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

title_alt:
Utrum ordo sit in Ecclesia
Whether there is order in the Church

source_text:
<!-- page 613 -->

### Articulus II. *De ordinis Sacramento in generali.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de Sacramento ordinis in generali, de quo quaeruntur quatuor. Primo quaeritur, utrum ordo sit in Ecclesia. Secundo, utrum sit Sacramentum. Tertio, utrum sit Sacramentum novae legis proprium. Quarto, utrum sit Sacramentum unum.

<!-- page 614 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum ordo sit in Ecclesia.*

Quantum ad primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod in Ecclesia sit ordo:

1. Primo per illud quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^1], quod Ecclesia similis est corpori organico; sed corpus organicum ad sui perfectionem necessario requirit ordinationem: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc videtur Exodi vigesimo quinto[^2]: *Vide omnia, et fac secundum exemplar, quod tibi in monte monstratum est*: ergo Ecclesia militans imitari debet triumphantem; ut enim dicit Apostolus, omnia haec exemplaria sunt caelestium. Si ergo in Ecclesia triumphante ordo est, ut in Angelis, patet etc.

3. Item, Ecclesia constituitur ex duplici pariete, scilicet laicali et clericali; sed in pariete laicali est ordo, utpote imperator, rex, dux, comes, tribunus, centurio et decurio, omnia haec ordinem dicunt: si ergo Ecclesia militat militia spirituali, videtur, quod et ipsa debeat esse *ut castrorum acies ordinata*[^3].

4. Item, ubicumque est multitudo, aut confusa est, aut ad ordinem redacta est[^4] ad regimen: ergo si in ecclesiastica multitudine confusio necessario vitatur, necesse est, quod ibi ponatur ordo.

**Contra:** 1. Ubicumque est ordo, ibi est distinctio; sed ut dicitur ad Galatas tertio[^5]: *Omnes nos unum sumus in Christo* — intelligendum de omnibus fidelibus — ergo ibi non videtur esse ordo.

2. Item, ubicumque est ordo, ibi est determinata praelatio et subiectio; sed in Ecclesia quilibet se debet reputare infimum, sicut dicitur ad Philippenses secundo[^6]: *In humilitate superiores sibi invicem* etc.; Lucae vigesimo secundo: *Quicumque voluerit inter vos maior esse* etc.

3. Item, ubi est ordo, ibi est praelatio et dominium, et ubi hoc est, ibi est aliqua subiectio et servitus; sed omnes fideles *in libertatem vocati* sunt, sicut dicitur ad Galatas quinto[^7]: ergo inter fideles in Ecclesia nullus est ordo.

4. Item, si est ordo, aut ergo secundum *bona naturae*, aut secundum *bona fortunae*, aut secundum *dona gratiae*. Si secundum *bona naturae*: ergo ille debet esse superior, qui est industrior et qui fortior; et hoc falsum. Si secundum *bona fortunae*: ergo ille superior, qui ditior et potentior. Si secundum *dona gratiae*; sed nemo scit, quis habet de gratia plus vel minus: ergo nemo scit, quis sit subditus, aut quis sit praelatus: ergo non videtur, quod sit[^8] aliquis ordo.

> **Conclusio.** *Ordinem esse necessarium in Ecclesia, duplici ratione probatur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod necessarius est ordo in Ecclesia duplici ratione, scilicet propter pulcritudinem et propter rectitudinem. — Cum enim sit magna multitudo in Ecclesia, nisi esset ordo, manifeste appareret confusio, et haec est multitudinis foedatio. Unde omnis sapiens, qui, eo ipso quod sapiens, pulcritudinis amator est, non producit multa sine ordine[^9]; et in hoc maxime apparet sapientia Dei, quae inter omnia opera sua manifestatur in constitutione Ecclesiae. — Necessarius est etiam ordo propter rectitudinem. Etenim multitudo, cum est in statu, in quo deviare potest, errat, si non habet ducem nec rectorem, sicut dicitur tertii Regum ultimo[^10]: *Vidi cunctum Israel dispersum in montibus, sicut oves non habentes pastorem*. Quoniam ergo multitudo Ecclesiae est in statu, in quo potest deviare, indiget capite et regimine; et cum unus non possit omnibus sufficere nec ad omnia: ideo oportuit se-

<!-- page 615 -->

cundum plus et minus ecclesiastica officia et potestates distribuere, ut Ecclesia regatur et dirigatur sine errore[^1b]. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de unitate, dicendum, quod sicut in corpore nostro est considerare naturam, per quam est unitas et convenientia, et naturam, secundum quam est distinctio sive differentia — prima complexio, secunda est organizatio — sic in corpore, quod est Ecclesia. Per naturam enim caritatis omnes unimur, sed per dona alia gratiarum, quae Apostolus enumerat primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^2b], distinguimur et ordinamur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unusquisque se debet reputare inferiorem; dicendum, quod reputare se inferiorem est dupliciter: vel quantum ad *vitae meritum*, vel quantum ad *officium*. Quantum ad *vitae meritum*, quia nemo scit, quanti meriti sit, sic debet se reputare inferiorem; sed quantum ad *officium* non oportet, et quantum ad hoc attenditur ordo.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de libertate, dicendum, quod libertas haec non excludit *subiectionem*, cum ipse Apostolus dicat ad Hebraeos ultimo[^3b]: *Obedite praepositis vestris per omnia*; sed excludit *ignominiam servitutis*, in qua est ille qui est servus peccati, et ita non excludit ordinem. — Vel dicendum, quod alii subiici est dupliciter, scilicet *timore* et *amore*. Qui subiicitur amore, ambulat in libertate spiritus[^4b] sicut filius; qui ex timore, est quodam modo servus; et in bonis et iustis non est subiectio per timorem, sed per amorem; et talis subiectio et praelatio et ordo in nullo praeiudicat libertati.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, secundum quae dona attendatur ordo; dicendum, quod secundum *dona gratiae gratis datae*, quae quidem est potestas ad aliquod officium deputata; et de hac certi sumus certitudine probabilitatis, et haec stat et non variatur, etiam gratia *gratum faciente* abscedente; etsi enim gratia gratum faciens reddat dignum, talis[^5b] gratia *gratis data* collocat in ordine et gradu. Et sic patet totum.

english:
### Article II. *On the Sacrament of order in general.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the Sacrament of order in general, about which four things are asked. First it is asked, whether there is order in the Church. Second, whether it is a Sacrament. Third, whether it is a Sacrament proper to the new law. Fourth, whether it is a single Sacrament.

### Question I. *Whether there is order in the Church.*

As to the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that there is order in the Church:

1. First, through what is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter twelve[^1], that the Church is like an organic body; but an organic body, for its perfection, necessarily requires an ordering: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this is seen in Exodus, chapter twenty-five[^2]: *See all things, and make them according to the exemplar which was shown to thee on the mountain*: therefore the Church militant ought to imitate the triumphant; for, as the Apostle says, all these things are exemplars of the heavenly ones. If, then, in the Church triumphant there is order, as among the Angels, it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, the Church is constituted of a twofold wall, namely the lay and the clerical; but in the lay wall there is order, as emperor, king, duke, count, tribune, centurion, and decurion — all these bespeak order: if, then, the Church wages war with a spiritual warfare, it seems that it too ought to be *as an army set in array*[^3].

4. Likewise, wherever there is a multitude, either it is confused, or it is reduced to order[^4] for governance: therefore if in the ecclesiastical multitude confusion is necessarily avoided, it is necessary that order be set there.

**On the contrary:** 1. Wherever there is order, there is distinction; but as is said in [the Epistle] to the Galatians, chapter three[^5]: *We are all one in Christ* — to be understood of all the faithful — therefore there does not seem to be order there.

2. Likewise, wherever there is order, there is determinate prelacy and subjection; but in the Church everyone ought to reckon himself the lowest, as is said in [the Epistle] to the Philippians, chapter two[^6]: *In humility esteeming others as superiors to yourselves* etc.; Luke, chapter twenty-two: *Whoever wishes to be greater among you* etc.

3. Likewise, where there is order, there is prelacy and dominion, and where this is, there is some subjection and servitude; but all the faithful *are called into liberty*, as is said in [the Epistle] to the Galatians, chapter five[^7]: therefore among the faithful in the Church there is no order.

