title: Dist. 2

title_alt: Distinctio II — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction II — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 47 -->

### DISTINCTIO II.

### Cap. I. *De Sacramentis novae legis.*

Iam ad Sacramenta novae legis accedamus, quae sunt baptismus, confirmatio, panis benedictionis[^1], id est eucharistia, poenitentia, unctio extrema, ordo, coniugium; quorum alia remedium contra peccatum praebent et gratiam adiutricem conferunt, ut baptismus; alia in remedium tantum sunt, ut coniugium; alia gratia et virtute nos fulciunt, ut eucharistia et ordo.

Si vero quaeritur, quare non fuerint haec Sacramenta instituta mox post hominis lapsum, cum in his sit iustitia et salus; dicimus, non ante adventum Christi, qui gratiam attulit, gratiae Sacramenta fuisse danda, quae ex ipsius morte et passione virtutem sortita sunt. Christus autem venire noluit, antequam homo de lege naturali et scripta convinceretur, quod neutra iuvari posset.

Fuit tamen[^2] coniugium ante peccatum institutum, «non utique propter remedium, sed ad Sacramentum et ad officium»; post peccatum vero fuit ad remedium contra carnalis concupiscentiae corruptelam; de quo suo loco tractabimus.

### Cap. II. *De baptismo.*

Nunc vero de baptismi Sacramento videamus, «quod inter novae gratiae Sacramenta primum est. Baptismum Christi Ioannes suo baptismo praenuntiavit, qui primus baptizasse legitur, sed in aqua, non in Spiritu, sicut ipse ait: *Ego baptizo vos in aqua in poenitentiam.* Sola enim corpora abluebat, a peccatis vero non mundabat[^3]».

### Cap. III. *De differentia baptismi Ioannis et Christi.*

Baptismus Ioannis erat in poenitentiam, non in remissionem; baptismus vero Christi in remissionem; quia Ioannes baptizans homines ad poenitentiam vocabat, et quos baptizabat poenitere docebat, secundum illud: *Veniebant ad Ioannem in Iordanem, confitentes peccata sua*[^4]. Sed in baptismo Ioannis non dabatur peccatorum remissio, quae data est in Christi baptismo.

### Cap. IV. *Quid utilitatis habuit baptismus Ioannis.*

«Ad quid ergo utilis erat baptismus Ioannis? Quia homines usu baptizandi praeparabat ad baptismum Christi». — Sed quaeritur, quare dictus est Ioannis baptismus, sicut Veritas dicit[^5]: *Baptismus Ioannis unde est?* Quia ibi Ioannis operatio visibilis tantum erat exterius lavantis, non invisibilis gratia Dei interius operantis. Sed tamen et illa Ioannis operatio a Deo erat, et baptismus ille a Deo erat, non ab homine[^6]; sed hominis dictus est, quia nihil ibi gerebatur, quod non ageret homo.

### Cap. V. *Si fuit Sacramentum baptismus ille.*

Si vero quaeritur, an Sacramentum fuerit; satis potest concedi ex eo sensu, quo legalia signa dicuntur Sacramenta. Significabat enim baptismus Ioannis rem sacram, scilicet baptismum Christi, qui non tantum est poenitentiae, sed et remissionis peccatorum.

### Cap. VI. *De forma baptismi Ioannis.*

Hic considerandum est, si baptizati a Ioanne iterum baptizati sunt baptismo Christi, et qua forma verborum usus sit Ioannes. Illi qui baptizati sunt a Ioanne, nescientes, Spiritum sanctum esse, ac spem ponentes in illius baptismo, postea baptizati sunt baptismo Christi. — Baptismus autem Ioannis in nomine venturi tradebatur. Unde Hieronymus[^7] super Ioelem: «Qui dicit, se in Christum credere, et non credit in Spiritum sanctum, nondum habet claros oculos. Unde baptizati a Ioanne in nomine venturi, id est Domini Iesu, quia dixerunt: *Sed neque, si Spiritus sanctus est, audivimus,* iterum baptizabantur, immo verum baptisma accipiebant». Illi vero, qui spem non posuerunt in baptismo Ioannis, et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum

