title: Dist. 1, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
<!-- page 24 -->

### Quaestio V. *De differentia inter Sacramenta vetera et nova.*

Quinto quaeritur de differentia Sacramentorum novae legis et veteris; et assignat Magister[^1] hanc differentiam: «quia illa tantum promittebant gratiam et non dabant, haec autem dant». Unde communiter assignatur differentia, quod Sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod figurant, sed veteris non.

1. Contra haec sic obiicit Hugo in libro de Sacramentis[^2]: «Sacramentorum alia sub natura, alia sub Lege, alia sub gratia, alia quidem in specie, sed eundem effectum sanitatis habentia».

2. Item, Hugo[^3]: «Ex quo homo aegrotare coepit, Deus reparando in Sacramentis suis medicinam praeparavit»; sed impossibile est, mederi Deum sine gratia iustificante: ergo in omnibus Sacramentis est gratia iustificans, et sic nulla differentia.

3. Item, per rationem videtur: quia semper decuit, ut curreret medicina cum morbo[^4], quia semper et in omni lege aliqui sunt salvati; sed Sacramentum non est medicina, nisi curet per gratiam: ergo in omni tempore Sacramenta contulerunt gratiam: et sic etc.

<!-- page 25 -->

4. Item, Sacramenta novae legis non habent efficaciam nisi per gratiam fidei, quia qui infidelis est ficte accedit et non reportat commodum; sed Sacramenta illa coniuncta fidei iustificabant, quia omne opus, nisi sit secundum se malum, quando est a fide operante per dilectionem, fit meritorium[^5]: ergo sicut ista iustificant, sic et illa.

**Contra:** 1. Hugo in libro de Sacramentis[^6]: «Tempore legis naturae relictus est homo sibi, et sibi relictus erravit per ignorantiam, et ideo convictus est de caecitate; postmodum data est lex vetus sine gratia, in qua quid esset faciendum cognovit, sed concupiscentia pressus cecidit; et sic est victus de impotentia; et tunc venit Christus», de quo Ioannis primo: *Gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est*: ergo Sacramenta tempore legis veteris non conferebant aliquam gratiam: ergo etc.

2. Item, super illud ad Romanos tertio[^7]: *Ex operibus Legis*; Glossa: «Opera Legis dicuntur, quae cum Lege instituta et terminata sunt, quae nunquam iustificare potuerunt, etiam si in fide et caritate fierent».

3. Item, super illud Isaiae primo[^8]: *Sanguinem hircorum nolui*; Glossa: «Praeterito utens, ostendit, se nunquam sacrificia Iudaeorum amasse».

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia lex vetus data est in onus; unde Ezechielis vigesimo[^9]: *Dedi eis praecepta non bona et verba, in quibus non vivent*; sed si haberent Sacramenta dantia gratiam, alleviarent; et beatus Petrus, Actuum decimo quinto: *Hoc est onus, quod nec nos nec patres nostri portare potuimus*: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Sacramenta novae legis per se iustificant et gratiam conferunt ex opere operato, quod non faciebant Sacramenta legis veteris nisi per accidens.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod istam differentiam aliter intellexit Hugo, aliter intellexit Pictaviensis et Magister.

Magister[^10] enim, secutus Pictaviensem, dixit, quod Sacramenta veteris legis, excepta circumcisione, instituta essent ad *significandum* tantum in perfectis viris et fidelibus; quia aliis erant instituta vel in onus, si duri erant, vel ad revocandum ab idololatria; et si ad aliquam fuerunt efficaciam[^11] ordinata, hoc fuit solum, ut absolverent ab irregularitate carnali vel poena temporali, ut baptismata et sacrificia. Et quia solum ad hoc instituta erant, etiam si ex fide et caritate fierent, non erat in eis meritum, quia non se extendebant ultra id, ad quod erant. Unde sicut motus caritatis non erit in patria meritorius, sic tunc non merebantur in opere exteriori, sed tantum in interiori. Et si tu obiicias ei de medicina, dicit, quod fides Redemptoris fuit medicina pro tempore illo; illa vero non iustificabant nec per se nec per accidens. Et huius positionis fuit Pictaviensis. — Sed haec positio magistro Hugoni non videbatur rationabilis, quia tunc sacrificia facta a viris sanctis non placuissent Deo nec sacrificium Abel nec Abraham nec Salomonis; quod manifeste falsum est, sicut patet in narratione canonis[^12]. Et quid etiam de oblatione sacrae Virginis, cum obtulit *par turturum*, nunquid a merito vacua fuit?

Propter hoc aliter Magister Hugo voluit dicere, quod[^13] Sacramenta veteris legis, excepta circumcisione, <!-- page 26 -->instituta fuerunt primo ad *significandum* vel passionem, ut sacrificia, vel etiam nostra Sacramenta, ut baptismus eorum nostrum; et ad *efficiendum* non sunt instituta nisi solum exterius circa carnem. Sed quia significant quod fides credit, in eorum perceptione est professio fidei, non tantum *verbo*[^14], sed et *facto*; et quia talis fides disponebat ad iustificationem, ideo Sacramenta illa *per accidens* iustificabant. Sed novae legis Sacramenta non solum ex prima sua institutione ordinata sunt ad *significandum*, sed etiam ad *gratiam obtinendam*, et ideo[^15] per se ordinata sunt ad iustificationem; ideo, per se loquendo, ista iustificant, illa non nisi *per accidens*. — Et huius signum est, quod Sacramenta veteris legis principaliter significant id quod credendum est, ut Christi passionem et per posterius iustificationem; excepta sola circumcisione, quae principaliter significat amotionem originalis. Sed Sacramenta novae legis e contrario primo significant *gratiae efficaciam* et per posterius *passionem*, sive id quod est credendum, ut baptismus interiorem ablutionem et passionem. Unde Hugo[^16]: «Sacramenta novi Testamenti primo loco spiritualis *gratiae* signa sunt et ad ipsam gratiam sanctificandis conferendam principaliter instituta. Illa vero signa horum tantum erant, et mediantibus his gratiam in sustentationem contulerunt»; *mediantibus his*, id est fide istorum, quia non erant in re, sed in fide.

Et has opiniones tanquam rationabiles concordant aliqui magistri moderni temporis dicentes, Magistrum locutum esse, quod illa non iustificabant *per se*[^17], sed Hugo *per accidens*; ideo non est contradictio. — Sunt etiam alii, qui dicunt idem ipsum aliis verbis, quod ista iustificant ratione *operis operati*, sed illa ratione *operis operantis*, non operati; et *opus operans* est fides, sed *operatum* exterius est Sacramentum; et quod iustificarent[^18], hoc est ratione fidei et caritatis coniunctae.

Sed si quis attendat, hae positiones directe sibi contradicunt. Primum quidem, quia Magister non solum dicit, quod illa Sacramenta non iustificabant, sed etiam, quod non iustificabant[^19], etiam si in fide et caritate fierent; et sic nec per se nec per accidens. Rursus, uterque loquitur de his, in quantum sunt Sacramenta; et constat, quod *opus operans* non est Sacramentum, sed *opus operatum*: ergo uterque intellexit de operato; et illud verum est, et de illo opere operato dixit Magister[^20], quod solum significabat, non iustificabat, sicut aspersio aquae vel sanguinis. Nunquam enim iustificabat *sanguis hircorum aspersus*, etiam si in fide et caritate fieret, et hoc nec per se nec per accidens; et hoc satis fuit probabile.

Sed certe multo probabilius est quod magister Hugo posuit, quod cum in illo opere operato esset professio fidei *facto*[^21], quod ratione fidei coniunctae erat *in illis* primo et *per illa*, per accidens tamen, iustificatio. Sed in hoc est differentia ipsorum ad nova, quod in Sacramentis novae legis quantum ad opera operata est iustificatio non tantum *per accidens*, sed etiam *per se*. Huius autem signum evidens praeostensum est in modo significandi horum Sacramentorum et illorum. — Si vero quaeratur ratio, unde hoc est; responsio est ex praedictis[^22], quia causalitas Sacramentorum non est aliud quam quaedam efficax ordinatio ad recipiendam gratiam ex pactione divina; hoc autem fuit solum in Sacramentis novae legis, et non veteris nisi in circumcisione, quia ibi fuit pactio. — Quare autem in istis est pactio et ordinatio, in illis non; patet: quia tunc fuit tempus figurae et vincendi duritiam[^23], modo est tempus gratiae.

**Ad argumenta:** Ex his patent obiecta ad utramque partem; nam illa quae probant, quod non iustificant, intelliguntur *per se* loquendo; alia vero ad oppositum, *per accidens*.

english:
### Question V. *On the difference between the old and new Sacraments.*

Fifthly, it is asked about the difference of the Sacraments of the new law and the old; and the Master[^1] assigns this difference: «that those only promised grace and did not give it, but these give it». Hence the difference is commonly assigned, that the Sacraments of the new law effect what they figure, but those of the old do not.

1. Against these things Hugh objects thus, in the book *On the Sacraments*[^2]: «Of the Sacraments, some are under nature, some under the Law, some under grace; some indeed differing in kind, but having the same effect of healing».

2. Likewise, Hugh[^3]: «From the time the man began to fall sick, God in repairing him prepared a medicine in his Sacraments»; but it is impossible that God should heal without justifying grace: therefore in all the Sacraments there is justifying grace, and so there is no difference.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because it was always fitting that the medicine should run together with the disease[^4], since always and in every law some are saved; but a Sacrament is not a medicine unless it heals through grace: therefore in every time the Sacraments conferred grace: and so forth.

4. Likewise, the Sacraments of the new law do not have efficacy except through the grace of faith, since he who is an unbeliever approaches feignedly and gains no benefit; but those Sacraments, joined to faith, used to justify, because every work, unless it be evil in itself, when it is from faith working through love, becomes meritorious[^5]: therefore as these justify, so also do those.