4. Likewise, if there is order, then either it is according to *goods of nature*, or according to *goods of fortune*, or according to *gifts of grace*. If according to *goods of nature*: then he ought to be superior who is the more industrious and the stronger; and this is false. If according to *goods of fortune*: then he is superior who is the richer and more powerful. If according to *gifts of grace*; but no one knows who has more or less of grace: therefore no one knows who is subject, or who is prelate: therefore it does not seem that there is any order.[^8]

> **Conclusion.** *That order is necessary in the Church is proved by a twofold reason.*

**I respond:** It must be said that order is necessary in the Church for a twofold reason, namely on account of beauty and on account of rectitude. — For since there is a great multitude in the Church, unless there were order, confusion would manifestly appear, and this is the disfigurement of a multitude. Hence every wise man, who by that very fact that he is wise is a lover of beauty, does not produce many things without order[^9]; and in this most of all appears the wisdom of God, which among all His works is manifested in the constitution of the Church. — Order is also necessary on account of rectitude. For a multitude, when it is in a state in which it can go astray, errs if it has no leader nor ruler, as is said in Third Kings, the last [chapter][^10]: *I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd*. Since, therefore, the multitude of the Church is in a state in which it can go astray, it needs a head and governance; and since one cannot suffice for all nor for all things: therefore it was necessary to

distribute the ecclesiastical offices and powers according to more and less, that the Church might be ruled and directed without error[^1b]. — And the reasons for this are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning unity, it must be said that just as in our body there is to be considered a nature through which there is unity and agreement, and a nature according to which there is distinction or difference — the first is the composition, the second is the organization — so it is in the body which is the Church. For through the nature of charity we are all united, but through the other gifts of graces, which the Apostle enumerates in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter twelve[^2b], we are distinguished and ordered.

2. To that which is objected, that everyone ought to reckon himself inferior; it must be said that to reckon oneself inferior is twofold: either as to *merit of life*, or as to *office*. As to *merit of life*, since no one knows of what merit he is, he ought thus to reckon himself inferior; but as to *office* it is not necessary, and in this respect order is regarded.

3. To that which is objected concerning liberty, it must be said that this liberty does not exclude *subjection*, since the Apostle himself says in [the Epistle] to the Hebrews, the last [chapter][^3b]: *Obey your prelates in all things*; but it excludes the *shame of servitude*, in which is he who is a slave of sin, and so it does not exclude order. — Or it must be said that to be subject to another is twofold, namely by *fear* and by *love*. He who is subject by love walks in the liberty of the spirit[^4b] as a son; he who is [subject] out of fear is in a certain manner a slave; and in the good and the just there is no subjection through fear, but through love; and such subjection and prelacy and order in no way prejudices liberty.

4. To that which is asked, according to which gifts order is regarded; it must be said that it is according to the *gifts of grace freely given*, which indeed is a power deputed to some office; and of this we are certain with a certitude of probability, and this stands and is not varied, even when the *grace that makes pleasing* withdraws; for although the grace that makes pleasing renders one worthy, such[^5b] grace *freely given* places one in an order and grade. And thus the whole is evident.

la: Vers. 12. seqq. Cfr. Rom. 12, 4. seq. — Inferius pro *ordinationem* cod. X (a secunda manu) *ordinem*.

en: Verse 12 ff. Cf. Rom. 12:4 f. — Below, for *ordinationem* codex X (by a second hand) [reads] *ordinem*.

la: Vers. 40: *Inspice, et fac* etc. Hebr. 8, 5: *Vide, inquit, omnia facito secundum* etc. Codd. FL *Vide, et omnia fac* etc. — Seq. locus est Hebr. 9, 23. seq.: *Necesse est ergo, exemplaria quidem caelestium his mundari* etc. Cfr. Bernard., III. de Considerat. c. 4. n. 17. seq.

en: Verse 40 [Exod. 25:40]: *Look, and make* etc. Hebr. 8:5: *See, saith he, make all things according to* etc. Codices FL [read] *See, and make all things* etc. — The following passage is Hebr. 9:23 f.: *It is necessary therefore that the exemplars of the heavenly things be cleansed with these* etc. Cf. Bernard, *On Consideration*, III, c. 4 n. 17 f.

la: Cant. 6, 3. — In *maiori* respicitur Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. II. c. 3, quod inscribitur: *De duobus parietibus Ecclesiae, clericis et laicis*. — Pro *pariete* cod. O bis *potestate*.

en: Canticle 6:3. — In the greater [reference] is regarded Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*, book II, p. II, c. 3, which is entitled: *On the two walls of the Church, the clerics and the laics*. — For *pariete* ("wall") codex O twice [reads] *potestate* ("power").

la: Cod. F *id est*, cod. Q addit *aut*, edd. *et*. Pro *ad ordinem* cod. E (a secunda manu) *per ordinem*. Cod. aa omittit *ad regimen*. Inferius pro *vitatur* edd. *evitatur* vel *vituperatur*.

en: Codex F [reads] *id est*, codex Q adds *aut*, the editions *et*. For *ad ordinem* codex E (by a second hand) [reads] *per ordinem*. Codex aa omits *ad regimen*. Below, for *vitatur* the editions [read] *evitatur* or *vituperatur*.

la: Vers. 28: *Omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Iesu*. — Inferius verbo *intelligendum* (edd. *intelligendo*, cod. Y *intelligitur*) codd. FG praemittunt *sed hoc est*, codd. IK *sed tamen hoc est*, cod. bb *est*.

en: Verse 28 [Gal. 3:28]: *For you are all one in Christ Jesus*. — Below, to the word *intelligendum* (editions *intelligendo*, codex Y *intelligitur*) codices FG prefix *sed hoc est*, codices IK *sed tamen hoc est*, codex bb *est*.

la: Vers. 3. — Seq. locus, in quo plurimi codd. omittunt *esse*, exhibetur Luc. 22, 26. sic: *Qui maior est in vobis, fiat sicut minor* etc. Cfr. Matth. 20, 26: *Quicumque voluerit inter vos maior fieri, sit vester minister*. Idem dicitur Marc. 10, 43. seq.

en: Verse 3 [Phil. 2:3]. — The following passage, in which very many codices omit *esse*, is given at Luke 22:26 thus: *He who is greater among you, let him become as the lesser* etc. Cf. Matt. 20:26: *Whoever wishes to become greater among you, let him be your minister*. The same is said at Mark 10:43 f.

la: Vers. 13: *Vos enim in libertatem vocati estis, fratres*. — Boeth., de Trin. c. 3. *dominium* definit, quod sit «potestas quaedam, qua servus coercetur». — Superius pro *ubi* cod. Z *ubicumque*.

en: Verse 13 [Gal. 5:13]: *For you, brethren, have been called into liberty*. — Boethius, *On the Trinity*, c. 3, defines *dominion* as being «a certain power by which a slave is constrained». — Above, for *ubi* codex Z [reads] *ubicumque*.

la: Ita edd., codd. omittunt *quod sit*. Superius cod. F bis *bona gratiae* pro *dona gratiae*.

en: So the editions; the codices omit *quod sit*. Above, codex F twice [reads] *bona gratiae* for *dona gratiae*.

la: Plato, Dialog. XIII. de Legibus (sive Legum append., qui vocatur Epinomis sive Philosophus), docet, omne quod ordinem habet, magnum argumentum sive indicium esse sapientiae (ed. Serran. tom. II. pag. 982). Cfr. Sap. 13, 3. seqq.; Rom. 1, 20. seqq. — Mox ex cod. L substituimus *in hoc* pro *inter haec*.

en: Plato, Dialogue XIII, *On the Laws* (or the appendix to the *Laws*, which is called the *Epinomis* or *Philosopher*), teaches that everything which has order is a great argument or indication of wisdom (ed. Serranus, tom. II, p. 982). Cf. Wisd. 13:3 ff.; Rom. 1:20 ff. — Presently, from codex L we have substituted *in hoc* for *inter haec*.

la: Vers. 17, ubi Vulgata *quasi* pro *sicut*.

en: Verse 17 [3 Kings 22:17], where the Vulgate [reads] *quasi* for *sicut*.

la: Haec ratio insinuatur in C. *Ad hoc dispensationis* (7.), d. 89. Cfr. etiam Plato, VII. de Legibus, ubi docet, reipublicae maxima provenire bona ex ordine, maximam vero perturbationem accidere, si nullus adsit ordo (ed. Serran. tom. II. pag. 780).

en: This reason is intimated in the canon *Ad hoc dispensationis* (7.), dist. 89. Cf. also Plato, *On the Laws* VII, where he teaches that the greatest goods come to a commonwealth from order, but the greatest disturbance befalls it if no order is present (ed. Serranus, tom. II, p. 780).

la: Vers. 4. seqq. — Pro *alia* cod. L *aliarum*.

en: Verse 4 ff. [1 Cor. 12:4 ff.] — For *alia* codex L [reads] *aliarum*.

la: Vers. 17. Verba *per omnia* sumta sunt ex Col. 3, 20: *Filii obedite parentibus per omnia*. Cfr. ibid. v. 22. — Subinde respicitur Ioan. 8, 34: *Qui facit peccatum servus est peccati*. Cfr. Rom. 6, 16. seqq. et II. Petr. 2, 19.

en: Verse 17 [Hebr. 13:17]. The words *per omnia* ("in all things") are taken from Col. 3:20: *Children, obey your parents in all things*. Cf. ibid. v. 22. — Thereafter is regarded John 8:34: *Whoever commits sin is a slave of sin*. Cf. Rom. 6:16 ff. and 2 Pet. 2:19.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 3, 17: *Ubi autem spiritus Domini, ibi libertas*.

en: Second Epistle to the Corinthians 3:17: *But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty*.

la: Cod. L (F a secunda manu) *tamen*.

en: Codex L (F by a second hand) [reads] *tamen*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quod in Ecclesia debeat esse ordo, quatenus significat gradus distinctos, disponentes ad certa ministeria ecclesiastica, S. Bonav. duabus rationibus congruentiae, quae sumtae sunt ex pulcritudine et rectitudine Ecclesiae, egregie probat (cfr. Breviloq. p. VI. c. 12; nec non Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIII. c. 4. et can. 2.).