<!-- page 48 -->

credebant, non post baptizati fuerunt[^8], sed impositione manuum, ab Apostolis super eos facta, Spiritum sanctum receperunt. Alii vero, qui non ita credebant, baptizati sunt baptismo Christi, ut praedictum est. Unde Hieronymus[^9]: «Qui Spiritum sanctum nesciebant, cum baptismum a Ioanne acceperunt, iterum baptizati sunt», ne quis ex Iudaeis vel gentibus putaret, aquam sine Spiritu sancto ad salutem posse sufficere. De hoc etiam Ambrosius[^10] in primo libro *de Spiritu sancto*: «Quidam negaverunt, se scire Spiritum sanctum, cum baptizatos se dicerent Ioannis baptismo, qui in advenientis Iesu, non in suo, baptizavit nomine. Isti ergo, quia nec in Christi nomine nec cum fide Spiritus sancti baptizati fuerant, non potuerunt accipere baptismi Sacramentum; baptizati sunt igitur in nomine Christi, nec iteratum est in his baptisma, sed novatum».

english:
### DISTINCTION II.

### Chap. I. *On the Sacraments of the new law.*

Let us now come to the Sacraments of the new law, which are baptism, confirmation, the bread of blessing[^1], that is, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, marriage; of which some afford a remedy against sin and confer helping grace, as baptism; others are for a remedy only, as marriage; others sustain us with grace and virtue, as the eucharist and order.

But if it is asked why these Sacraments were not instituted soon after the fall of man, since in them there is justice and salvation; we say that the Sacraments of grace were not to be given before the coming of Christ, who brought grace, and which obtained their power from his death and passion. But Christ did not will to come before man was convicted, by the natural and the written law, that neither could help.

Nevertheless[^2] marriage was instituted before sin, «not indeed for the sake of a remedy, but unto a Sacrament and unto a duty»; but after sin it was for a remedy against the corruption of carnal concupiscence; concerning which we shall treat in its proper place.

### Chap. II. *On baptism.*

But now let us look at the Sacrament of baptism, «which is the first among the Sacraments of the new grace. John foretold the baptism of Christ by his own baptism, who is recorded to have baptized first, but in water, not in the Spirit, as he himself says: *I baptize you in water unto penance.* For he washed bodies only, but did not cleanse from sins[^3]».

### Chap. III. *On the difference between the baptism of John and of Christ.*

The baptism of John was unto penance, not unto remission; but the baptism of Christ unto remission; because John, baptizing men, called them to penance, and taught those whom he baptized to repent, according to that: *They came to John at the Jordan, confessing their sins*[^4]. But in the baptism of John there was not given the remission of sins, which was given in the baptism of Christ.

### Chap. IV. *What usefulness the baptism of John had.*

«For what then was the baptism of John useful? Because by the practice of baptizing it prepared men for the baptism of Christ». — But it is asked why it was called the baptism of John, as the Truth says[^5]: *The baptism of John, whence is it?* Because there the working of John was visible only, of one washing outwardly, not the invisible grace of God working inwardly. Yet that working of John also was from God, and that baptism was from God, not from man[^6]; but it was called man's, because nothing was done there which man did not do.

### Chap. V. *Whether that baptism was a Sacrament.*

But if it is asked whether it was a Sacrament; it can well enough be granted in that sense in which the legal signs are called Sacraments. For the baptism of John signified a sacred thing, namely the baptism of Christ, which is not only of penance, but also of the remission of sins.