**On the contrary:** 1. Hugh, in the book *On the Sacraments*[^6]: «In the time of the law of nature man was left to himself, and left to himself he erred through ignorance, and so was convicted of blindness; afterward the old law was given without grace, in which he came to know what was to be done, but, pressed by concupiscence, he fell; and so he was overcome by powerlessness; and then Christ came», concerning whom it is said in John, chapter one: *Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ*: therefore the Sacraments in the time of the old law conferred no grace: therefore, and so forth.

2. Likewise, upon that text of Romans, chapter three[^7]: *From the works of the Law*; the Gloss: «The works of the Law are called those that were instituted and terminated with the Law, which could never justify, even if they were done in faith and charity».

3. Likewise, upon that text of Isaiah, chapter one[^8]: *I did not want the blood of goats*; the Gloss: «Using the past tense, he shows that he never loved the sacrifices of the Jews».

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the old law was given as a burden; whence in Ezekiel, chapter twenty[^9]: *I gave them precepts not good and judgments in which they shall not live*; but if they had Sacraments giving grace, these would lighten the burden; and blessed Peter, in Acts, chapter fifteen: *This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear*: therefore, and so forth.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacraments of the new law justify of themselves and confer grace from the work worked (*ex opere operato*), which the Sacraments of the old law did not do except per accidens.

**I respond:** It must be said that this difference Hugh understood in one way, and Peter of Poitiers and the Master understood in another way.

For the Master[^10], following Peter of Poitiers, said that the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision, were instituted for *signifying* only, among perfect and faithful men; because for others they were instituted either as a burden, if they were hard-hearted, or for recalling them from idolatry; and if they were ordained to any efficacy[^11], this was solely that they might absolve from carnal irregularity or temporal penalty, like the baptisms and sacrifices. And because they were instituted solely for this, even if they were done from faith and charity, there was no merit in them, since they did not extend beyond that for which they existed. Hence, just as the motion of charity will not be meritorious in the fatherland, so then they did not merit in the exterior work, but only in the interior. And if you object to him concerning the medicine, he says that the faith of the Redeemer was the medicine for that time; but those things did not justify, neither per se nor per accidens. And of this position was Peter of Poitiers. — But this position did not seem reasonable to master Hugh, because then the sacrifices made by holy men would not have pleased God, nor the sacrifice of Abel, nor of Abraham, nor of Solomon; which is manifestly false, as is plain in the narrative of the canon[^12]. And what too of the offering of the sacred Virgin, when she offered *a pair of turtledoves*—was it then void of merit?

On account of this Master Hugh wished to say otherwise, that[^13] the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision, were instituted first to *signify* either the passion, like the sacrifices, or even our Sacraments, like baptism their baptism; and for *effecting* they were not instituted except only exteriorly about the flesh. But because they signify what faith believes, in the receiving of them there is a profession of faith, not only by *word*[^14], but also by *deed*; and because such faith disposed toward justification, therefore those Sacraments justified *per accidens*. But the Sacraments of the new law were ordained not only from their first institution toward *signifying*, but also toward *obtaining grace*, and therefore[^15] they are ordained of themselves toward justification; therefore, speaking properly, these justify, those only *per accidens*. — And a sign of this is that the Sacraments of the old law principally signify that which is to be believed, like the passion of Christ and, by way of consequence, justification; with the exception of circumcision alone, which principally signifies the removal of original sin. But the Sacraments of the new law, on the contrary, first signify *the efficacy of grace* and, by way of consequence, *the passion*, that is, what is to be believed, as baptism signifies the interior washing and the passion. Hence Hugh[^16]: «The Sacraments of the New Testament are in the first place signs of spiritual *grace* and are instituted principally for conferring that very grace upon those to be sanctified. But those signs were only of these, and by means of these they conferred grace unto sustentation»; *by means of these*, that is, by the faith of those, since they were not in the reality, but in faith.

And certain masters of modern time bring these opinions into accord as reasonable, saying that the Master meant that those things did not justify *per se*[^17], but Hugh, *per accidens*; therefore there is no contradiction. — There are also others who say the very same thing in other words, that these justify by reason of the *work worked* (*opus operatum*), but those by reason of the *work of the one working* (*opus operans*), not of the worked; and the *work of the one working* is faith, but the *worked* exteriorly is the Sacrament; and that they would justify[^18], this is by reason of faith and charity joined.

But if one attends, these positions directly contradict each other. For first, because the Master not only says that those Sacraments did not justify, but also that they did not justify[^19], even if they were done in faith and charity; and so neither per se nor per accidens. Again, each speaks of these insofar as they are Sacraments; and it is established that the *work of the one working* is not the Sacrament, but the *work worked*: therefore each understood it of the worked; and that is true, and concerning that work worked the Master said[^20] that it only signified, did not justify, like the sprinkling of water or of blood. For the *sprinkled blood of goats* never justified, even if it were done in faith and charity, and this neither per se nor per accidens; and this was sufficiently probable.

But surely it is much more probable, as master Hugh held, that since in that work worked there was a profession of faith by *deed*[^21], which by reason of the joined faith was *in those* primarily and *through those*, there was nevertheless, per accidens, justification. But in this is their difference from the new, that in the Sacraments of the new law, as regards the works worked, there is justification not only *per accidens*, but also *per se*. And an evident sign of this has been shown beforehand in the mode of signifying of these Sacraments and of those. — But if the reason be asked whence this is; the response is from the foregoing[^22], because the causality of the Sacraments is nothing other than a certain efficacious ordination toward receiving grace from the divine pact; and this was only in the Sacraments of the new law, and not of the old except in circumcision, because there was a pact there. — But why in these there is pact and ordination, in those not; this is plain: because then was the time of the figure and of overcoming hardness of heart[^23], now is the time of grace.

**To the arguments:** From these things the objections on both sides are plain; for those which prove that they do not justify are to be understood *per se*, speaking; but the others to the opposite, *per accidens*.

la: Hic c. 6.

en: Here, c. 6 (of the Master's text, *Sentences* lib. IV, d. 1, c. 6).

la: Libr. I. p. VIII. c. 12: Alia ante Legem, alia sub Lege, alia sub gratia; diversa [quod etiam habet cod. Y] quidem in specie, unum tamen effectum habentia et unam sanitatem perficientia. — Pro *Contra haec* plures codd. *Contra hoc*, codd. R T *Quod omnia Sacramenta habeant eundem effectum, hoc*.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*] Bk. I, p. VIII, c. 12: «Some before the Law, some under the Law, some under grace; differing indeed in kind [which cod. Y also has], yet having one effect and perfecting one healing». — For *Contra haec* several codices read *Contra hoc*; codd. R T, *That all the Sacraments have the same effect, this*.

la: Loc. cit., pluribus tamen post verba *Ex quo homo* interiectis. — De minori, in qua fide codd. F H substituimus *mederi Deum* pro *mederi Deo*, cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2, et tom. III. 888, nota 3.

en: In the place cited, though with several words interposed after the words *Ex quo homo*. — Concerning the minor premise, in which on the faith of codd. F H we have substituted *mederi Deum* (to heal man) for *mederi Deo*; cf. II *Sent.*, d. 26, q. 2, and tom. III, p. 888, note 3.

la: Hugo, loc. cit: Quamdiu morbus est, tempus medicinae est. — Pro *curreret* Vat. *curet*, et contra paulo inferius pro *curet* non pauci codd. et ed. 1 *curreret*.

en: Hugh, in the place cited: «As long as there is disease, there is the time for medicine». — For *curreret* the Vatican edition reads *curet*; and, conversely, a little below, for *curet* not a few codices and ed. 1 read *curreret*.

la: Respicitur Gal. 5, 6: Nam in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet... sed fides, quae per caritatem operatur. — Circa initium arg. ante *qui infidelis est* multi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *quia*, pro quo Vat. *nam*; codd. A F legunt *qui infidelis est, quia ficte accedit, non reportat commodum*, cod. U *nam si infidelis ficte accedit, non reportat*. — In his respicitur illud C. *Intelleximus* (7), X. libr. II. tit. I. de Iudiciis: Ne videatur de sua malitia commodum reportare.

en: Reference is to Gal. 5:6: «For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything... but faith, which works through charity». — Near the beginning of the argument, before *qui infidelis est* many codices and ed. 1 omit *quia*, in place of which the Vatican edition reads *nam*; codd. A F read *qui infidelis est, quia ficte accedit, non reportat commodum*; cod. U, *nam si infidelis ficte accedit, non reportat*. — In these things reference is to the chapter *Intelleximus* (7), X, lib. II, tit. I, *On Judgments*: «Lest he seem to gain advantage from his own malice».

la: Libr. I. p. VIII. c. 3, et praesertim libr. II. p. II. c. 1, sed extensius. In fine testimonii allegatur Ioan. 1, 17.

en: [Hugh, *On the Sacraments*] Bk. I, p. VIII, c. 3, and especially Bk. II, p. II, c. 1, but more extensively. At the end of the testimony John 1:17 is cited.

la: Vers. 20. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, exhibetur a Strabo et Lyrano, ubi textus originalis post *terminata sunt* addit *ut erant caerimonialia et figurativa*, et pro *potuerunt* substituit *valuerunt* (codd. F H Z aa *poterant*), nec non pro *in fide et caritate* exhibet *cum caritate et devotione*.

en: Verse 20. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary Gloss, is set forth by Strabo and by Lyra, where the original text after *terminata sunt* adds *ut erant caerimonialia et figurativa* (as they were ceremonial and figurative), and for *potuerunt* substitutes *valuerunt* (codd. F H Z aa *poterant*), and also for *in fide et caritate* gives *cum caritate et devotione*.

la: Vers. 11. — Glossa, apud Strabum et Lyranum ordinaria, delibata est ex Hieron. in hunc locum, ubi dicit: Pro eo quod est *nolui* Septuaginta transtulerunt *nolo*, praesens tempus pro praeterito. Porro iuxta Hebraicum nunquam se Deus hostias Iudaeorum voluisse demonstrat etc.

