for good; but in the second [order] there is enabling for good, in the third there is liberation from evil[^8]: therefore it seems that the third order is prior to the second. But thus it seems that there is no fixed order among these grades.

### Conclusion

> *Among the different orders there is an order of congruity, not of necessity.*

**I respond:** It must be said that there is an order of necessity and there is an order of congruity. If therefore we speak of the order of these ecclesiastical grades, it must be said that there is no necessary or essential ordering, on the ground that the later order can be had and received without the prior. But if we speak with respect to the ordering of congruity, then there is an order there, on the ground that for the *well-being* of the following ministry there is presupposed the order or power of the preceding ministry. — Just as, therefore, if someone wishes to proceed in an orderly way, he ought first to set down the *exordium*, then the *narration*, then the *argumentation*, and last the *conclusion*[^9]; yet, if he wished, he could begin from the later part, though not so orderly: so it must be understood in the orders. For since the lower orders minister to the *sacred* [orders], and the *sacred* orders minister to the *priesthood*, and the lower grade is prior in ascending, and the ministerial power is lower: it is clear that there is an order there, yet not of *necessity*, since the powers are diverse and can be obtained and had through themselves, though not so perfectly without the others.

There is therefore an order in these grades according to a greater approach to the last grade, namely the priesthood. Whence first a man is introduced into the church through the *doorkeeper*; second he is led by the hand through the *lector* of the Prophets; third he is aided through the *exorcist*, that he may be freed from evil; fourth he is roused through <!-- page 626 --> the acolyte, that he may advance[^10] in good: then there are two other orders, which minister to the priest in the offering of the sacrifice.

And thus it is clear that there is there an order of congruity, not of necessity. Nor do those arguments to the contrary concerning the exorcist and the acolyte prevail, on the ground that all the orders denote a spiritual power, and on the ground that instruction precedes liberation from evil: and therefore it must be granted that there is an order there in the characters, but it is not an essential order. — Just as in the elements there is an order, yet an element or letter could be written before the last, and the first letter last, in a retrograde order in the writing, though nonetheless set in order after the writing[^11]: so too the orders can be received by descending or going back.

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

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that it is not similar: because, as was touched on above[^12] in the treatise on baptism, and as was determined in the Council at Compendium [Compiègne], and as the decretal of Innocent, *On the Unbaptized Presbyter*, confirms — baptism is the foundation and gate of all the Sacraments, and since, the foundation not existing, nothing can be built upon it: therefore the baptismal character precedes the others by an essential order; it is not so in the others.

2. To that which is objected concerning numbers, it must be said that it is not similar: because a following number has the preceding one as a part of itself, but a following grade does not thus have the preceding one as a part of itself, but as disposing [it] by way of congruity.

3. To that which is objected, that out of many different things a unity does not come to be, it must be said that it is true that a unity does not come to be by essence, yet a unity comes to be by [being] a Sacrament, which is a unity in comparison to signifying one thing perfectly[^13]; and the Sacrament of order does not have an absolute unity in every mode, but by comparison, and for constituting this unity an essential dependence in the parts is not required.

4. To that which is objected there lastly concerning the leap and the grade, it must be said that those two arguments do not show that there is there anything but an order of congruity, as regards the integrity of the Sacrament; yet there is there an order of necessity, as regards the obligation of the precept, by which one is bound to be ordained in an orderly way by ascending, not by leaping[^14].

---

la: Extra tit. 43. c. 1: *Si quis presbyter* ordinatus deprehenderit, se non esse baptizatum, baptizetur et iterum ordinetur.

en: *Extra*, title 43, c. 1: *If any presbyter*, once ordained, should discover that he is not baptized, let him be baptized and ordained again.

la: Eodem exemplo utitur Aristot. II. de Anima, text. 31. (c. 3.), ad ostendendum, quod sensitivum praesupponat vegetativum, et hoc in illo contineatur. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 41, nota 6. et tom. III. pag. 881, nota 4. — Sensus *maioris* est: ordo successivus magis competit ordinibus Ecclesiae quam numero.