De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 2. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2, q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 34. a. 1, q. 37. a. 1. — B. Albert. rem tangit hic a. 2. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem a Concilio Trident. (loc. cit. can. 3.) damnatur error dicentium, «ordinem sive sacram ordinationem non esse vere et proprie Sacramentum a Christo Domino institutum»; non tamen definitum est, omnes ordines, etiam minores habere rationem Sacramenti, quod plurimi recentiores contra plerosque antiquos valde probabiliter negant. — Scot. (loc. cit. n. 2. seq.) arguit contra definitionem ordinis, quod sit *ordinata potestas* etc., quam hic exhibet S. Bonav.; sed in ipsa re vix est dissensus (cfr. infra p. II. dub. 6, ubi explicatur definitio Magistri).

De eadem 2. quaestione praeter Scotum: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 34. a. 3. — B. Albert. rem tangit a. 1. seqq. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., a. 2. a. 3. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.

**III.** Pauci 3. quaestionem tractant, scilicet praeter Dionys. Carth., B. Albert., hic a. 33; Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.

**IV.** Quaestionem 4. cum aliis resolvit S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. ad 2; Suppl. q. 37. a. 1. ad 2.) eodem modo hisque verbis: «Distinctio ordinum non est totius integralis in partes, neque totius universalis, sed totius potestativi, cuius haec est natura, quod totum secundum completam rationem est in uno, in aliis autem est aliqua participatio ipsius; et ita est hic».

De 4. quaestione: Scot., loc. cit. n. 10. 11. — B. Albert., hic a. 2-4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. ad 3. — Durand., hic q. 2. n. 9. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That there ought to be order in the Church, inasmuch as it signifies distinct grades disposing men to certain ecclesiastical ministries, St. Bonaventure excellently proves by two reasons of fittingness, which are drawn from the beauty and the rectitude of the Church (cf. *Breviloquium*, p. VI, c. 12; likewise the Council of Trent, Session XXIII, c. 4 and can. 2).

On the first question: Scotus, here q. unica n. 2 ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiunc. 1, 2, q. 2 a. 1 quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 34 a. 1, q. 37 a. 1. — Bl. Albert touches the matter here a. 2, 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2 a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3 q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** As regards the second question, by the Council of Trent (loc. cit. can. 3) is condemned the error of those saying «that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord»; it is not, however, defined that all orders, even the minor ones, have the character of a Sacrament, which very many of the more recent [doctors], against most of the ancients, very probably deny. — Scotus (loc. cit. n. 2 f.) argues against the definition of order, that it is *an ordered power* etc., which St. Bonaventure here presents; but in the matter itself there is scarcely any dissent (cf. below, p. II, dub. 6, where the definition of the Master is explained).

On the same second question, besides Scotus: St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 34 a. 3. — Bl. Albert touches the matter a. 1 ff. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. — Richard of Middleton, a. 2, a. 3 q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, on this and the following q., here q. 1.

**III.** Few treat the third question, namely, besides Denis the Carthusian, Bl. Albert here a. 33; Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.

**IV.** The fourth question, together with others, St. Thomas resolves (here q. 2 a. 1 quaestiunc. 1 ad 2; Suppl. q. 37 a. 1 ad 2) in the same manner and in these words: «The distinction of orders is not that of an integral whole into parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potestative whole, whose nature is this, that the whole according to its complete character is in one, while in the others there is some participation of it; and so it is here».

On the fourth question: Scotus, loc. cit. n. 10, 11. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2–4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3 q. 2 ad 3. — Durandus, here q. 2 n. 9. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
- **Printed span 613–615.** The Article II opener (`De ordinis Sacramento in generali`) sits at the foot of p. 613 and carries no footnote markers; all eight footnotes printed at the foot of p. 613 belong to the preceding chunk (a1's final quaestio), so this chunk claims no apparatus from p. 613. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` corrected from the skeleton's [613, 614] to [613, 614, 615] on page-verification (the q1 Respondeo/replies and the whole scholion fall on p. 615; running head there reads `DIST. XXIV. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` because q2 begins low on that page, outside this range).
- **Apparatus split.** Mine: p. 614 notes 1–10 (whole page is q1 body) and p. 615 notes 1–5 (`[^1b]`–`[^5b]`, anchored to the q1 Respondeo/replies). The p. 615 footers physically follow the `QUAESTIO II` heading in the raw OCR stream (raw L67051–67059, just past `line_end` 67037); they belong here by body-anchor. **P. 615 note 6** (`Art. 1. q. 3. et dub. 1.`) anchors to q2's `distinctione secunda` and is left to the a2-q2 chunk. Column bands were re-cropped at L→2120 / R→1780 (footnote columns split wider than the body columns, which the default 1660/1880 crop clipped).
- **Scholion disposition.** This is the **single Article II scholion**, printed after q1, and it covers **all four** of Article II's questions: **I** → q1 (*utrum ordo sit in Ecclesia*), **II** → q2 (*utrum sit Sacramentum*), **III** → q3 (*utrum sit Sacramentum novae legis proprium*), **IV** → q4 (*utrum sit Sacramentum unum*). Rendered here in full as the last subsection; sibling chunks a2-q2/q3/q4 render **no** scholion.
- Marginal editorial glosses bleeding into the OCR (`Fundamenta`, `Ad oppositum`, `Conclusio`, `Ratio 1ª/2ª`, `Notandum`, `Aliter`) were trimmed per project convention.
- No unresolved `[?]` flags. Contra-1 word order (`ergo ibi non videtur esse ordo`) and the Exod. 25:40 marker were both band-verified.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

title_alt:
Utrum ordo sit Sacramentum
Whether order is a sacrament

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 615 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum ordo sit Sacramentum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ordo sit Sacramentum. Et quod sic, ostenditur:

1. Per divisionem Sacramentorum, quae ponuntur esse septem, inter quae et ordo connumeratur, quae divisio supra habita est, distinctione secunda[^1].

2. Item, in Ecclesia est ordinata potestas, quae
<!-- page 616 -->
manifestatur per aliqua signa et confirmatur per institutionem divinam, et illa est res sacra; haec autem dicunt rationem Sacramenti perfectam[^2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, illud est propriissime Sacramentum quod maxime Deo consecrat in sui ipsius susceptione; sed tale quid est ordo ecclesiasticus, unde et sacerdotes[^3] vocantur qui ad gradum supremum perveniunt — ergo ordo maxime est Sacramentum.

4. Item, illud potissime est Sacramentum, per quod Sacramenta cetera conferuntur et dispensantur; tale autem est Sacramentum ordinis[^4]: ergo inter cetera videtur esse Sacramentum praecipuum.

**Contra:** 1. Omne Sacramentum est elementum sive signum quod offert se sensibus[^5], ordo autem est quid relativum: ergo ordo non est Sacramentum.

2. Item, omne Sacramentum est in medicamentum secundum statum naturae lapsae[^6]; sed ordo est ad perficiendum aliquos — unde non ordinantur, nisi qui quodam modo volunt aggredi opera perfectionis — ergo ordo cadit a ratione Sacramenti.

3. Item, in Angelis est ordo; et tamen non tenet rationem Sacramenti: ergo pari ratione nec in hierarchia inferiori. Si tu dicas, quod non est simile, quia ibi est totum spirituale; obiicitur de laicis, qui sunt de Ecclesia[^7] et suscipiunt Sacramenta et habent ordinem et potestatem et signa potestatis, ut rex habet sceptrum et purpuram et coronam; et tamen ordo talis non est Sacramentum.

4. Item, ordo ita respicit quod est inferius, sicut quod est superius, quia, utroque destructo, destruitur ordo; sed ordo quantum ad subditos non est Sacramentum: ergo nec quantum ad alios. Minor patet, quia, cum omnes sint subditi, vel praelati, omnes haberent Sacramentum ordinis; quod manifeste falsum est.