en: Verse 11. — The Gloss, ordinary in Strabo and Lyra, is drawn from Jerome on this place, where he says: «For that which is *nolui* (I did not want) the Septuagint translated *nolo* (I do not want), the present tense for the past. Moreover, according to the Hebrew, God shows that he never willed the victims of the Jews», etc.

la: Vers. 25, ubi Vulgata et cod. Z *iudicia*, codd. K aa *iudicia mala* pro *verba*. — Seq. textus est Act. 15, 10: Nunc ergo quid tentatis Deum, imponere iugum super cervices discipulorum, quod etc.

en: Verse 25, where the Vulgate and cod. Z read *iudicia* (judgments), codd. K aa *iudicia mala* (evil judgments) for *verba* (words). — The following text is Acts 15:10: «Now therefore why do you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which», etc.

la: Hic c. 4. 6. et 7. — *Pictaviensis* est Gilb. Porretanus, episcopus quondam Pictaviensis. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 575, nota 3. — Superius pro *intellexit Hugo* non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 *intelligit Hugo*.

en: Here, cc. 4, 6, and 7 (of the Master's text). — *Peter of Poitiers* is Gilbert of Poitiers (Gilbertus Porretanus), formerly bishop of Poitiers. Cf. tom. I, p. 575, note 3. — Above, for *intellexit Hugo* not a few codices with ed. 1 read *intelligit Hugo*.

la: Codd. H K *habuerunt efficaciam ordinari*, multi alii codd. incongrue *habuerunt efficaciam ordinata*.

en: Codd. H K read *habuerunt efficaciam ordinari*; many other codices, incongruously, *habuerunt efficaciam ordinata*.

la: Canon Missae, ubi sic habetur: Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech etc. — Cod. F a secunda manu *nec Melchisedech* pro *nec Salomonis*. In lectione codd., si nomine *canonis* non intelligatur sacra Scriptura, sed *canon Missae*, propositio refertur tantum ad Abel et Abraham, quibus adiungitur Salomon, cuius sacrificium Deo placuit, ut colligi potest ex II. Paralip. 7, 1. Pro *narratione canonis* codd. F H *oratione canonis*. — Post pauca respicitur Luc. 2, 24. — Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 1: Si quis igitur Sacramenta priora effectum sanctificationis habuisse negaverit, non mihi recte sentire videretur. De subnexis vide ibidem c. 2. seqq.; p. XII. c. 1. seq.; et Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1. — Post *Et quid* cod. Z supplet *dicetur*.

en: The Canon of the Mass, where it reads thus: «Upon which deign to look with a propitious and serene countenance and to hold them accepted, as you deigned to hold accepted the gifts of your just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which your high priest Melchizedek offered to you», etc. — Cod. F, by a second hand, reads *nec Melchisedech* for *nec Salomonis*. In the reading of the codices, if by the name *canon* one understands not sacred Scripture but the *Canon of the Mass*, the proposition refers only to Abel and Abraham, to whom Solomon is joined, whose sacrifice pleased God, as can be gathered from II Paralip. 7:1. For *narratione canonis* codd. F H read *oratione canonis*. — A little after, reference is to Luke 2:24. — Hugh of St. Victor, I *On the Sacraments*, p. XI, c. 1: «If therefore anyone should deny that the earlier Sacraments had the effect of sanctification, he would not seem to me to judge rightly». On what follows see in the same place, c. 2 ff.; p. XII, c. 1 f.; and *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 4, c. 1. — After *Et quid* cod. Z supplies *dicetur*.

la: Codd. F H (I a secunda manu) *scilicet quod*.

en: Codd. F H (I by a second hand) read *scilicet quod*.

la: Codd. F H *in verbo*, qui etiam subinde cum non paucis aliis codd. substituunt *sed in facto* pro *sed et facto*.

en: Codd. F H read *in verbo*, which also thereupon, with not a few other codices, substitute *sed in facto* for *sed et facto*.

la: Cod. Z (I primitus) *ad gratiam obtinendam a Deo, per se* (I a secunda manu *unde per se*) etc. Paulo ante pro *ex prima sua institutione* codd. I Z *ex primaria institutione*, edd. *ex prima causa et institutione*, cod. F *ex prima causa instituta et*.

en: Cod. Z (I originally) reads *ad gratiam obtinendam a Deo, per se* (I by a second hand, *unde per se*), etc. A little before, for *ex prima sua institutione* codd. I Z read *ex primaria institutione*; the editions, *ex prima causa et institutione*; cod. F, *ex prima causa instituta et*.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 5, ubi textus originalis post *conferendam* addit *infusa sibi benedictione*, et subinde post *mediantibus his* inserit *quorum signa fuerunt, ne sine salute essent, qui tempus redemptionis praecesserunt*. — Edd. pro *in sustentationem* substituunt *iustificationis*. Codd. pro *mediantibus his* bis exhibent *mediantibus istis*.

en: Bk. I *On the Sacraments*, p. IX, c. 5, where the original text after *conferendam* adds *infusa sibi benedictione*, and thereupon after *mediantibus his* inserts *quorum signa fuerunt, ne sine salute essent, qui tempus redemptionis praecesserunt* (whose signs they were, lest those be without salvation who came before the time of redemption). — The editions for *in sustentationem* substitute *iustificationis*. The codices, for *mediantibus his*, twice give *mediantibus istis*.

la: Codd. verbis transpositis *Magistrum locutum esse per se* (codd. F H Z et I bb a secunda manu addunt *cum dixit*), quod *illa non iustificabant*.

en: The codices, with the words transposed, read *Magistrum locutum esse per se* (codd. F H Z and I bb, by a second hand, add *cum dixit*), that *illa non iustificabant*.

la: Ex codd. F H (I a secunda manu) supplevimus *quod iustificarent*.

en: From codd. F H (I by a second hand) we have supplied *quod iustificarent*.

la: Plures codd. omittunt *sed etiam quod non iustificabant*, pro quo edd. *immo*.

en: Several codices omit *sed etiam quod non iustificabant*, in place of which the editions read *immo*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. c. 4. — Post pauca respicitur Hebr. 9, 13. — Aliquanto inferius pro *et hoc* (cod. L *et ita*) *nec per se* edd. *et hoc modo nec per se*.

en: Cf. here the [Master's] text, c. 4. — A little after, reference is to Heb. 9:13. — Somewhat below, for *et hoc* (cod. L *et ita*) *nec per se* the editions read *et hoc modo nec per se*.

la: Ita codd. A C F K P Q V W bb cc (I primitus), codd. D H *in facto*, cod. L *factae*, edd. *facta*. Mox post *primo* cod. F addit *significatio* et omittit *per illa ac tamen*. Subinde pro *quod in Sacramentis* plurimi codd. *quia in Sacramentis*.

en: Thus codd. A C F K P Q V W bb cc (I originally); codd. D H *in facto*; cod. L *factae*; the editions *facta*. Soon after *primo* cod. F adds *significatio* and omits *per illa ac tamen*. Thereupon, for *quod in Sacramentis* very many codices read *quia in Sacramentis*.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Inferius respicitur Gen. 17, 10: Hoc est pactum meum... Circumcidetur etc. — Pro *responsio est* edd. *patet responsio*.

en: The preceding question. — Below, reference is to Gen. 17:10: «This is my covenant... Let him be circumcised», etc. — For *responsio est* the editions read *patet responsio*.

la: Vat. addit *illorum per illa Sacramenta*.

en: The Vatican edition adds *illorum per illa Sacramenta*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Sententia Magistri et Pictaviensis, quod Sacramenta veteris legis nullo modo, id est nec ut opus *operans*, licet fiat in fide et caritate, nec ut opus *operatum* sive vi Sacramenti, fuissent meritoria et iustificantia, communissime ut falsa reicitur. Sed nec altera opinio Hugonis, quod scilicet utroque modo iustificassent, ita tamen ut ex opere *operato* hoc fieret tantum *per accidens*, quatenus essent figura Christi venturi (unde actualis susceptio erat quaedam professio et veneratio Christi), pluribus auctoribus placet. Nolunt enim hi concedere, eadem per modum *Sacramenti* iustificare, licet fiat *per accidens*; sed media quadam via inter utramque opinionem incedentes docent, eadem iustificare tantum per modum *operis operantis*, id est per fidem sive suscipientis sive applicantis, dummodo haec non tantum *in signo*, sed etiam *in corde* fuerit (cfr. infra p. II. a. 1. q. 2.). — Plurimi alii autem de circumcisione aliter iudicandum censent, de quo cfr. infra p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Locutio ex *opere operato*, quam passim irridebant et pessime interpretabantur haeretici, consecrata est a Concilio Trident. (Sess. VII. can. 8.). Participium *operatus* sensu passivo sumptum occurrit iam apud Tertullianum et Lactantium (Forcellini, Lexicon etc.). — Applicatio vocum *materia et forma* ad rem sacramentariam, quae nunc communissima et ab Ecclesia iam seculo XV. in Decreto pro Armenis recepta est, nec in Hugone a S. Victore nec in Magistro invenitur; eam tamen adhibet Guliel. Antissiod. in Summa aurea. Antiquitus cum S. Augustino (Tract. 80. in Ioan.) dicebatur: Accedit *verbum* ad *elementum*, et fit Sacramentum. Distinguebatur etiam *Sacramentum* (scilicet res sensibus obiecta) et *res Sacramenti* (gratia gratum faciens) nec non *signum* et *res sacra* (effectus Sacramenti). Observat tamen Thom. de Argentina (hic a. 1.), terminum *res Sacramenti* interdum largius accipi pro toto effectu Sacramenti in animam recepto, ut comprehendatur etiam *character*; vulgo tamen *character* vocatur *res et Sacramentum*; gratia vero *res et non Sacramentum* (cfr. infra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3. S. Thom., hic q. 1. et 2.). — De hac 5. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 3. a. 2, m. 4. a. 1. — Scot., hic q. 3. n. 8, et q. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5; S. I. II. q. 103. a. 2; III. q. 62. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 15. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 7. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