en: Aristotle uses the same example, *On the Soul* II, text 31 (c. 3), to show that the sensitive [soul] presupposes the vegetative, and that the latter is contained in it. Cf. vol. II, p. 41, note 6, and vol. III, p. 881, note 4. — The sense of the *major* [premise] is: successive order befits the orders of the Church more than number.

la: Secundum Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 49. (VI. c. 13.). — Inferius pro *ministerium* Vat. cum pluribus codd. *ministrum*.

en: According to Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII, text 49 (VI, c. 13). — Below, for *ministerium* the Vatican [edition], with several codices, [reads] *ministrum*.

la: Can. *Sollicitudo* (1.), d. 52, ubi suspenditur ab exsecutione ordinum qui, subdiaconatus ordine postposito, diaconus et presbyter est ordinatus. — Mox pro *esset* cod. G *teneret*.

en: The canon *Sollicitudo* (1), dist. 52, where one is suspended from the exercise of the orders who, having set aside the order of subdiaconate, has been ordained deacon and presbyter. — Shortly after, for *esset* cod. G [reads] *teneret*.

la: Cap. 1. Cfr. nota penultima. — Seq. locus habetur Extra lib. V. tit. 29, in quo decernitur, quod qui ignoranter per [saltum …][?].

en: Chapter 1. Cf. the penultimate note. — The following passage is found in the *Extra*, book V, title 29, in which it is decreed that one who ignorantly [was ordained] by [a leap …][?].

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 46: *Sed non prius quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, deinde quod spiritale.* — De officio exorcistae et acolythi cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. et 8.

en: 1 Corinthians 15:46: *But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the animal, and then the spiritual.* — On the office of the exorcist and the acolyte, cf. here the *littera* of the Master, cc. 7 and 8.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. et 7, ubi de lectoribus et exorcistis. — Inferius pro *Sed ita* cod. E *et ita*, cod. K (I, a secunda manu) *quod si est ita*.

en: Cf. here the *littera* of the Master, cc. 6 and 7, where he treats of lectors and exorcists. — Below, for *Sed ita* cod. E [reads] *et ita*, cod. K (family I, by a second hand) *quod si est ita*.

la: Vide Aristot. de Praedicam. c. de Priori, et III. Rhetor. c. 15. seqq. (c. 13. seqq.). — Superius cod. K *si quis* substituit *in epistolis*, in cod. Q autem secunda manus addidit *orator* post *si quis*.

en: See Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter *On the Prior*, and *Rhetoric* III, cc. 15ff. (cc. 13ff.). — Above, cod. K substituted *in epistolis* [for *si quis*]; in cod. Q, however, a second hand added *orator* after *si quis*.

la: Plures codd. *perficiatur*, quae lectio confirmari videtur […]; lectione incongrua plurium codd. *proficiatur*. Mox pro *deinde* […] cod. bb *demum*.[?]

en: Several codices [read] *perficiatur*, a reading which seems to be confirmed […]; by an incongruous reading several codices [read] *proficiatur*. Shortly after, for *deinde* […] cod. bb [reads] *demum*.[?]

la: Codd. P Q addunt *id est, rectum ordinem habet, post[…] quam scriptum est totum.* Auctoritate eorundem codd. P Q superius posuimus *et prima*, pro quo alii codd. *vel cum sic prima*, vel *tamen sic prima*, vel *tamen sicut (sic ut?) prima*, vel *ut sic (sit?)*; edd. legunt: *cum sit prima littera, ultima […] ordine… sed tamen ordinate scribendo est primo scripta; sic et ordines etc.*[?]

en: Codices P Q add *that is, it has a right order, after[…] than the whole is written.* On the authority of the same codices P Q we have set above *et prima*, in place of which other codices [read] *vel cum sic prima*, or *tamen sic prima*, or *tamen sicut (sic ut?) prima*, or *ut sic (sit?)*; the editions read: *when the first letter is [written], the last […] in order… but nonetheless being written in order it is first written; so too the orders etc.*[?]