5. Item, in hierarchia caelesti est «ordo, scientia et actio», sicut vult beatus Dionysius[^8]: ergo si ei debet Ecclesia respondere, similiter videtur, quod sit in humana. Sed scientia et actio non ponuntur inter Sacramenta: ergo nec ordo.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Signum sensibile, quo confertur ordinata potestas spiritualis, quae recte dicitur ordo, est Sacramentum.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod ordo dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo dicitur ordo ipsa relatio ordinatorum, ut praelatio et subiectio; et haec non dicitur nec est Sacramentum. Alio modo dicitur ordo ordinata potestas, secundum quam ipsum subiectum potens habet ordinari dupliciter, scilicet ad opus vel ad ministerium, et habet etiam ordinari ad alterum; hanc autem potestatem dicimus ordinis Sacramentum.

Hanc autem necesse est poni in Ecclesia propter regimen et decorem, quae attenduntur penes ordinem, ut prius[^9] visum est, quare debet esse in Ecclesia ordo. — Sed principalior ratio, quare haec potestas debet conferri per modum Sacramenti, est propter Sacramentorum dignitatem, quae in Ecclesia dispensantur, et in quibus Deus colitur; quae ut non venirent in contemptum, non debuerunt omnibus committi dispensanda, sed personis specialibus[^10]; et dum his committitur quod aliis non datur, datur his potestas, per quam speciali ordine situantur in Ecclesia Dei. Et quoniam hi debebant ab aliis per signa aliqua secerni; et signum istud est rei sacrae: ideo potestas haec debuit ordinari per modum Sacramenti; et illud convenientissimum est. Cum enim sit ad Sacramentorum ordinatam distributionem[^11], debuerunt ministri ad hoc ordinari per alicuius Sacramenti susceptionem, in quo datur potestas, per quam ministri Dei ad ministrandum et inter se etiam ordinantur; ideo recte ordo appellatur. — His visis, obiecta in contrarium de facili terminantur.

1. Quod enim obiicitur, quod est elementum; dicendum, quod in collatione huius potestatis aliquod signum est extra, quod largo modo appellatur elementum, quoniam largo et extenso modo sumitur in definitione Sacramenti[^12].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de medicamento, dicendum, quod ordo non est tantum in medicamentum respectu suscipientis, sed etiam respectu aliorum; unde maxime tenet rationem Sacramenti. Nec illud obviat quod dicitur, quod debet dari perfectis; quoniam nemo reperitur ita perfectus, quin ulterius possit perfici. Unde quilibet hoc Sacramentum suscipiens aliquam gratiam recipit, si digne recipiat, per quam excluditur difficultas ministrandi in his quae pertinent ad cultum Dei.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo est in Angelis et in laicis; dicendum, quod utrobique deficit ratio Sacramenti: quoniam duo sunt quae integrant Sacramentum, scilicet sensibile signum, et
<!-- page 617 -->
spirituale sive sacrum signatum; ratione primi deficit in Angelis, qui sunt omnino spirituales; ratione vero secundi deficit in laicis, in quibus ordo attenditur quantum ad potestatem terrenam, quae respicit bona naturae vel fortunae specialis personae vel reipublicae; in ecclesiastica vero hierarchia contingit utrumque.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo respicit inferius etc.; dicendum, quod ipse obiicit de ordine, prout dicit relationem, sed hoc modo non est Sacramentum, sed prout dicit potestatem, supra quam fundatur illa relatio; et haec ponit aliquid in his qui praeferuntur per aliquid sibi datum, nihil vero in his qui subiiciuntur[^13].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod scientia et actio non dicunt Sacramentum; dicendum, quod scientia et actio sunt annexa, et ordo est principale; unde cum ponitur ordo esse Sacramentum, alia duo simul includuntur; et illud superius[^14] tactum est, quando agebatur de potestate clavium.

---

english:
<!-- page 615 -->

### Question II. *Whether order is a sacrament.*

Secondly it is asked whether order is a sacrament. And that it is, is shown:

1. By the division of the sacraments, which are held to be seven, among which order too is numbered, which division was given above, in the second distinction[^1].

2. Likewise, in the Church there is an ordained power, which
<!-- page 616 -->
is manifested through certain signs and confirmed by divine institution, and this is a sacred thing; but these [features] state the complete account of a sacrament[^2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that is most properly a sacrament which most consecrates a person to God in the very receiving of it; but such is ecclesiastical order, whence too they are called priests[^3] who attain the supreme grade — therefore order is most of all a sacrament.

4. Likewise, that is most powerfully a sacrament through which the other sacraments are conferred and dispensed; but such is the sacrament of order[^4]: therefore among the rest it seems to be the preeminent sacrament.

**On the contrary:** 1. Every sacrament is an element or sign that offers itself to the senses[^5], but order is something relative: therefore order is not a sacrament.

2. Likewise, every sacrament is [given] as a medicine according to the state of fallen nature[^6]; but order is for perfecting certain persons — whence none are ordained except those who in some way wish to undertake the works of perfection — therefore order falls short of the account of a sacrament.

3. Likewise, in the angels there is order; and yet it does not hold the account of a sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning neither in the lower hierarchy. If you say that it is not similar, because there [all] is wholly spiritual; the objection is raised concerning laymen, who belong to the Church[^7] and receive the sacraments and have order and power and signs of power, as a king has scepter and purple and crown; and yet such order is not a sacrament.

4. Likewise, order regards what is inferior just as [what is] superior, because, when either is destroyed, order is destroyed; but order with respect to subjects is not a sacrament: therefore neither with respect to the others. The minor is evident, because, since all are either subjects or prelates, all would have the sacrament of order; which is manifestly false.

5. Likewise, in the celestial hierarchy there is «order, knowledge, and action», as blessed Dionysius holds[^8]: therefore, if the Church ought to correspond to it, it likewise seems that [the same] is in the human [hierarchy]. But knowledge and action are not counted among the sacraments: therefore neither is order.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *A sensible sign, by which is conferred the ordained spiritual power that is rightly called order, is a sacrament.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that "order" is said in two ways. In one way order is called the very relation of those set in order, as prelacy and subjection; and this is not called, nor is it, a sacrament. In another way order is called an ordained power, according to which the empowered subject itself can be ordered in two ways, namely to a work or to a ministry, and it also has [the capacity] to be ordered toward another; and this power we call the sacrament of order.

And this must necessarily be posited in the Church for the sake of governance and comeliness, which are attended to by order, as was seen earlier[^9], wherefore there ought to be order in the Church. — But the more principal reason why this power ought to be conferred by way of a sacrament is on account of the dignity of the sacraments, which are dispensed in the Church and in which God is worshipped; and lest these come into contempt, they ought not to be committed to all to be dispensed, but to special persons[^10]; and while there is committed to these what is not given to others, there is given to these a power by which they are established in the Church of God by a special order. And since these had to be marked off from others by certain signs; and this sign is of a sacred thing: therefore this power had to be ordained by way of a sacrament; and that is most fitting. For since it is for the ordained distribution of the sacraments[^11], the ministers had to be ordained for this by the reception of some sacrament, in which a power is given, by which the ministers of God are ordered both to minister and also among themselves; therefore it is rightly called order. — These things seen, the objections to the contrary are easily settled.

1. As to what is objected, that it is an element; it must be said that in the conferral of this power there is some sign externally, which in a broad sense is called an element, since [element] is taken in a broad and extended sense in the definition of a sacrament[^12].

2. To what is objected concerning medicine, it must be said that order is not only [given] as a medicine with respect to the recipient, but also with respect to others; whence it most holds the account of a sacrament. Nor does that stand in the way which is said, that it ought to be given to the perfect; since no one is found so perfect that he cannot be further perfected. Whence anyone receiving this sacrament receives some grace, if he receive worthily, by which is removed the difficulty of ministering in those things which pertain to the worship of God.

3. To what is objected, that order is in the angels and in laymen; it must be said that in both cases the account of a sacrament is lacking: for there are two things which constitute a sacrament, namely a sensible sign, and
<!-- page 617 -->
a spiritual or sacred thing signified; by reason of the first it is lacking in the angels, who are wholly spiritual; by reason of the second it is lacking in laymen, in whom order is regarded with respect to earthly power, which regards the goods of nature or of fortune of a particular person or of the republic; but in the ecclesiastical hierarchy both occur.

4. To what is objected, that order regards the inferior, etc.; it must be said that he objects concerning order insofar as it states a relation, but in this way it is not a sacrament, but insofar as it states a power, upon which that relation is founded; and this places something in those who are preferred by something given to them, but nothing in those who are subjected[^13].

5. To what is objected, that knowledge and action do not state a sacrament; it must be said that knowledge and action are annexed [to it], and order is the principal thing; whence when order is posited to be a sacrament, the other two are included together; and that was touched on above[^14], when treating of the power of the keys.

---

la: Art. I. q. 3. et dub. 1.

en: Art. 1, q. 3, and dubium 1 [where the sevenfold division of the sacraments is treated].