**II.** Quoad seq. (6.) quaestionem S. Thom. (S. III. q. 62. a. 2; IV. Sent. d. 7. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3.) docet, gratiam sacramentalem addere supra gratiam sanctificantem et etiam supra gratias virtutum et donorum quoddam divinum auxilium ad consequendum Sacramenti finem. Huic satis concordant S. Bonav. aliique posteriores. — De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 4. a. 2. § 2. — Scot., hic d. 2. q. 1. n. 2. seq., q. 6. n. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 8. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The opinion of the Master and of Peter of Poitiers, that the Sacraments of the old law in no way—that is, neither as a work *of the one working*, though done in faith and charity, nor as a work *worked* or by the power of the Sacrament—would have been meritorious and justifying, is most commonly rejected as false. But neither is the other opinion of Hugh acceptable to many authors, namely that they would have justified in both ways, yet so that from the work *worked* this came about only *per accidens*, inasmuch as they were a figure of Christ who was to come (whence the actual receiving was a kind of profession and veneration of Christ). For these are unwilling to concede that those same things justified by the mode of a *Sacrament*, even if it be *per accidens*; but proceeding by a certain middle way between both opinions they teach that those same things justified only by the mode of the *work of the one working*, that is, through the faith of the one receiving or applying, provided that this was not only *in the sign*, but also *in the heart* (cf. below, p. II, a. 1, q. 2). — Very many others, however, judge that concerning circumcision it must be decided otherwise, on which cf. below, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — The expression *ex opere operato*, which heretics everywhere derided and most wickedly interpreted, was consecrated by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 8). The participle *operatus*, taken in the passive sense, already occurs in Tertullian and Lactantius (Forcellini, *Lexicon*, etc.). — The application of the words *matter and form* to the sacramental subject, which is now most common and was received by the Church in the fifteenth century in the Decree for the Armenians, is found neither in Hugh of St. Victor nor in the Master; yet William of Auxerre employs it in his *Summa Aurea*. In antiquity, with St. Augustine (*Tract.* 80 *on John*), it was said: The *word* is added to the *element*, and the Sacrament is made. There was also distinguished the *Sacrament* (namely the thing presented to the senses) and the *reality of the Sacrament* (sanctifying grace), as also the *sign* and the *sacred reality* (the effect of the Sacrament). Yet Thomas of Argentina (here, a. 1) observes that the term *res Sacramenti* is sometimes taken more broadly for the whole effect of the Sacrament received in the soul, so that the *character* too is comprehended; commonly, however, the *character* is called *res et Sacramentum*; but grace, *res et non Sacramentum* (cf. below, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3; St. Thomas, here q. 1 and 2). — On this fifth question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 3, m. 3, a. 2, m. 4, a. 1. — Scotus, here q. 3, n. 8, and q. 5. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5; *S.* I-II, q. 103, a. 2; III, q. 62, a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 15. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 7. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

**II.** As to the following (sixth) question, St. Thomas (*S.* III, q. 62, a. 2; IV *Sent.*, d. 7, q. 2, a. 2, little-question 3) teaches that sacramental grace adds, above sanctifying grace and even above the graces of the virtues and gifts, a certain divine assistance toward attaining the end of the Sacrament. With this St. Bonaventure and the other later authors sufficiently agree. — On this question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 5, m. 4, a. 2, § 2. — Scotus, here d. 2, q. 1, n. 2 ff., q. 6, n. 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 8. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.24–27 (PDF pp.44–47; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 3207–3490) as the base for the clean *videtur/Contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is **Distinction I, Part I, Articulus Unicus, Quaestio V** — *De differentia inter Sacramenta vetera et nova* (whether/how the Sacraments of the new law differ from those of the old). The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo, the opinion-reports, the *Ad argumenta*, the scholion, 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 argument prose of the opening *Fundamenta* and *Contra*.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L3208 `Quinto quaeritur de differentia Sacramentorum novae legis et veteris` follows the `QUAESTIO V. / De differentia inter Sacramenta vetera et nova` heading (raw L3207 ff.; confirmed eyes-on against the p.24 R-1 band, which prints `QUAESTIO V.` and the *De differentia inter Sacramenta vetera et nova* subtitle) and matches `title_la`. No q-swap. The opener is keyed to the *fifth* question of the article (the old-vs-new-Sacraments difference). The internal structure: a brief Master's-difference statement, 3 *Fundamenta* (raised against the difference) ending p.24, a 4th *Fundamentum* + 4 *Contra* (p.25), a Conclusio, a long Respondeo reporting the Master/Pictaviensis opinion vs Hugh's opinion vs two reconciling moderns, the author's verdict that Hugh's is *multo probabilius*, and a brief *Ad argumenta*; closing with a two-section SCHOLION (§I doctrinal-historical + the *De hac 5. quaestione* citation list; §II bridging to q6).

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.24** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 24", verso; q4 fills the L col + top of R): QUAESTIO V heading + *De differentia* subtitle (R col, after q4's *...omnia quaesita patent*); the Master's-difference statement + *Fundamenta* args 1–3 (R col). Footer note-series for the page runs **1–10**; **q4 claimed nn.1–6**, so **q5 claims nn.7–10** → [^1]–[^4] (R footer; the *Hic c.6* / Hugh *Libr. I p.VIII c.12* / *Ex quo homo* / *Quamdiu morbus est* notes). No L-column body here (that is q4).
- **p.25** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. V. — 25", recto): *Fundamentum* arg 4 + *Contra* args 1–4 (L col); the CONCLUSIO blockquote, the RESPONDEO (Master/Pictaviensis opinion + Hugh's rebuttal, Naaman-canon objection) (R col). Footer note-series **1–9** → [^5]–[^13] (L footer nn.1–5; R footer nn.6–9). Notes: Gal.5:6 + *qui infidelis* var. + C. Intelleximus / Hugh Libr.I p.VIII c.3 + Ioan.1:17 / Rom.3:20 Gloss var. / Isa.1:11 Gloss Hieron. / Ezech.20:25 + Act.15:10 / Pictaviensis=Gilb.Porretanus / *efficaciam ordinari* var. / Canon Missae Abel-Abraham-Melchisedech + Luc.2:24 + Hugh p.XI c.1 / *scilicet quod* var.
- **p.26** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 26", verso): Hugh's opinion expounded + the two reconciling moderns (L col); the *Sed si quis attendat* critique, the author's verdict (Hugh *multo probabilius*: Conclusio 1, Conclusio 2, Ratio, Corollarium), the *Ad argumenta*, and the opening of the SCHOLION §I (L-bottom + R-bottom, spanning the rule) (R col). Footer note-series **1–10** → [^14]–[^23] (L footer nn.1–5; R footer nn.6–10). Notes: *in verbo* var. / *ad gratiam obtinendam* var. / Hugh Libr.I p.IX c.5 / *Magistrum locutum* transposition / supply *quod iustificarent* / omit *sed etiam quod non iustificabant* / hic lit. c.4 + Hebr.9:13 / *facto* sigla A C F K P Q V W bb cc + var. / Gen.17:10 *responsio est* var. / Vat. addit *illorum per illa*.
- **p.27** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI. — 27", recto; q6 opens on this page): the SCHOLION §I tail (the *operis operantis* middle way + the *opere operato*/Trent + *materia/forma* + character/res-et-Sacramentum + *De hac 5. quaestione* citation list) (L-top), then SCHOLION §II (the *Quoad seq. (6.) quaestionem* bridge + its *De hac quaestione* list) (R-top), after which QUAESTIO VI begins (L-bottom + R-bottom). **q5's scholion is footnote-free** (pure editorial prose) → q5 claims **no footers on p.27**; p.27's footer band belongs to q6.

**Apparatus count = 23** (p.24: 4 [the picked-up nn.7–10]; p.25: 9; p.26: 10; p.27: 0). All keyed to body markers in both languages. The per-page footer-restart series (p.24 nn.7–10, p.25 nn.1–9, p.26 nn.1–10) are merged into one consecutive [^1]–[^23] run for this file.

**Scholion: PRESENT — `has_scholion: true`, and it is q5's OWN scholion (verified independently).** Unlike q4 (which carried no scholion and redirected to q3's article-master scholion via *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*), q5 carries a two-section scholion of its own, printed at the foot of p.26 (spanning both columns under the rule) and continuing onto the top of p.27. **§I** is the doctrinal-historical note on the Master/Pictaviensis vs Hugh vs reconciling-moderns controversy, the Tridentine consecration of *ex opere operato*, the *materia/forma* terminology, and the *character / res et Sacramentum* distinction, and it closes with the *De hac 5. quaestione* author-citation list (Alex. Hal., Scotus, Aquinas, Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard, Durandus, Dionys. Carth.) — this is q5's own list, so the scholion is q5's. **§II** explicitly opens *Quoad seq. (6.) quaestionem* ("As to the following [sixth] question") and gives a separate *De hac quaestione* list for q6 — so this scholion bridges forward to q6 (the article-master pattern, where the scholion attached to a question covers it and the next). It has been placed LAST in each language block (after the *Ad argumenta*) per the parser gotcha. No scholion has been invented; both sections are transcribed verbatim from the p.26 R-2 + p.27 L-0/R-0 bands.