### Chap. VI. *On the form of the baptism of John.*

Here it must be considered whether those baptized by John were baptized again with the baptism of Christ, and what form of words John used. Those who were baptized by John, not knowing that there is a Holy Spirit, and placing their hope in his baptism, were afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ. — Now the baptism of John was handed down in the name of him who was to come. Hence Jerome[^7] on Joel: «He who says that he believes in Christ, and does not believe in the Holy Spirit, has not yet clear eyes. Whence those baptized by John in the name of him who was to come, that is, of the Lord Jesus, because they said: *But we have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit,* were baptized again, nay rather they received true baptism». But those who did not place their hope in the baptism of John, and believed both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

believed[^8] — were not baptized afterwards, but received the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands made over them by the Apostles. But others, who did not so believe, were baptized with the baptism of Christ, as was said before. Hence Jerome[^9]: «Those who knew not the Holy Spirit, when they received baptism from John, were baptized again», lest anyone of the Jews or the Gentiles should think that water without the Holy Spirit could suffice for salvation. On this also Ambrose[^10] in the first book *On the Holy Spirit*: «Some denied that they knew the Holy Spirit, when they said they had been baptized with John's baptism, who baptized in the name of the coming Jesus, not in his own. These therefore, because they had been baptized neither in the name of Christ nor with faith in the Holy Spirit, could not receive the Sacrament of baptism; they were baptized therefore in the name of Christ, nor was baptism repeated in them, but renewed».

---

la: Edd., exceptis 1, 2, *benedictio panis*, refragantibus codd.; lectio autem nostra respondet locutioni (I. Cor. 10, 16): *Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est, et panis, quem frangimus* etc.? — Quae in hac dist. sequuntur fere totaliter sumta sunt ex Hugonis a S. Vict. I. *de Sacram.* p. VIII. c. 3, cfr. *Sum. Sent.* tr. 5. c. 1.

en: The editions, except 1 and 2, read *benedictio panis* (blessing of bread), against the codices; but our reading answers to the expression (1 Cor. 10:16): *The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break* etc.? — What follows in this distinction is almost wholly taken from Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* bk. I, pt. VIII, c. 3; cf. *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 5, c. 1.

la: Codd. C D E et ed. 1 *etiam.* — Locus, qui sequitur, est Hugonis ibid. c. 13. — Vat. *ad Sacramentum* omittit *et.* — Respicitur Gen. 2, 21. — De matrimonio tractatur infra d. XXVI.

en: Codices C, D, E and edition 1 read *etiam* (also). — The passage which follows is Hugh's, ibid. c. 13. — The Vatican edition, at *ad Sacramentum*, omits *et.* — Genesis 2:21 is regarded. — Marriage is treated below, dist. XXVI.

en: Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:8.

en: Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5.

en: Matthew 21:23.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. adiicit *tantum.*

en: The Vatican edition, with a few editions, adds *tantum* (only).

la: *Comment. in Ioel* c. 2. Loci Scripturae sunt Act. 19, 1. et 2. Cfr. etiam C. *Aliud est* (39.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. — De impositione manuum super baptizatos vide Act. 8, 17.

en: *Commentary on Joel* c. 2. The scriptural places are Acts 19:1 and 2. Cf. also canon *Aliud est* (39), *de Consecratione* dist. 4. — On the imposition of hands over the baptized see Acts 8:17.

la: De hac opinione Magistri communiter reprobata vide Comment. hic a. 2. q. 3.

en: On this opinion of the Master, commonly rejected, see the Commentary here, art. 2, q. 3.

la: *Epist.* 69. (alias 83.) *ad Oceanum* n. 6. — Edd. in fine huius loci addunt *baptismo Christi, ut praedictum est,* refragantibus codd. et originali.

en: *Letter* 69 (otherwise 83), *to Oceanus*, n. 6. — At the end of this passage the editions add *baptismo Christi, ut praedictum est* (with the baptism of Christ, as was said before), against the codices and the original.

la: Cap. c. 3. n. 41. 42, nonnullis mutatis et omissis. Pro *novatum,* quod habent cum originali codd. A B D E et edd. 2, 7, cod. C et ceterae edd. *innovatum.*

en: [Ambrose, *On the Holy Spirit* bk. I,] c. 3, nn. 41–42, with some things changed and omitted. For *novatum* (renewed), which codices A, B, D, E and editions 2, 7 have along with the original, codex C and the rest of the editions read *innovatum* (made new again).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 5619–5727), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 47–48 (PDF pp. 67–68; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative wherever the two-column OCR is cascade-shattered; OCR base for clean running prose + footnote-marker spacing). This chunk is the Lombard *littera* of Distinction II — the Master's text (*De Sacramentis novae legis*), printed by Quaracchi at the top of the distinction before Bonaventure's commentary. No scholion (litterae carry none). `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1880` was used (the vol4 column split is x≈1880); note the right-column band crops a few glyphs off the left edge of the R column, which were supplied from the OCR.