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 2. 4, et Comment. p. I. q. 2. — De maiori vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 13.

en: Cf. above, the Master's text, d. 1, c. 2, 4, and the Commentary, p. 1, q. 2. — On the major [premise] see here the Master's text, c. 13.

la: Id est Deo sacrati, sive ut hic in lit. Magistri, c. 11, dicitur, sacrum dantes. Varro putat sacerdotes a sacris dici.

en: That is, consecrated to God, or, as it is said here in the Master's text, c. 11, "those giving the sacred." Varro thinks that priests (*sacerdotes*) are so named from sacred things (*sacris*).

la: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3.: Praeterea «propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis» [Aristot. I. Poster. c. 2.]; sed propter ordinem efficitur homo dispensator aliorum Sacramentorum; ergo etc.

en: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiuncula 3: "Moreover, that on account of which each thing [is such] is itself more so" [Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* I, c. 2]; but on account of order a man is made the dispenser of the other sacraments; therefore etc.

la: Ut docet supra Magister in lit. d. I. c. 2. seqq. et d. VIII. c. 6.

en: As the Master teaches above in the text, d. 1, c. 2 ff., and d. 8, c. 6.

la: Vide supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: See above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Non pauci codd. *in Ecclesia.*

en: Not a few codices [read] *in Ecclesia* ("in the Church").

la: De Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 1. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 9. Praenotata.

en: *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 3, § 1. Cf. Book II of the *Sentences*, d. 9, the Prefatory notes (*Praenotata*).

la: Quaest. praeced. — Superius pro *dicimus* multi codd. *dicemus.*

en: The preceding question. — Above, for *dicimus* ("we say") many codices [read] *dicemus* ("we shall say").

la: Cfr. supra d. 13. a. 1. q. 2. — Edd. male *spiritualibus.*

en: Cf. above, d. 13, a. 1, q. 2. — The editions wrongly [read] *spiritualibus* ("spiritual") [for *specialibus*].

la: Edd. *dispositionem et distributionem.* Inferius pro *terminantur* cod. G *determinantur.*

en: The editions [read] *dispositionem et distributionem* ("disposition and distribution"). Below, for *terminantur* ("are settled") codex G [reads] *determinantur* ("are determined").

la: Cfr. supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1. — Plures codd. omittunt additam rationem *quoniam... Sacramenti.*

en: Cf. above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 2, in the reply to 1. — Several codices omit the added clause *quoniam... Sacramenti* ("since... of a sacrament").

la: Boeth., de Trin. c. 5, referens pro relatione exemplum de domino et servo, subinde ait: Sed non accidit servus domino, ut albedo albo, sed potestas quaedam, qua servus coercetur etc.

en: Boethius, *On the Trinity*, c. 5, adducing as an example of relation [that] of master and servant, then says: "But the servant is not an accident of the master, as whiteness is of a white thing, but [there is] a certain power by which the servant is constrained," etc.

la: Dist. 18. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Distinction 18, p. 1, a. 3, q. 1 f. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 615–617 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p61{5,6,7}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split regenerated at 2120/1780 to clear column-edge clipping), checked against the cascade-shattered two-column IA djvu OCR (raw L67038–L67202). Per the Vol II/IV override the column-band PDF read is authoritative for the Respondeo, replies, and every footer.

**★ Page-number correction (off-by-one in skeleton).** The skeleton frontmatter read `printed_pages: [614, 615, 616]`. Page-verified against the bands: **p. 614 is entirely QUAESTIO I** (a2-q1: *Utrum ordo sit in Ecclesia*), and QUAESTIO II physically begins at the **bottom of p. 615** (below a2-q1's Solutio replies and its SCHOLION §I–IV). The quaestio then runs across p. 616 and finishes at the **top of p. 617**, immediately before QUAESTIO III (*Utrum Sacramentum ordinis sit novae legis proprium*). Corrected span = **pp. 615–617** (pdf 635–637, offset +20). Consistent with the resume-note warning that Vol IV page numbers run 1–2 low.

**Scholion: none (correct).** Article II's scholion (§I–IV) is printed on p. 615 with a2-q1 and covers all four Art II questions; p. 617 footer note 2 ([^14]) explicitly says *"Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."* — confirming this q2 carries no scholion of its own. `has_scholion: false`.

**Cross-chunk footer split (shared pages).**
- **p. 615** (shared with a2-q1): footer notes **1–5 belong to a2-q1** (anchored in its Respondeo tail + replies — Plato *de Legibus*/order-in-the-republic, the *ad Galatas*/*Cor.* citations, and the *Cod. L … tamen* variant); only **note 6** (→ [^1] here) is q2's, anchored at *distinctione secunda⁶* in fundamentum 1. Notes 1–5 remain parked in the a2-q1 skeleton and should be picked up when a2-q1 is promoted. The five forwarded p. 615 notes are: (1) *Haec ratio insinuatur in C. Ad hoc dispensationis (7.), d. 89. Cfr. etiam Plato, VII. de Legibus … (ed. Serran. tom. II. pag. 780).* (2) *Vers. 4. seqq. — Pro alia cod. L aliarum.* (3) *Vers. 17. Verba per omnia sumta sunt ex Col. 3, 20: Filii obedite parentibus per omnia. Cfr. ibid. v. 22. — Subinde respicitur Ioan. 8, 34 … Cfr. Rom. 6, 16. seqq. et II. Petr. 2, 19.* (4) *Epist. II. Cor. 3, 17: Ubi autem spiritus Domini, ibi libertas.* (5) *Cod. L (Fa secunda manu) tamen.*
- **p. 616** (wholly q2): footer notes 1–11 all belong to q2 (→ [^2]–[^12]).
- **p. 617** (shared with a2-q3): footer notes **1–2 belong to q2** (→ [^13]–[^14], anchored in replies 4 and 5); **notes 3–11 belong to QUAESTIO III** (a2-q3), beginning with note 3 (*Psalm. 109, 4.*) at q3 fundamentum 1.

**Apparatus count:** 14 footnotes ([^1]–[^14]) — p. 615 fn 6 (1) + p. 616 fn 1–11 (11) + p. 617 fn 1–2 (2).

**[?] flags:** none. All body text and all fourteen footers read cleanly at 450 dpi.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 617 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Sacramentum ordinis sit novae legis proprium.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum ordinis sit novae legis proprium. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia in Psalmo[^1] dicitur Christo: *Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech*; hoc dictum est de Christi sacerdotio, sicut exponit Apostolus ad Hebraeos: ergo sacerdotium Christi prius in Melchisedech praecessit: ergo et ordo. *Si tu dicas*, quod praecessit in figura; *contra*: ita praecessit ad figuram in sacerdotio Aaron: ergo debet dici secundum ordinem Aaron; quod tamen non decuit dici, ut Apostolus[^2] ostendit.

2. Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo[^3]: *Omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducaverunt*: ergo vere fuit sacrificium; sed ordo est ad sacrificium administrandum: ergo idem ordo et idem Sacramentum.

3. Item, Ecclesia est unica ab Abel usque ad finem mundi[^4]; et in unica unitate unus debet esse ordo: ergo Sacramentum ordinis est unum in novo et veteri testamento.

4. Item, Sacramentum ordinis est de dictamine legis naturalis — et hoc patet, quia ab initio fuerunt sacerdotes, ut patet exemplo Melchisedech[^5], et Hieronymus dicit — sed quod est de dictamine naturae semper idem perseverat, et hoc manifestum est in matrimonio: ergo idem debet esse ordo in veteri testamento et in novo: ergo Sacramentum hoc commune est, non proprium.

**Contra:** 1. Ad Hebraeos septimo[^6]: *Translato sacerdotio, necesse est, ut et legis translatio fiat*: sic ergo Apostolus probat diversitatem legis per diversitatem sacerdotii; cum alia et alia sit lex, videtur, quod alius et alius sit ordo.

2. Item, «ordo est spirituale signaculum, in quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato[^7]», utpote in supremo ordine traditur potestas conficiendi corpus Christi; sed hoc est proprium solius novae legis: ergo etc.

3. Item, Sacramenta novae legis alia sunt et nova: ergo ad dispensanda haec, cum sint maiora et digniora[^8], maior et dignior potestas requiritur: si ergo Sacramenta, quae dispensantur, sunt diversa; ergo et Sacramentum, per quod dispensantur. Sed hoc est ordo: ergo etc.