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q4`:** q4's Notes forwarded that (a) QUAESTIO V opens at raw L3208 on printed p.24 (R col), immediately after q4's body ends at *...omnia quaesita patent* (raw L3203, R col of p.24); (b) there is a mid-page boundary at the q4/q5 seam (both share p.24) but **no mid-page body splice** — q4's last sentence closes grammatically before the QUAESTIO V heading; (c) **p.24 footer nn.7–10 belong to q5** (q4 claimed nn.1–6) and must be picked up as the start of q5's own p.24 footer band; (d) q5's body continues onto pp.25–27. All four honored: q5 opens with the QUAESTIO V heading on the p.24 R col; the q4/q5 seam is grammatically clean (verified eyes-on against the p.24 R-1 band — q4 closes *...Et secundum hanc ultimam viam omnia quaesita patent⁶* then QUAESTIO V begins fresh); p.24 nn.7–10 are rendered here as [^1]–[^4] and q4's nn.1–6 were NOT re-read; no p.19–23 footers re-claimed (those were q4's). The q4 hand-off's caution to "verify q5's own article position before treating any missing scholion as an error" is moot here: q5 *does* have its own scholion, found independently.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q6`:** QUAESTIO VI (*De gratia in Sacramentis collata* — on the grace conferred in the Sacraments) opens at raw L3491 on printed **p.27** (running head "...QUAEST. VI. — 27"), immediately after q5's SCHOLION §II ends (the *De hac quaestione* q6-citation list) on the p.27 R col. The q5/q6 seam therefore falls on shared printed p.27, but **no mid-page body splice**: q5's content on p.27 is the scholion (which ends cleanly with the §II citation list) before the QUAESTIO VI heading + *De gratia in Sacramentis* subtitle begin a new question. **q5 claims NO footer notes on p.27** (the scholion is footnote-free editorial prose); the **entire p.27 footer band belongs to q6**, whose first body args (`1. Quia Sacramentorum gratia est gratum faciens...verbo¹`) begin keying into it. q6 should start a fresh per-page footer band on p.27; do not re-read q5's p.24–26 footers. Note that q5's scholion §II already gives q6's *De hac quaestione* author-citation list and the Aquinas sacramental-grace summary, so q6 carries no scholion of its own (the q5 article-master scholion §II covers it) — verify this before treating q6's missing scholion as an error.

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla (A, C, D, F, H, I, K, L, M, P, Q, R, T, U, V, W, Y, Z, aa, bb, cc), scriptural citations (Gal. 5:6, John 1:17, Rom. 3:20, Isa. 1:11, Ezech. 20:25, Acts 15:10, Heb. 9:13, Gen. 17:10, Luke 2:24, II Paralip. 7:1), and the patristic/scholastic references (Hugh of St. Victor *de Sacramentis* and *Summa Sententiarum*, Peter Lombard the Master, Peter of Poitiers = Gilbert of Poitiers, the Canon of the Mass, Jerome on Isaiah, the ordinary Gloss of Strabo and Lyra, the *Decretals* C. *Intelleximus*, Tertullian, Lactantius, Forcellini's *Lexicon*, the Council of Trent Sess. VII, William of Auxerre *Summa Aurea*, Augustine *Tract.* 80 *in Ioannem*, Thomas of Argentina, Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Aquinas, Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Durandus, Dionysius the Carthusian, the *Decree for the Armenians*) resolved cleanly against the PDF column bands. Running heads confirm the quaestio number by text on the recto p.25 ("...QUAEST. V. — 25") and (with q6's number) on p.27; the +20 offset confirms the verso pages ("SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 24/26"). The OCR garbled the page digits and a few glyphs ("UN[CUS"/"UNICLIS" for UNICUS; "Quinlo" for Quinto; "differenlia"/"diflerentiam" for differentia; "habenlia" for habentia; "efftcacia" for efficacia) — all resolved against the PDF.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 1, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 6

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 27 -->

### QUAESTIO VI.
### *De gratia in Sacramentis collata.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur de gratia sacramentali, utrum sit eadem per essentiam cum gratia virtutum. Et quod eadem sit, videtur:

*Argg. pro parte affirmativa.*

1. Quia Sacramentorum gratia est gratum faciens, quia facit dignum vita aeterna, ut patet in baptismo; sed in una anima una est gratia gratum faciens[^1]: ergo etc.

2. Item, « tantum unum uni opponitur[^2] »; sed gratia in virtutibus opponitur peccatis, similiter et gratia in Sacramentis: ergo est una.

3. Item, baptizatus baptismo flaminis, si accedit ad Sacramentum, non recipit aliam gratiam, ut dicit Magister[^3]: ergo non est alia gratia in Sacramentis quam in virtutibus, quia iste non habebat nisi gratiam virtutum.

4. Item, idem est quod dirigit separando a termino et inclinando ad terminum[^4]; sed Sacramenta sunt complentia animam separando a malo, virtutes ad terminum ordinando: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

*Pro parte negativa.*

1. Omnis qui non accedit ficte, habet gratiam virtutum; qui autem accedit ficte, nullam gratiam recipit in Sacramento[^5]: ergo aut alia gratia datur ei quam gratia virtutum, aut Sacramenta nihil dant omnino.

2. Item, quae habent diversas differentias essentialiter sunt essentialiter diversa[^6]; sed talia sunt gratia in Sacramentis et virtutibus et donis et beatitudinibus: ergo etc.

3. Item, dona et virtutes et beatitudines essent, si nunquam esset peccatura, non autem gratia Sacramentorum[^7]: ergo etc.

4. Item, connexio est in virtutibus[^8], non autem in Sacramentis: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.**
> Gratia sacramentalis est eadem per essentiam cum gratia virtutum, licet gratia sacramentalis plures connotet effectus.

**Respondeo:** *(Opinio 1.)* Quidam voluerunt dicere, quod in his et in illis est omnino eadem gratia, differens sola comparatione[^9] vel modo participandi. Illa enim gratia, quae facit virtutes et dona esse in anima, sacramentalis dicitur, secundum quod per Sacramentum datur, aut augetur, vel recuperatur; nec instituta sunt Sacramenta ad aliam gratiam, sed ad illam quaerendam et recuperandam.

*(Opinio 2.)* Alia positio est, quod[^10] differens est per essentiam, sicut probant istae rationes; et sicut in uno homine plures sunt gratiae gratis datae, ita et plures gratum facientes, propter hoc quod ordinant ad diversa. Virtutes enim et dona ordinant ad opera bona, sed Sacramenta curant vitia nec ordinant ad opera bona nisi *ex consequenti*; unde secundum quod multa sunt vitia, multae sunt gratiae sacramentales.

<!-- page 28 -->

*(Opinio 3.)* Tertia positio est probabilior et melior, quod gratia gratum faciens una est; et huius signum est, quia tollitur uno peccato tota. Sed attendendum, quod cum dico gratiam virtutum, dico gratiam gratum facientem et habitum substratum; et gratia gratum faciens una est, sed habitus substratus alius et alius[^11]. Similiter cum dico gratiam sacramentalem, non tantum dico gratiam, sed etiam effectum curationis; et gratia quidem una est, sed effectus curationis plures sunt. Distinguitur ergo gratia in Sacramentis, donis et virtutibus concernendo effectus et habitus substratos. Unde sacramentalis gratia supra gratiam virtutum propter peccatum addit aliquem effectum.

*Corollarium.* Exemplum in eo qui gratus est et baptizatus: datur illi gratiae effectus, quia non tantum absolvitur[^12] a culpa, sed etiam a poena; sicut et in aliis virtutibus et donis et beatitudinibus est differentia penes habitus substratos, qui differunt propter differentiam in actibus, ad quos ordinant. Nam virtutes ordinant ad opera prima, dona ad media, beatitudines ad perfecta, ut alibi[^13] patet; Sacramenta vero addunt remedium curationis. — Et rationes procedunt secundum has duas vias[^14].

---

english:
### QUESTION VI.
### *On the grace conferred in the Sacraments.*

Sixth and last, the question is asked concerning sacramental grace, whether it is the same in essence with the grace of the virtues. And that it is the same, it seems:

*Arguments for the affirmative side.*

1. Because the grace of the Sacraments is sanctifying grace, since it makes one worthy of eternal life, as is plain in baptism; but in one soul there is one sanctifying grace[^1]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, "only one thing is opposed to one thing[^2]"; but the grace in the virtues is opposed to sins, and likewise the grace in the Sacraments: therefore it is one.

3. Likewise, one baptized by the baptism of the Spirit, if he comes to the Sacrament, does not receive another grace, as the Master says[^3]: therefore there is not another grace in the Sacraments than in the virtues, for that man had nothing but the grace of the virtues.

4. Likewise, it is the same thing that directs by separating from a terminus and by inclining toward a terminus[^4]; but the Sacraments are what complete the soul by separating it from evil, the virtues by ordering it toward the terminus: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

*For the negative side.*

1. Everyone who does not approach feignedly has the grace of the virtues; but one who approaches feignedly receives no grace in the Sacrament[^5]: therefore either another grace is given to him than the grace of the virtues, or the Sacraments give nothing at all.

2. Likewise, things that have diverse differences are essentially diverse[^6]; but such are the grace in the Sacraments and in the virtues and in the gifts and in the beatitudes: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the gifts and virtues and beatitudes would exist even if [the soul] were never going to sin, but not the grace of the Sacraments[^7]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, there is a connection in the virtues[^8], but not in the Sacraments: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.**
> Sacramental grace is the same in essence with the grace of the virtues, although sacramental grace connotes more effects.

**I respond:** *(Opinion 1.)* Some have wished to say that in these and in those there is altogether the same grace, differing by relation alone[^9] or by mode of participation. For that grace which causes the virtues and gifts to be in the soul is called sacramental insofar as it is given, or increased, or recovered through the Sacrament; nor were the Sacraments instituted for another grace, but for the seeking and recovering of that one.

*(Opinion 2.)* Another position is that[^10] it differs in essence, as these reasons prove; and just as in one man there are many gratuitously given graces, so also many sanctifying graces, because they are ordered toward diverse things. For the virtues and gifts are ordered toward good works, but the Sacraments heal vices and are not ordered toward good works except *consequently*; whence, according as there are many vices, there are many sacramental graces.

*(Opinion 3.)* The third position is more probable and better, namely that sanctifying grace is one; and a sign of this is that it is wholly removed by one sin. But it must be noted that when I say "the grace of the virtues," I mean sanctifying grace and the underlying habit; and sanctifying grace is one, but the underlying habit is one and another[^11]. Likewise, when I say "sacramental grace," I do not say grace only, but also the effect of healing; and the grace indeed is one, but the effects of healing are many. Grace is therefore distinguished in the Sacraments, gifts, and virtues with regard to the effects and the underlying habits. Whence sacramental grace adds, over and above the grace of the virtues, some effect on account of sin.