la: Dist. 2. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. et dub. 3; d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. in fine. Cfr. etiam d. 7. a. 3. q. 3. — Decretum Concilii apud Compendium (Compiegne) continetur in C. *Si quis presbyter* (1.), X. de Presbytero non baptizato (lib. III. tit. 43.), hic in arg. 1. ad oppos. allegato. Decretalis Innocent. III. habetur ibid. c. 3. et incipit *Veniens ad Apostolicam sedem*; in ipsa occurrunt verba haec: *Cum baptismus sit fundamentum omnium Sacramentorum, et ante susceptionem baptismi non suscipiatur aliud Sacramentum; quoniam ubi fundamentum non est, superaedificari non potest.*

en: Dist. 2, a. 1, q. 3 in the body and dubium 3; d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, at the end. Cf. also d. 7, a. 3, q. 3. — The decree of the Council at Compendium (Compiègne) is contained in the canon *Si quis presbyter* (1), *X. On the Unbaptized Presbyter* (book III, title 43), cited here in argument 1 for the opposite. The decretal of Innocent III is found in the same place, c. 3, and begins *Veniens ad Apostolicam sedem*; in it occur these words: *Since baptism is the foundation of all the Sacraments, and before the reception of baptism no other Sacrament is received; for where there is no foundation, nothing can be built upon it.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 581, nota 9. — Inferius pro *omnimode* plures codd. *eminentem*.

en: Cf. above, p. 581, note 9. — Below, for *omnimode* several codices [read] *eminentem*.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 67938–68109), corrected against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 624–626 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{624,625,626}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; vol4 offset pdf = printed + 20). Page-verified: the quaestio **opens at the bottom of printed p. 624** (centered header + title + "Tertio quaeritur…" + argument 1), not p. 625 as the skeleton frontmatter had it; it runs through all of p. 625 and ends partway down p. 626, immediately before QUAESTIO IV (raw L68110). The skeleton title (*Utrum ordines habeant ordinem ad invicem*) was **incorrect**; the printed centered title and running head both read *Utrum characteres diversorum ordinum sint essentialiter ordinati* — corrected in frontmatter.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Pars II, Art. I's scholion sits with question 1 (`p2-a1-q1`) and covers all three of the article's questions; note [^14] here (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) confirms it.

**Apparatus numbering restarts per printed page.** 14 footnotes claimed for this quaestio, mapped from the per-page Quaracchi sequences:
- **p. 624** (shared page): only footer **note 9** ("*Extra* tit. 43…") belongs to Q3 (marker on *libro tertio*) → [^1]. **Notes 1–8 of p. 624 belong to the preceding question `p2-a1-q2`** (they gloss its *ternarius/quaternarius*, *ideam fortius*, *scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, etc.) — verify they are captured there.
- **p. 625**: notes 1–8, all Q3 → [^2]–[^9].
- **p. 626** (shared page): notes 1–5 belong to Q3 (markers *proficiat*, *scripturam*, *supra*, *perfecte*, *ordinari*) → [^10]–[^14]. **Notes 6–9 of p. 626 belong to the following question `p2-a1-q4`** (its *Ut ostensum est supra q. 1.*, *lit. Magistri c. 13*, *libro ultimo* decretal, etc.) — forward to that chunk.

**Marginal glosses trimmed** as editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text: *Ad oppositum*, *Duplex ordo*, *Conclusio 1*, *Conclusio 2*, *Simile*, *Corollarium*, *Solutio oppositorum*.

**`[?]` flags:**
1. **[^6] (p. 625 note 5 tail):** the note is cut off at the foot of p. 625 in both the OCR and the 450 dpi band, ending at "*…quod qui ignoranter per*" immediately above the catchword "S. Bonav. — Tom. IV."; the completion (probably "*per saltum …*") is not legible. Rendered as far as visible with an ellipsis; resolve at the 600 dpi decade-polish pass.
2. **[^10] (p. 626 note 1):** a codex-variant note (*perficiatur / proficiatur / demum*) partly clipped where the left footer column meets the gutter; reconstructed from overlapping L/R bands with gaps marked "[…]".
3. **[^11] (p. 626 note 2):** longer codex-variant note (*id est, rectum ordinem habet… / et prima / cum sic prima…*) similarly clipped and reconstructed with "[…]" gaps.

Flags 2–3 are textual-variant apparatus (no bearing on the body sense); flag 1 is a genuine page-foot truncation. All three to be cleared with a 600 dpi eyes-on pass at the d.21–d.30 polish-blocker gate.