4. Item, idem ordo non est iterandus[^9]; sed ordinatus in lege, si veniat ad Evangelium, ibidem ordinatur: ergo videtur, quod alius sit ordo et aliud Sacramentum.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Sacramentum ordinis est proprium novae legis et in veteri praefiguratum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut signum sortitur nomen signati, et e converso; et tamen signum et signatum sunt diversa: sic figura nomen
<!-- page 618 -->
veritatis sortitur, et unum dicitur esse in alio, sicut *rota in rota*[^10]; et tamen aliud est figura, aliud est veritas. Per hunc modum intelligendum, quod lex nova differt a veteri, et sacrificium a sacrificio, et ordo ab ordine. Unde sicut Sacramentum eucharistiae est novae legis proprium, quamvis in veteri lege fuerit sacrificium, quod erat huius signum; sic spiritualis potestas, secundum quam attenditur ordinis Sacramentum, est novae legis propria, sacerdotium similiter, quamvis inferioris[^11] ordinis sacerdotii praecesserit signum figurativum. Unde sicut multum differt inter agnum verum et typicum; sic multum, licet non tantum, differt inter potestatem offerendi hunc agnum et illum. — Et ideo concedendum, quod sicut baptismus et eucharistia sunt Sacramenta novae legis propria, licet in anterioribus fuerint praefigurata[^12]; sic in sacra ordinatione.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum ordinem Melchisedech; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur secundum expressam praefigurationem, sicut ibidem[^13] Apostolus ostendit, quia praefiguravit Christum quantum ad originem et quantum ad dignitatem et quantum ad ritum: quantum ad originem, quia sine genealogia, scilicet expressa in Scriptura; quantum ad dignitatem, quia fuit sacerdos et rex et Abraham benedixit; quantum ad ritum, quia obtulit panem et vinum. Non sic in sacerdotio Aaron. Et ideo peroptime appropriat in Psalmo Spiritus sanctus, et eleganter valde exponit Apostolus.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eandem escam manducaverunt; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur non de manducatione sacramentali, sed spirituali, quae est per fidem et caritatem; et quia idem, quod nos, crediderunt et amaverunt: ideo eandem escam manducaverunt et de eadem Ecclesia fuerunt; nec tamen eadem signa sensibilia habuerunt nec eadem Sacramenta. Et ratio huius visa est supra[^14], cum agebatur de Sacramentorum differentia. — Et per hoc patet ratio altera de unitate ecclesiastica, quia illa est secundum fidei convenientiam, non secundum Sacramentorum indifferentiam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est de dictamine naturae; dicendum, quod verum est in universali, non in speciali. Bene enim dictat ratio recta, Deum esse colendum, et ad hoc speciales ministros constituendos; sed taliter colendum, et tale sacrificium offerendum, et talem potestatem collatam esse hominibus, hoc non est naturae, sed gratiae[^15].

---

english:
<!-- page 617 -->

### Question III. *Whether the sacrament of order is proper to the new law.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the sacrament of order is proper to the new law. And that it is not, it seems:

1. Because in the Psalm[^1] it is said to Christ: *Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek*; this was said of Christ's priesthood, as the Apostle expounds to the Hebrews: therefore the priesthood of Christ first preceded in Melchizedek: therefore also the order [preceded]. If you say that it preceded in figure; on the contrary: it likewise preceded as a figure in the priesthood of Aaron: therefore it ought to be called "according to the order of Aaron"; which nevertheless it was not fitting to say, as the Apostle[^2] shows.

2. Likewise, in the first [epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter ten[^3]: *All ate the same spiritual food*: therefore there truly was a sacrifice; but order is for administering sacrifice: therefore [there is] the same order and the same sacrament.

3. Likewise, the Church is one from Abel to the end of the world[^4]; and in one unity there ought to be one order: therefore the sacrament of order is one in the new and the old testament.

4. Likewise, the sacrament of order is of the dictate of natural law — and this is evident, because from the beginning there were priests, as is evident from the example of Melchizedek[^5], and Jerome says [so] — but what is of the dictate of nature always remains the same, and this is manifest in matrimony: therefore the order in the old testament and in the new ought to be the same: therefore this sacrament is common, not proper.

**On the contrary:** 1. To the Hebrews, chapter seven[^6]: *The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law also be made*: thus therefore the Apostle proves the diversity of the law through the diversity of the priesthood; since the law is one and another, it seems that the order is one and another.

2. Likewise, «order is a spiritual seal, in which spiritual power is handed on to the one ordained[^7]», inasmuch as in the highest order there is handed on the power of confecting the body of Christ; but this is proper to the new law alone: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the sacraments of the new law are other and new: therefore for dispensing these, since they are greater and more worthy[^8], a greater and worthier power is required: if therefore the sacraments which are dispensed are diverse; therefore also the sacrament through which they are dispensed [is diverse]. But this is order: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the same order is not to be repeated[^9]; but one ordained under the law, if he come to the Gospel, is ordained there [again]: therefore it seems that the order is other and the sacrament other.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *The sacrament of order is proper to the new law and was prefigured in the old.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as a sign takes the name of the thing signified, and conversely; and yet the sign and the thing signified are diverse: so a figure takes the name
<!-- page 618 -->
of the truth, and the one is said to be in the other, as *a wheel within a wheel*[^10]; and yet the figure is one thing, the truth another. In this manner it is to be understood that the new law differs from the old, and sacrifice from sacrifice, and order from order. Whence, just as the sacrament of the eucharist is proper to the new law, although in the old law there was a sacrifice which was a sign of it; so the spiritual power, according to which the sacrament of order is regarded, is proper to the new law, and the priesthood likewise, although a figurative sign of an inferior[^11] order of priesthood preceded. Whence, just as there is much difference between the true lamb and the typical one; so there is much difference, though not so much, between the power of offering this lamb and that. — And therefore it must be conceded that, just as baptism and the eucharist are sacraments proper to the new law, although in earlier [times] they were prefigured[^12]; so [it is] in sacred ordination.

1. To that which is objected, concerning "according to the order of Melchizedek"; it must be said that this is understood according to an express prefiguration, as the Apostle shows in the same place[^13], since [Melchizedek] prefigured Christ as to origin and as to dignity and as to rite: as to origin, because [he was] without genealogy, namely one expressed in Scripture; as to dignity, because he was priest and king and blessed Abraham; as to rite, because he offered bread and wine. Not so in the priesthood of Aaron. And therefore the Holy Spirit most excellently appropriates [this] in the Psalm, and the Apostle expounds it very elegantly.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that they ate the same food; it must be said that this is understood not of sacramental eating, but of spiritual [eating], which is through faith and charity; and because they believed and loved the same [things] as we [do]: therefore they ate the same food and were of the same Church; nor yet did they have the same sensible signs nor the same sacraments. And the reason for this was seen above[^14], when the difference of the sacraments was treated. — And through this the other reason concerning ecclesiastical unity is evident, because that [unity] is according to the agreement of faith, not according to an indifference of sacraments.

4. To that which is objected, that it is of the dictate of nature; it must be said that it is true in the universal, not in the particular. For right reason well dictates that God is to be worshipped, and that for this special ministers are to be appointed; but that He is to be worshipped in such a way, and that such a sacrifice is to be offered, and that such a power has been conferred on men, this is not of nature, but of grace[^15].

---

la: Hebr. 7, 11. — Superius pro *contra* cod. U *hoc nihil est, quia*, edd. *respondeo*, quae etiam pro *ad* [codd. M aa *quoad*, cod. O *quantum ad*] *figuram* cum uno alteroque cod. *in figura*.

en: Hebrews 7:11. — Above, for *contra* codex U [reads] *hoc nihil est, quia* ("this is nothing, because"), the editions *respondeo* ("I respond"); which [editions] also, for *ad figuram* ("as a figure") [codices M and aa *quoad*, codex O *quantum ad*], read with one and another codex *in figura* ("in figure").

la: Vers. 3. — Verbis *ergo vere* Vat. interserit *idem*.

en: Verse 3. — To the words *ergo vere* ("therefore truly") the Vatican [edition] inserts *idem* ("the same").

la: Cfr. supra pag. 184, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, page 184, note 8.

la: Gen. 14, 18. — Verba Hieron. (sumta ex eius lib. Hebraic. Quaest. in Gen. 14, 18.) exhibentur a Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum in hunc locum, et in ipsis refertur opinio Hebraeorum contendentium, Melchisedech fuisse Sem, filium Noe. Cfr. eius Epist. 73. (alias 126.) n. 5. seq., ubi huic opinioni adiungitur, quod usque ad sacerdotium Aaron omnes primogeniti ex stirpe Noe fuerint sacerdotes etc.

en: Genesis 14:18. — The words of Jerome (taken from his book *Hebrew Questions on Genesis* 14:18) are presented by the *Ordinary* Gloss in Strabus and Lyra on this passage, and in them is reported the opinion of the Hebrews contending that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. Cf. his Letter 73 (alias 126), n. 5f., where to this opinion is added that up to the priesthood of Aaron all the firstborn of the stock of Noah were priests, etc.

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: Ut docet Magister, hic in lit. c. 13.

en: As the Master teaches, here in the text, chapter 13.