*Corollary.* An example is in one who is in grace and baptized: an effect of grace is given to him, because he is not only absolved[^12] from guilt, but also from punishment; just as also in the other virtues and gifts and beatitudes there is a difference with respect to the underlying habits, which differ on account of the difference in the acts toward which they are ordered. For the virtues are ordered toward first works, the gifts toward intermediate ones, the beatitudes toward perfect ones, as is plain elsewhere[^13]; but the Sacraments add the remedy of healing. — And the reasons proceed according to these two ways[^14].

---

la: Ut monstratum est II. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1.

en: As was shown in II Sent., d. 27, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 17. (IX. c. 3.), et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 10. (c. 2.).

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* X, text 17 (IX, c. 3), and *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 10 (c. 2).

la: Infra d. IV. c. 3.

en: Below, d. IV, c. 3.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 370, nota 1. — Inferius pro *ad terminum* codd. F H I *ad Deum*, cod. Z legit *ad terminum*, id est Deum.

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 370, note 1. — Below, for *ad terminum* ("toward the terminus") codices F H I read *ad Deum* ("toward God"); codex Z reads *ad terminum*, that is, [toward] God.

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 2, et ibid. Comment. p. I. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See below, the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 2, and the Commentary thereon, p. I, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Aristot., I. Topic. c. 13: *Eorundem eaedem differentiae.* — De minori vide III. Sent. d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 13: "The differences of the same things are the same." — On the minor [premise] see III Sent., d. 34, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.

la: De quo vide III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. et 3.

en: On which see III Sent., d. 36, q. 1 and 3.

la: Codd. E L M R S V W pro *comparatione*, codd. A K bb *per comparationem*, cod. F *solum per comparationem*. Mox pro *participandi* cod. H *comparandi*. Inferius post *in anima* Vat. prosequitur *dicitur esse virtutum, sacramentalis vero dicitur*.

en: Codices E L M R S V W [read] for *comparatione* ("by relation"), codices A K bb *per comparationem*, codex F *solum per comparationem*. Shortly after, for *participandi* ("of participating") codex H [reads] *comparandi*. Below, after *in anima* ("in the soul") the Vatican edition continues: *dicitur esse virtutum, sacramentalis vero dicitur* ("is said to be [the grace] of the virtues, while it is called sacramental").

la: In edd. additur *in his et in illis gratia*.

en: In the editions there is added *in his et in illis gratia* ("in these and in those a grace").

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 33. q. 5. scholion. — Vat. cum aliquot codd. *habitus substrati alii et alii*.

en: See III Sent., d. 33, q. 5, scholion. — The Vatican edition with some codices [reads] *habitus substrati alii et alii* ("underlying habits, one and another").

la: Codd. A E F H I K V W bb non male *absolvit*. Inferius substituimus maioris claritatis causa ex cod. H *sicut* pro *sic*; ex codd. F H P Q (H a secunda manu) supplevimus *est differentia*, pro quo edd. tantum *est*. Mutavimus etiam omnino interpunctionem.

en: Codices A E F H I K V W bb not badly [read] *absolvit*. Below, for the sake of greater clarity we substituted from codex H *sicut* for *sic*; from codices F H P Q (H in a second hand) we supplied *est differentia* ("there is a difference"), for which the editions have only *est* ("there is"). We also altered the punctuation throughout.

la: Libr. III. Sent. d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Book III Sent., d. 34, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.27–28 (PDF pp.47–48; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 3491–3581) as the base for the clean *videtur/Contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. This chunk is **Distinction I, Part I, Articulus Unicus, Quaestio VI** — *De gratia in Sacramentis collata* (on the grace conferred in the Sacraments). **This is the LAST quaestio of Pars I (the article was a single Articulus Unicus); after it the text passes to `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` and then to Pars II.** The two-column IA OCR is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo, the three opinion-reports, the Corollarium, 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 argument prose of the opening *Argumenta* and *Contra*.

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L3493 `Sexto et ultimo quaeritur de gratia sacramentali, utrum sit eadem per essentiam cum gratia virtutum` follows the `QUAESTIO VI. / De gratia in Sacramentis collata` heading (raw L3491 f.; confirmed eyes-on against the p.27 L-1 band, which prints `QUAESTIO VI.` and the *De gratia in Sacramentis collata* subtitle) and matches `title_la`. No q-swap. The opener is keyed to the *sixth and last* question of the article (whether sacramental grace is one in essence with the grace of the virtues). Internal structure: a single-clause Master's-question statement, 4 affirmative *Argumenta* (1–4), 4 *Contra* (1–4), a one-sentence Conclusio blockquote, a Respondeo reporting three opinions (Opinio 1 = identity by relation; Opinio 2 = essential difference; Opinio 3 = *probabilior et melior*, grace one but underlying habits/effects many), and a closing Corollarium with the example of the baptized person and the *Et rationes procedunt secundum has duas vias* conclusion. No *Ad obiecta* section (the Corollarium's last clause disposes of the arguments by the two ways).

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.27** (running head "DIST. I. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI. — 27", recto): the QUAESTIO VI heading + *De gratia in Sacramentis collata* subtitle, the opener, *Argumenta* 1–4 and *Contra* 1 (L col, beneath q5's scholion §I which fills L-0); *Contra* 2 (L-bottom); *Contra* 3–4, the CONCLUSIO, the RESPONDEO (Opinio 1 + Opinio 2) (R col, beneath q5's scholion §II which fills R-0). Footer note-series for the page runs **1–10** (L footer nn.1–5; R footer nn.6–10) → [^1]–[^10]. **The entire p.27 footer band belongs to q6** (q5's scholion on p.27 is footnote-free editorial prose — confirmed in the q5 hand-off).
- **p.28** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 28", verso): Opinio 3 + the Conclusio sentence (L-top); the Corollarium + the *Et rationes procedunt secundum has duas vias* close (R-top). After q6 closes, `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` begins (L-bottom of L-0 / R-0) — a NEW chunk. Footer note-series for q6 on p.28 runs **1–4** (L footer) → [^11]–[^14]; the page's footer notes 5/6/7 (*communicare* / *sacrae rei signum* / *Secundum Aristot. VI. Topic.*) belong to the DUBIA, not q6, and were NOT claimed here.

**Apparatus count = 14** (p.27: 10; p.28: 4). All keyed to body markers in both languages. The two per-page footer-restart series (p.27 nn.1–10, p.28 nn.1–4) are merged into one consecutive [^1]–[^14] run for this file.

**Scholion: ABSENT — `has_scholion: false` (verified independently).** q6 carries no scholion of its own. Two independent confirmations: (a) the q5 hand-off states q5's two-section scholion §II explicitly opens *Quoad seq. (6.) quaestionem* and already supplies q6's *De hac quaestione* author-citation list + Aquinas sacramental-grace summary, so the article-master scholion attached to q5 covers q6; (b) **q6's own p.28 footer note 4 reads `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`** ([^14], anchored at *...secundum has duas vias*) — a direct redirect to q5's scholion. No scholion was invented; the scholion-scope is q5 §II.

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q5`:** q5's Notes forwarded that (a) QUAESTIO VI opens at raw L3491 on printed p.27 (running head "...QUAEST. VI. — 27"), immediately after q5's SCHOLION §II ends on the p.27 R col; (b) the q5/q6 seam falls on shared printed p.27 but with **no mid-page body splice** (q5's p.27 content is the footnote-free scholion §I/§II, which ends cleanly before the QUAESTIO VI heading); (c) **q5 claims NO footer notes on p.27 — the entire p.27 footer band belongs to q6**; (d) q6 should start a fresh per-page footer band on p.27 and not re-read q5's p.24–26 footers; (e) q5 §II already gives q6's citation list + Aquinas summary, so q6 carries no scholion of its own — "verify before treating q6's missing scholion as an error." All five honored: q6 opens with the QUAESTIO VI heading + subtitle on the p.27 L col (beneath q5's scholion §I); the q5/q6 seam is grammatically clean (q5's scholion §II citation list ends before the heading); p.27 footer nn.1–10 are rendered here as [^1]–[^10]; no p.24–26 footers re-claimed; `has_scholion:false` confirmed both by the q5 §II bridge AND by q6's own footer note 4 redirect.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded — CLOSES Pars I (Articulus Unicus).** This is the LAST quaestio of Distinction I, Part I. After q6's body ends on the p.28 R col at *...secundum has duas vias⁴* (raw ~L3581), `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` begins at raw L3582 (Dub. I, Dub. II, ... on pp.28 ff., PDF 48 ff.) — that is a separate chunk (no `d1-p1-dubia` file exists yet; will need scaffolding). **Then Pars II begins at `DIST. I. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS` at raw L3874, printed p.31 (PDF 51).** Footer hand-off forward: q6 claims **only p.28 footer nn.1–4** (its body markers, ending at the *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* note). **The remainder of the p.28 footer band (nn.5, 6, 7 and onward — *communicare* / *sacrae rei signum* / the *Secundum Aristot. VI. Topic.* definition note / the *In cod. P secunda manus* Respondeo note) belongs to the p.28 DUBIA (Dub. I), NOT to q6.** So whatever chunk takes the DUBIA must start its p.28 footer band at n.5, picking up nothing from q6. q6 forwards no body splice into the DUBIA (the DUBIA opens fresh with *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram...*).

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla (A, E, F, H, I, K, L, M, P, Q, R, S, V, W, Z, bb), the cross-references (II Sent. d.27 / d.29; III Sent. d.33 / d.34 / d.36; IV Sent. lit. Magistri d.IV; *tom. III pag. 370*), and the Aristotelian citations (*Metaphysics* X / IX, *On the Heavens* I, *Topics* I c.13 *Eorundem eaedem differentiae*) resolved cleanly against the PDF column bands. The running head confirms the quaestio number on the recto p.27 ("...QUAEST. VI. — 27"); the +20 offset confirms the verso p.28 ("SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 28"). The OCR garbled several glyphs ("Dc gralia" for De gratia; "esl"/"elc."/"elhm" for est/etc./etiam; "virlutum"/"virtules" for virtutum/virtutes; "ordinanl"/"orJinant" for ordinant; "coroiiaiium" for corollarium; "couciusio" for conclusio; "Senl."/"Meiaph."/"texL" in the footers) — all resolved against the PDF.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 32 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
### *De remedio contra peccatum originale tempore legis naturalis.*

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum ad remedium originalis suffecerit fides informis.*

Et quod fides informis non suffecerit, ostenditur sic.