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. verba Augustini. — Superius pro *et nova* cod. aa *a Sacramentis veteris legis*.

en: See above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1, in the body, the words of Augustine. — Above, for *et nova* ("and new") codex aa [reads] *a Sacramentis veteris legis* ("from the sacraments of the old law").

la: Cfr. infra p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — De seqq. cfr. supra d. 2. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. below, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — On what follows cf. above, d. 2, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Ezech. 1, 16. et 10, 10. Cfr. supra pag. 181, nota 3. — August., 1. Locution. de Gen. n. 143: *Multum haec locutio notanda est, ubi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur; inde est, quod ait Apostolus* [1. Cor. 10, 4.]: *Petra autem erat Christus, non ait: Petra significabat Christum.*

en: Ezekiel 1:16 and 10:10. Cf. above, page 181, note 3. — Augustine, *Locutions on Genesis*, book 1, n. 143: *This manner of speaking is much to be noted, where certain signifying things are called by the name of the things which they signify; hence it is that the Apostle says* [1 Cor. 10:4]: *The rock, however, was Christ — he does not say: The rock signified Christ.*

la: Ed. 1 et plurimi codd. *inferius*, Vat. *istius*, cod. O *alterius*.

en: Edition 1 and most codices [read] *inferius*, the Vatican [edition] *istius*, codex O *alterius*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. et 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 8, p. 1, a. 1 and 2.

la: Hebr. 7, 1. seqq. Cfr. Gen. 14, 18. seq. — Circa finem solut. in edd. desideratur *Spiritus sanctus*.

en: Hebrews 7:1ff. Cf. Genesis 14:18f. — Near the end of the solution, in the editions *Spiritus sanctus* ("the Holy Spirit") is wanting.

en: Distinction 1, p. 1, q. 5, and d. 2, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Superius pro *taliter* multi codd. *tatem*, edd. *tali cultu*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Above, for *taliter* ("in such a way") many codices [read] *tatem*, the editions *tali cultu* ("with such worship"). — See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 617–618 (PDF pp. 637–638; offset pdf = printed + 20), which are authoritative here because the IA djvu OCR of this two-column page is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo, solutions, and every footer. The OCR (raw L67203–L67312) served only as the base for clean running prose and for footnote-marker spacing. The p. 617 bands were clipped by the default vol4 split (x≈1880); regenerated at split_x=2120 (left column, to recover the centered title *Utrum Sacramentum ordinis sit novae legis proprium*) and split_x=1780 (right column). The p. 618 left footer was likewise recut at split_x=2120 to recover the full footnote lines.

**Page layout.** Each quaestio on these pages is its own two-column block with a full-width centered *QUAESTIO* header between blocks. On p. 618 the q3 block occupies the top of the page (both columns) and the q4 block the bottom; the reply "2. 3. Ad illud… manducaverunt" and reply "4." stand in q3's right column. Reading order: left column top→bottom, then right column.

**Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial side-labels, not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta.*, *Duplex sensus vocabulorum.*, *Conclusio.* (the marginal restatement label beside "sic spiritualis potestas…", distinct from the centered CONCLUSIO structural header), *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.* — consistent with sibling a2-q2.

**No scholion.** Article II's scholion is held in a2-q1 and covers all four of Art II's questions (`has_scholion: false`). Confirmed by p. 618 footer note 6: "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." (See the scholion on q1 of this article.)

**Cross-chunk footer splits.**
- p. 617 footer notes 1–2 (Boeth. *de Trin.*; Dist. 18 / "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") belong to the preceding question **a2-q2** — captured there per that writer's hand-off. Notes 3–11 are claimed here as [^1]–[^9]. (The "S. Bonav. — Tom. IV." line at the foot of the L column is the volume signature/catchword, not a footnote; likewise the "78" gathering mark on the R side.)
- p. 618 footer notes 1–6 are claimed here as [^10]–[^15]. Notes 7–12 (septem⁷ … *integrales/subiectivas*¹²) belong to the following question **a2-q4** and are forwarded to it.

**Page break.** The p. 617→618 seam falls mid-Respondeo: p. 617 ends "…et tamen signum et signatum sunt diversa: sic figura nomen"; p. 618 begins "veritatis sortitur, et unum dicitur esse in alio…". The English page break is placed at the grammatically matching point ("…so a figure takes the name / of the truth…").

**[?] flags.** None. All Latin recovered cleanly from the bands.


title: Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 618 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum ordo sit Sacramentum unum, vel plura.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page: markers 1–6 are page 618's footer sequence (Quaracchi notes 7–12; that page's notes 1–6 belong to the preceding quaestio III), and 7–12 are page 619's footer sequence (Quaracchi notes 1–6; that page's notes 7–8 begin the following Pars I *Dubia*).

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum ordo sit Sacramentum unum, vel plura. Et quod sit unum, videtur:

1. Per divisionem Sacramentorum, quae dividuntur in septem[^1]: si ergo alia non subdividuntur, videtur, quod ordo sit unum Sacramentum.

2. Item, Sacramentum unionis sive communionis est unum Sacramentum[^2]: ergo pari ratione et Sacramentum ordinis.

3. Item, ab eodem est unitas, a quo est perfectio et complementum[^3]; sed Sacramentum ordinis unum habet complementum, scilicet sacerdotium, quod complet omnes ordines praecedentes: ergo unum est Sacramentum.

4. Item, «quanto aliqua virtus potentior, tanto magis unita[^4]»: ergo quanto Sacramentum maius et excellentius, tanto magis unum; sed Sacramentum ordinis est excellens et in statu excellenti collocat ordinatum: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Multiplicato inferiori, multiplicatur superius[^5]; sed Sacramentum est superius ad ordinem: ergo cum sint plures ordines, sunt ergo plura Sacramenta.

2. Item, cum ordinis Sacramentum dividitur; aut in partes integrales, aut subiectivas[^6]. Non integrales, quia nulla pars integralis recipit praedicationem totius, sed quilibet gradus ecclesiasticus recipit praedicationem sui totius. Si in subiectivas: <!-- page 619 --> ergo redit idem, quod prius, quod illud Sacramentum multiplicetur.

3. Item, hoc Sacramentum est ordinatum ad dispensationem aliorum Sacramentorum; sed alia Sacramenta differunt specie: ergo potentiae ordinatae ad illa debent differre specie[^7]: ergo videtur, quod istud Sacramentum per species diversas plurificetur.

4. Item, sacerdos cum sacerdote habet convenientiam in Sacramento ordinis; sed sacerdos cum diacono habet distinctionem et differentiam; constat, quod non solum *materialem*, ergo *specificam* habet differentiam: ergo cum utrumque horum sit Sacramentum, videtur, quod ordinis Sacramentum diversas habeat species Sacramentorum.

### Conclusio.

> Sacramentum ordinis est unum, habet tamen plures partes potestativas, unum perfectum Sacramentum constituentes.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum ordinis unum est, multas tamen habet partes, quae Sacramentum non plurificant, pro eo quod non sunt omnino partes subiectivae, et tamen recipiunt praedicationem totius, quia naturam habent quodam modo partium subiectivarum; et tales sunt partes potestativae[^8]. Quae maxime competunt ordini: tum quia ordo dicitur ordinata potestas, quae ex ordinatione multorum ad unum redditur perfecta, et quodlibet illorum participat rationem potestatis, licet non perfectionis; tum etiam, quia ordo concernit distinctionem in partibus, sicut et numerus. Unde quemadmodum partes *numeri* quodam modo habent naturam partium *integrantium* in hoc, quod *simul convenientes* per ordinem reddunt *numerum perfectum*, ut partes senarii constituunt senarium, et tamen *quaelibet pars* numeri est numerus: sic omnes gradus ordinum unum faciunt Sacramentum perfectum, et tamen quilibet gradus ordo dicitur[^9]. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, hoc Sacramentum esse unum, quamvis aliquae non sint multum cogentes.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod multiplicato inferiori etc.; dicendum, quod istud verum est in eo quod habet naturam *speciei* sive partis *subiectivae* solum; non sic est in proposito.

2. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum dividatur in partes integrales, aut subiectivas; dicendum, quod dividitur in partes potestativas, quae utrarumque partium habent naturam; unde sicut divisio *analogi*[^10] tenet medium inter divisionem *aequivoci* et *univoci*: sic talis divisio medium tenet inter divisionem *totius universalis* et *totius integralis*.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ad dispensationem aliorum ordinatur; dicendum, quod principaliter ordinatur ad dispensationem Sacramenti altaris, quod unum est[^11].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de differentia, dicendum, quod quodam modo est *specifica*, quodam modo non. Una enim species non disponit ad aliam, sicut unus ordo ad alium disponit; et ideo non est ibi specifica distinctio, sed tamen aliquo modo distinguuntur; quia tamen ad unum complementum ordinantur, ideo unum Sacramentum faciunt[^12].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether order is one Sacrament, or several.*

Fourth and last it is asked, whether order is one Sacrament, or several. And that it is one, seems [true]:

1. By the division of the Sacraments, which are divided into seven[^1]: if therefore the others are not subdivided, it seems that order is one Sacrament.

2. Likewise, the Sacrament of union or of communion is one Sacrament[^2]: therefore by parity of reasoning also the Sacrament of order.

3. Likewise, from the same [source] is unity from which is perfection and completion[^3]; but the Sacrament of order has one completion, namely the priesthood, which completes all the preceding orders: therefore it is one Sacrament.

4. Likewise, «the more powerful any power is, the more it is united[^4]»: therefore the greater and more excellent a Sacrament is, the more it is one; but the Sacrament of order is excellent and sets the ordained in an excellent state: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. When the inferior is multiplied, the superior is multiplied[^5]; but the Sacrament is superior to order: therefore, since there are several orders, there are therefore several Sacraments.

2. Likewise, since the Sacrament of order is divided; either into integral parts, or into subjective[^6]. Not into integral, because no integral part receives the predication of the whole, but each ecclesiastical grade receives the predication of its whole [self]. If into subjective: then it returns to the same as before, that that Sacrament is multiplied.

3. Likewise, this Sacrament is ordained to the dispensing of the other Sacraments; but the other Sacraments differ in species: therefore the powers ordained to them must differ in species[^7]: therefore it seems that this Sacrament is multiplied through diverse species.

4. Likewise, priest with priest has agreement in the Sacrament of order; but priest with deacon has distinction and difference; it is established that [he has] not only a *material* [difference], therefore he has a *specific* difference: therefore, since each of these is a Sacrament, it seems that the Sacrament of order has diverse species of Sacraments.

### Conclusion.

> The Sacrament of order is one, yet it has several potestative parts, constituting one perfect Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of order is one, yet it has many parts, which do not multiply the Sacrament, for the reason that they are not wholly subjective parts, and yet they receive the predication of the whole, because they have in a certain way the nature of subjective parts; and such are potestative parts[^8]. Which most fittingly belong to order: both because order is called an ordered power, which by the ordering of many to one is rendered perfect, and each of them participates in the character of power, though not of perfection; and also because order concerns distinction in [its] parts, just as number [does]. Hence, just as the parts of a *number* in a certain way have the nature of *integrant* parts in this, that *coming together* in order they render a *perfect number*, as the parts of six constitute six, and yet *each part* of a number is a number: so all the grades of orders make one perfect Sacrament, and yet each grade is called an order[^9]. — And the arguments showing this Sacrament to be one are to be conceded, although some are not very cogent.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that when the inferior is multiplied etc.; it must be said that that is true in what has the nature of a *species* or of a *subjective* part only; it is not so in the matter at hand.

2. To that which is asked, whether it is divided into integral parts or subjective; it must be said that it is divided into potestative parts, which have the nature of both [kinds of] parts; whence, just as the division of the *analogous*[^10] holds a middle between the division of the *equivocal* and of the *univocal*: so such a division holds a middle between the division of the *universal whole* and of the *integral whole*.

3. To that which is objected, that it is ordained to the dispensing of the others; it must be said that it is principally ordained to the dispensing of the Sacrament of the altar, which is one[^11].

4. To that which is objected concerning difference, it must be said that in a certain way it is *specific*, in a certain way not. For one species does not dispose to another, as one order disposes to another; and therefore there is not there a specific distinction, but nevertheless they are in some way distinguished; yet because they are ordained to one completion, therefore they make one Sacrament[^12].

---

la: Vide supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 3. et dub. 1. — Verba *in septem* Vat. transponit post *subdividuntur*.

en: See above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 3, and dub. 1. — The words *in septem* ("into seven") the Vatican [edition] transposes after *subdividuntur*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: As was shown above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Quod in naturalibus est forma substantialis; cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 7. (c. 1.); V. Metaph. text. 11, et X. text. 1. (IV. c. 6. et IX. c. 1.).

en: Which in natural things is the substantial form; cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 7 (c. 1); *Metaphysics* V, text 11, and X, text 1 (IV, c. 6, and IX, c. 1).

la: Secundum auctorem libri de Causis, propos. 17. Cfr. supra pag. 508, nota 11.

en: According to the author of the *Book of Causes*, proposition 17. Cf. above, p. 508, note 11.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 197, nota 6. et pag. 412, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 197, note 6, and p. 412, note 1.

la: Vide supra pag. 382, nota 1. et pag. 397, nota 1. — Inferius post *sui totius* cod. A addit *quia dicitur ordo*, edd. vero cum nonnullis codd. substituunt *est ordo* pro *recipit praedicationem sui totius*.

en: See above, p. 382, note 1, and p. 397, note 1. — Below, after *sui totius*, codex A adds *quia dicitur ordo* ("because it is called order"), while the editions, with some codices, substitute *est ordo* ("it is order") for *recipit praedicationem sui totius* ("receives the predication of its whole").

la: Nam secundum Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 33. (c. 4.), potentiae specificantur per obiecta. Cfr. de hoc etiam tom. II. pag. 561, nota 3.

en: For according to Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 33 (c. 4), powers are specified through their objects. Cf. on this also tom. II, p. 561, note 3.

la: Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. dub. I. — Superius verbis *et tamen* in cod. bb secunda manus praemisit *non omnino integrales*. Subinde non pauci codd. omittunt *totius*. Inferius pro *perfectionis* Vat. *perfecte*.

en: Cf. above, d. 16, p. I, dub. I. — Above, before the words *et tamen*, in codex bb a second hand has prefixed *non omnino integrales* ("not wholly integral"). Thereupon not a few codices omit *totius*. Below, for *perfectionis* the Vatican [edition reads] *perfecte*.

la: Cfr. infra p. II. a. I. q. 2. ad 3.

en: Cf. below, p. II, a. I, q. 2, ad 3.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 626, nota 7. — Superius post *potestativas* cod. Z addit *vel virtuales*, et post *naturam* subiungit *sed non totaliter*.

en: See tom. II, p. 626, note 7. — Above, after *potestativas*, codex Z adds *vel virtuales* ("or virtual"), and after *naturam* it appends *sed non totaliter* ("but not wholly").

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. II.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. II.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi Quaracchi column bands for pp. 618–619 (raw OCR L67313–L67436), reflowed column-by-column. The band read is authoritative per the Vol II/IV override; the original `/tmp/colcrop` bands were clipped on the left column, so both pages were re-cropped wider (L 0–2120, R 1720–3719) to `/tmp/colcrop2/` before transcription.

**Boundary correction (important).** The auto-chunker's `line_end` was 67381, which truncated the quaestio at the p.618/619 page break: the string "DUBIA" at raw L67382 is only the p.619 **running head** ("DIST. XXIV. P. I. DUBIA. 619"), not the Dubia section. The `QUAESTIO IV` heading is a full-width banner: above it both columns of p.618 finish quaestio III; below it q4 runs (left column = fundamenta 1–3; right column = fundamentum 4 + Contra 1–2), then continues down p.619 (left: Contra 2 tail, Contra 3–4, Conclusio, Respondeo; right: Respondeo cont. + solutions 1–4), ending at "unum Sacramentum faciunt" (L67436). The next chunk begins at **"DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI."** (raw L67437, OCR-garbled "DUBIA CmCA"). `line_end` corrected to 67436.

**Shared-page footer splits.**
- **p.618** (12 Quaracchi footers): notes **1–6 belong to the preceding quaestio III** (`p1-a2-q3`); notes **7–12 are this quaestio** (rendered here as [^1]–[^6]).
- **p.619** (8 Quaracchi footers): notes **1–6 are this quaestio** (rendered here as [^7]–[^12]); notes **7–8 begin the following Pars I *Dubia*** (DUB. I) and are the next chunk's to claim.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. The Pars I, Art. II scholion lives in `p1-a2-q1` and covers all four Art. II questions; footnote [^12] here ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.") is Quaracchi's own cross-reference to it.

**Editorial marginalia dropped.** Quaracchi's side-margin labels (*Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Nota*) are editorial and not rendered in the body, per corpus convention; the printed centered *Conclusio* heading and inline *Respondeo* are retained.

**Textual reading.** p.619 footnote [^8] reads "d. 16" on the band (the IA djvu OCR mis-rendered it "d. 18"); the band reading is followed. No `[?]` flags: the region is clean prose and all readings were confirmed against the bands.

**Health-scan false positive (2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E pass).** The corpus health scan flags this chunk `defs=12 la=16 en=12`. This is the known §2 backtick-blockquote false positive (J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md), in its plain-text (non-backtick-fenced) variant: the explanatory blockquote in `## Latin` (line 33) reads "markers [^1]–[^6] are page 618's footer sequence... and [^7]–[^12] are page 619's footer sequence" — the classifier's regex counts these four example-range tokens (`[^1]`, `[^6]`, `[^7]`, `[^12]`) as real body anchors, inflating the Latin count by exactly 4 (duplicate-label finder confirms: labels 1, 6, 7, 12 each appear twice in `## Latin`, all other labels once; `## English` has no equivalent explanatory paragraph and is unaffected). **No real defect**: all 12 real body anchors in both Latin and English are correctly bound to their 12 apparatus defs, one-to-one, by content. No content was changed. Per handoff §2, this is a live-renderer/classifier bug (regex doesn't respect blockquote example ranges) that needs a corpus-wide decision from Wilson, not a per-chunk fix — reported, not touched.