1. Nihil placet Deo nisi ex caritate[^1]; sed professio fidei informis est sine caritate: ergo Domino non placebat: ergo propter illam vel meritum illius iustificationem parvulo non infundebat.

2. Item, si aliquis possit mereri alii, tamen efficacius meretur sibi[^2]: ergo si parentes per fidem informem non poterant sibi mereri iustificationem, ergo nec parvulo.

**Contra:**

1. Per fidem informem meretur quis et facit operationem miraculorum et impetrat alii sanitatem corporalem[^3]: ergo si Deus aeque pronus est et magis ad sanandum spiritualiter quam corporaliter, videtur, quod per fidem informem possit spiritualis sanitas impetrari ei saltem, qui non potest se ad sanitatem praeparare.

2. Item, si non posset, tria ex hoc inconvenientia sequerentur. Primum, quia peccatum actuale imputaretur filio, qui alias mundaretur, si essent parentes sine peccato[^4]. Secundum, quia cum nullus sit certus, utrum sit in caritate, nulla ei esset certitudo de curatione parvuli: ergo semper deberet curare et remedium offerre. Tertium, quia potius deberet dici parvulus mundari in caritate parentum quam in fide; quod non dicit Gregorius[^5].

### CONCLUSIO.

> Fides informis parentum in lege naturae probabiliter poterat esse remedium parvulis.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dixerunt aliqui, quod fides parentum erat remedium parvulo non ratione *actus credendi* principaliter, sed ratione *ipsius crediti,* a quo, in quantum creditum, fluit virtus in omnia Sacramenta. Et quia creditum nunquam est informe, sed uniforme respectu fidei informis et formatae; ideo per fidem quantumcumque informem, dum tamen esset vera, dabatur remedium parvulo.

Aliter tamen potest dici, quod non *ipsum creditum* erat remedium, sed ipsa *fidei professio,* quae vel fit motu fidei, vel actu exteriori, erat dispositio curationis; et haec est in circumcisione et baptismate, quia est ibi professio fidei ipso *facto;* sed professio fidei, quam faciebant parentes, reputabatur[^6] parvulo ex divina misericordia. Et quia professio fidei in habente originale tantum sufficienter disponit ad gratiam, etiam si non fiat in caritate — habens enim originale, cum non teneatur conteri, ex sola voluntate credendi et captivatione intellectus[^7] ad gratiam se praeparat; sic et parvulus praeparatur merito congrui; in iustificatione enim

<!-- page 33 -->

sive in curatione parvuli potius requiritur meritum congrui quam condigni, sicut etiam in iustificatione adulti — ideo dico sine praeiudicio, quod fides informis parentum esse poterat remedium parvulo.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod fides informis non placet Deo; dicendum, quod[^8] non placet Deo tanquam meritorium ex condigno, bene tamen placet sicut dispositivum de congruo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides informis non sufficit ad remissionem propriae culpae; dicendum, quod illud non valet: quia maior dispositio requiritur ad hoc, ut remittatur actuale quam originale, quia est ex maiori culpa commissum; ideo requiritur attritio cum fide, sed in habente originale sufficit fides[^9]. Quando ergo dicit: magis meretur quilibet sibi quam alii; intelligendum est, ceteris conditionibus existentibus paribus.

english:
<!-- page 32 -->

### ARTICLE I.
### *On the remedy against original sin in the time of the natural law.*

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether informed faith would suffice for the remedy of original [sin].*

And that informed faith would not have sufficed is shown thus.

1. Nothing pleases God except from charity[^1]; but the profession of informed faith is without charity: therefore it was not pleasing to the Lord: therefore on account of it, or [on account of] its merit, he did not infuse justification into the little child.

2. Likewise, if someone can merit for another, nevertheless he merits more efficaciously for himself[^2]: therefore if the parents, through informed faith, could not merit justification for themselves, then neither [could they] for the child.

**On the contrary:**

1. Through informed faith one merits and performs the working of miracles and obtains bodily health for another[^3]: therefore if God is equally and more inclined to heal spiritually than bodily, it seems that through informed faith spiritual health can be obtained for him at least who cannot prepare himself for health.

2. Likewise, if it could not [be obtained], three unfitting [consequences] would follow from this. The first, that an actual sin would be imputed to the son, who would otherwise be cleansed, if the parents were without sin[^4]. The second, that since no one is certain whether he is in charity, there would be for him no certainty about the cure of the child: therefore he ought always to cure [him] and to offer the remedy. The third, that the child ought rather to be said to be cleansed in the charity of the parents than in [their] faith; which Gregory does not say[^5].

### CONCLUSIO.

> The informed faith of the parents in the natural law could probably be a remedy for little children.

**I respond:** To this some have said that the faith of the parents was a remedy for the child not principally by reason of the *act of believing,* but by reason of the *thing believed* itself, from which, insofar as it is believed, virtue flows into all the Sacraments. And since the thing believed is never informed but uniform with respect to informed and formed faith; therefore through faith, however informed [it be], provided nevertheless it were true, a remedy was given to the child.

Otherwise, however, it can be said that it was not the *thing believed itself* that was the remedy, but the *profession of faith* itself, which comes about either by an act of faith or by an exterior act, that was the disposition for the cure; and this [profession] is [found] in circumcision and in baptism, because there is there a profession of faith by the very *deed;* but the profession of faith which the parents made was reckoned[^6] to the child out of divine mercy. And because the profession of faith in one having original [sin] only sufficiently disposes for grace, even if it be not made in charity — for one having original [sin], since he is not bound to be contrite, prepares himself for grace from the will to believe alone and from the captivity of the intellect[^7]; so too the child is prepared by the merit of congruity; for in justification

<!-- page 33 -->

or in the cure of a child the merit of congruity is required rather than [that] of condignity, just as also in the justification of an adult — therefore I say without prejudice that the informed faith of the parents could be a remedy for the child.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that informed faith does not please God; it must be said that[^8] it does not please God as something meritorious from condignity, yet it does please [him] as something dispositive from congruity.

2. To that which is objected, that informed faith does not suffice for the remission of one's own guilt; it must be said that this does not hold: because a greater disposition is required for this, that an actual [sin] be remitted, than [for] an original [sin], because it was committed from a greater guilt; therefore contrition together with faith is required, but in one having original [sin] faith suffices[^9]. When therefore he says: each one merits more for himself than for another; it must be understood [with] the other conditions remaining equal.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 13, 1. seqq. — Cod. Z *nisi fiat in caritate.* Superius pro *suffecerit* codd. F G H I Z aa *sufficeret.* Inferius pro primo *ergo* cod. V *ideo.*

en: Cf. 1 Cor. 13:1ff. — Codex Z [reads] *unless it be done in charity.* Above, for *would have sufficed,* codices F G H I Z aa [read] *would suffice.* Below, for the first *therefore,* codex V [reads] *thus.*

la: Vide Glossam Bedae tom. II. pag. 661, nota 6. — Pro *si aliquis* cod. Q *etsi aliquis,* pro *possit,* quod habent codd. A E G I K V W, in aliis *posset.* In fine arg. pro *ergo nec* cod. Z *ergo multo minus.*

en: See the Gloss of Bede, vol. II, p. 661, note 6. — For *if someone* codex Q [reads] *even if someone,* and for *can,* which codices A E G I K V W have, in others [the reading is] *could.* At the end of the argument, for *therefore neither* codex Z [reads] *therefore much less.*

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 13, 2.

en: Reference is made to 1 Cor. 13:2.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 1, ubi ostenditur, peccata actualia parentum filiis non imputari. — Post pauca respicitur Eccle. 9, 1: *Nescit homo, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit.* — Superius pro *si non posset* non pauci codd. *si non possent.* Subinde post *actuale* codd. F H supplent *parentum.*

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 1, where it is shown that the actual sins of the parents are not imputed to the sons. — A little after, reference is made to Eccles. 9:1: *Man knows not whether he is worthy of love or of hatred.* — Above, for *if he could not* not a few codices [read] *if they could not.* Then, after *actual,* codices F H supply *of the parents.*

la: Libr. IV. Moral. c. 3. praefationis. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. — Pro *debere dici* cod. F *diceretur.*

en: Book IV of the *Morals,* c. 3 of the preface. See here the text of the Master, c. 8. — For *that it ought to be said* codex F [reads] *it would be said.*

la: Non pauci codd. *reputatur,* ed. 1 *imputabatur.* Mox pro *parvulo* cod. R *abundans.*

en: Not a few codices [read] *is reckoned,* the first edition *was imputed.* Then, for *to the child,* codex R is redundant.

la: Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5: *In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.* — Cfr. infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — De merito congrui et condigni vide in iustificatione II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. — Circa finem corp. pro *dico* codd. F H I O R T U X *dicendum,* ed. 1 cum aliquot codd. *dicit,* Vat. *dicitur.* Subinde voci *remedium* cod. Z praemittit *in.*

en: Reference is made to 2 Cor. 10:5: *Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.* — Cf. below, d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — On the merit of congruity and condignity, see [the treatment] of justification at II Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. — Near the end of the body [of the article], for *I say* codices F H I O R T U X [read] *it must be said,* the first edition with some codices *he says,* the Vatican [edition] *it is said.* Then, before the word *remedy,* codex Z prefixes *in.*

la: Cod. Z addit *verum est, quod.*

en: Codex Z adds *it is true, that.*

la: Vide infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Paulo superius pro *quam originale* cod. H *quam ad hoc, ut remittatur originale,* Vat. *mortale,* codd. C D W et ed. 1 pro *actuale quam originale* substituunt *originale,* quorum lectio explicatur a cod. F: *quin maior dispositio ibi requiritur quam ad hoc, ut remittatur originale.* Subinde pro *attritio* codd. F H *contritio.*

en: See below, d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1 and following. — A little above, for *than [an] original [sin]* codex H [reads] *than [for] this, that an original [sin] be remitted,* the Vatican [edition] *mortal,* codices C D W and the first edition for *an actual than an original [sin]* substitute *an original [sin],* whose reading is explained by codex F: *but rather a greater disposition is there required than for this, that an original [sin] be remitted.* Then, for *attrition* codices F H [read] *contrition.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** In tribus huius articuli quaestionibus agitur de remedio contra peccatum originale, quod Deus iis quibus circumcisio non erat mandata, providit, quod est *fides in Redemptorem* vel propria, vel aliena, parvulis applicata (cfr. infra q. 3.). Ortum et receptum principium tenet, ab illo peccato naturae neminem nisi per coniunctionem quandam cum Christo liberari posse. Virtus autem salvandi parvulum oritur non tam ex parte subiecti actum fidei elicientis quam ex parte obiecti crediti, ut docet S. Thomas; alii autem simul urgent meritum de congruo, quod comitatur illam protestationem fidei. Plura dubia circa hoc remedium discutienda sunt, scilicet utrum sufficiebat fides in *habitu* sine actu, item utrum fides *informis,* denique utrum solus actus *internus* fidei sine protestatione vel signo externo. Durandus in nonnullis a ceteris in his recedit. De I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. IV. q. 2. m. 5; cfr. q. 1. m. 5. a. 2. § 1. 2. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 6; cfr. S. III. q. 61. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 8. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 9.

**II.** Primae solutioni 2. quaestionis adhaeret Durand. (loc. cit.), et aliquatenus favet Scotus; ipse etiam S. Thom. in Summa (loc. cit. ad 3, et q. 70. a. 4. ad 2; de Malo q. 4. a. 8. ad 12.) hanc potius opinionem tanquam probabilem praeferre videtur; sed in Comment. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.) manifeste ob auctoritatem Gregorii cum S. Bonav. secundam declarat probabiliorem. De eadem tractant praeter laudatos: Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 3.

**III.** De 3. quaestione similiter fuit duplex opinio: una tenuit, adultis praeter interiorem fidei actum necessariam fuisse protestationem fidei per aliqua signa sensibilia determinata; altera vero, tantum interiorem actum fuisse necessarium, cultum vero Dei per signa aliqua externa tantum valde convenientem, sive, ut dicit S. Bonav., de consilio. Huic sententiae favet etiam S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 6. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 102. a. 1; III. q. 60. a. 5. ad 3, q. 70. a. 2. ad 1. Idem docet Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. 2. 3, qui de Sacramentis et sacrificiis legis naturae ibidem et m. 1. et 2. multas solvit quaestiones. — De speciebus numerorum cfr. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion. De eadem quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 8. 11. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In the three questions of this article there is treated the remedy against original sin which God provided for those to whom circumcision was not commanded, which is *faith in the Redeemer,* whether one's own or another's, applied to little children (cf. below, q. 3). It holds [as] an arisen and received principle that no one can be freed from that sin of nature except through a certain conjunction with Christ. But the power of saving the child arises not so much on the part of the subject eliciting an act of faith as on the part of the object believed, as St. Thomas teaches; others, however, at the same time press the merit of congruity which accompanies that protestation of faith. Many doubts about this remedy must be discussed, namely whether faith in *habit* without an act sufficed, likewise whether *informed* faith [sufficed], and finally whether the *interior* act of faith alone without a protestation or external sign [sufficed]. Durandus in some [points] departs from the others in these matters. On the first question: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q., S. p. IV. q. 2. m. 5; cf. q. 1. m. 5. a. 2. § 1. 2. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following qq., here q. 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 6; cf. S. III. q. 61. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5. q. 2. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following qq., here q. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following qq., here q. 9.

**II.** To the first solution of the 2nd question Durandus adheres (loc. cit.), and Scotus somewhat favors it; St. Thomas himself too in the Summa (loc. cit. ad 3, and q. 70. a. 4. ad 2; de Malo q. 4. a. 8. ad 12) seems rather to prefer this opinion as probable; but in the Commentary (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2) he manifestly, on account of the authority of Gregory, with St. Bonaventure declares the second [opinion] the more probable. On the same [question] there treat, besides those praised [above]: Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5. q. 3.

**III.** On the 3rd question there was likewise a twofold opinion: one held that, for adults, besides the interior act of faith, a protestation of faith through certain determinate sensible signs was necessary; the other, however, [held] that only the interior act was necessary, but that the worship of God through some external signs only was highly fitting, or, as St. Bonaventure says, [a matter] of counsel. This opinion is favored also by St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 6. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 102. a. 1; III. q. 60. a. 5. ad 3, q. 70. a. 2. ad 1. The same is taught by Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. 2. 3, who, concerning the Sacraments and sacrifices of the natural law, in the same place and in m. 1 and 2 solves many questions. — On the kinds of numbers cf. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion. On the same question, besides those praised [above]: B. Albert, here a. 8. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 5. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5. q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p032-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p033-{L,R}-*`, split_x = 1880); cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 3985–4119), which cascade-shatters the two-column Respondeo + scholion + footers. Printed pp. 32–33 = PDF pp. 52–53 (offset pdf = printed + 20). This is Part II, Article I, Question I — the FIRST of Article I's three questions ("De remedio contra peccatum originale tempore legis naturalis"). Per the locked Vol II/IV convention, the **ARTICULUS I opener** (`ARTICULUS I. / De remedio contra peccatum originale tempore legis naturalis.`) is folded into this q1 (no standalone article-divisio chunk).

**Alignment VERIFIED.** The QUAESTIO I title *Utrum ad remedium originalis suffecerit fides informis* (whether informed faith would suffice) matches the divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM first listed question ("Primo quaeritur, utrum ad remedium originalis sufficeret fides informis"). No q-swap.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.32** (PDF 52): top = the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the divisio's, NOT re-set here) + the centered ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I headers; then q1's body — the *videtur* arguments 1–2, the *Contra* 1–2 (left column), the CONCLUSIO blockquote, and the RESPONDEO (right column, with its two *modi dicendi*), which runs to the foot of the page. Footer note-series **1–9**; **notes 1–2 belong to the preceding Part II divisio** (handed off — `Codd. R S X… scilicet de fide` and `Edd. … suffecerit`), NOT re-claimed here. This question claims **p.32 notes 3–9** (renumbered [^1]–[^7]).
- **p.33** (PDF 53; running head "DIST. I. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II."): the RESPONDEO concludes at the top of the left column, then the *Ad obiecta* replies 1 (left column) and 2 (right column top), then the article-master SCHOLION §I–§III (spanning both columns' upper region). QUAESTIO II's body begins lower in both columns. Footer note-series **1–8**; this question claims **only p.33 notes 1–2** (the markers in *Ad obiecta* replies 1 and 2; renumbered [^8]–[^9]). **p.33 notes 3–8 belong to the following QUAESTIO II** (q2's args 1–3, references to *remissio originalis* / *Libr. I de Sacram.* etc.).

**Marker mapping (per-page → continuous).** p.32 n.3 → [^1] (*caritate*), n.4 → [^2] (*sibi*), n.5 → [^3] (*sanitatem corporalem*), n.6 → [^4] (*parentes sine peccato*), n.7 → [^5] (*Gregorius*), n.8 → [^6] (*reputabatur*), n.9 → [^7] (*captivatione intellectus*); p.33 n.1 → [^8] (Ad obiecta 1 *quod*), n.2 → [^9] (Ad obiecta 2 *sufficit fides*). Marker pairing 9/9/9 (Latin body = English body = defs).

**Scholion scope.** `has_scholion: TRUE`. The single SCHOLION (raw ~4079, printed at the foot of q1 / top of p.33, spanning both columns) is an **article-master scholion** covering all three questions of Article I: §I surveys *this* q1 (informed faith / the saving power on the part of the object believed); §II treats the solution of q2 (faith alone for children & adults); §III treats q3 (the necessity of a protestation of faith / sacrifice for adults). It is placed here with q1 per the source layout and the Vol II convention (article-master scholion folds into q1). Siblings q2 and q3 are therefore expected to carry **no scholion** (redirect to this §II / §III respectively).

**Hand-off picked up ← `d1-p2-divisio`:** p.32 footer notes 3–9 (the divisio kept p.31 n.9 + p.32 nn.1–2 and forwarded nn.3–9 here, which it pre-identified: Cfr. I. Cor. 13 / Glossam Bedae / Respicitur I. Cor. 13,2 / Cfr. II. Sent. d.33 / Libr. IV Moral. / Non pauci codd. *reputatur* / Respicitur II. Cor. 10,5). All seven landed as [^1]–[^7]. Also picked up the ARTICULUS I opener (folded in above).

**Hand-off forwarded → `d1-p2-a1-q2`:** NOTHING. q1's band closes at p.33 n.2 ([^9]). QUAESTIO II opens lower on p.33 (raw L4120, *Utrum ad remissionem originalis sufficeret sola fides*) and starts a FRESH per-page band — **p.33 footer notes 3–8 are q2's** (its args 1–3: *Per verbum Gregorii… in littera*, *Hugo de sancto Victore*, etc.). q2 is also `has_scholion: false` (redirect to this article-master scholion §II).

**[?] flags:** none. The OCR cascade-shatter of the right-column Respondeo and the scholion was fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all readings are legible. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (`acl`→*ad*, `sujfecerit`→*suffecerit*, `Niliil`→*Nihil*, `raereri`→*mereri*, `videlur`→*videtur*, `iitrum`→*utrum*, `SCHOLIOK`→*SCHOLION*, `Iribus liuius arliculi`→*tribus huius articuli*, `pcccatum`→*peccatum*, `Cbristo`→*Christo*, `prolestationem`→*protestationem*, `numerorim`→*numerorum*, etc.).