**Page-split map (running heads + COMMENTARIUS boundary verified eyes-on):**
- **p.47** (running head "DISTINCTIO II.", page number "47"): DISTINCTIO II heading; Cap. I–VI (Cap. VI breaks mid-sentence at "…et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum" → continues on p.48). Footer notes 1–7: L-column carries notes 1–2 (`[^1]` benedictionis, `[^2]` Fuit tamen); R-column carries notes 3–7 (`[^3]` mundabat, `[^4]` peccata sua, `[^5]` Veritas dicit, `[^6]` non ab homine, `[^7]` Hieronymus super Ioelem).
- **p.48** (head "48 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): Cap. VI tail (the "credebant…sed novatum»" paragraph; littera ends at raw L5723). Immediately below, **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.** begins (raw L5728) → next chunk (`d2-divisio`, not yet scaffolded — see hand-off). The p.48 footer is split into TWO blocks: the **L-column block** (notes 1–3) is the littera's apparatus (`[^8]` fuerunt, `[^9]` Hieronymus, `[^10]` Ambrosius); the **R-column block** is headed **"NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM"** (notes 1–3) and belongs to the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO, *not* to this littera.

**No `[?]` flags.** All ten apparatus entries are eyes-on confirmed against the 450 dpi PDF footer bands (p.47 L+R, p.48 L). The OCR had dropped the p.48 littera footer markers' provenance into an undifferentiated block; the PDF cleanly separates the littera's L-column notes from the commentary's "NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM" R-column notes. The Latinity of the p.48 body text ("nec iteratum est in his baptisma, sed novatum") matches both OCR and PDF; the apparatus variant *innovatum* (`[^10]`) is recorded.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs forwarded to `d2-divisio` (to be scaffolded — see report):**
1. The COMMENTARIUS begins at raw L5728 on printed p.48; the entire p.48 **"NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM"** R-column footer block (notes 1–3: ¹ *Non pauci codd. perperam narratione…*; ² *Codd. E G I Z praedictae…*; ³ *Gen. 2, 24; Matth. 19, 5. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 1…*) belongs to the divisio chunk, **not** to this littera. **Caution:** the OCR for these commentary notes partly overlaps the littera's own p.48 L-column note text (the cascade-merge stitched "Non pauci codd…narratione" into both footer regions) — the divisio agent must read the p.48 PDF R-column footer band (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p048-R-2.png`) directly and not trust the OCR ordering.
2. The DIVISIO TEXTUS (raw ~L5734) + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (raw ~L5762, ending raw ~L5775 with "Quantum vero ad secundam quaeritur de baptismo Ioannis.") are the divisio chunk's body. The TRACTATIO lists: principaliter two questions (institutio Sacramentorum / baptismus Ioannis); circa primum quaeruntur tria (omne tempus idoneum / diversis temporibus diversa / tempore gratiae unum vel plura) — confirm these align with Art. I q1–q3 openers when building `d2-a1-q1`.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem II — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction II — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 48 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.

### *De Sacramentis in speciali.*

*Iam nunc ad Sacramenta novae legis accedamus.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est secunda pars, in qua Magister agit de Sacramentis in speciali. Et habet haec pars duas partes. In prima determinat quaedam praeambula. In secunda vero determinat de unoquoque per se, ibi: *Post haec videndum est, quid sit baptismus*, distinctione tertia.

Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima parte determinat praeambula ad omnia Sacramenta, scilicet tempus institutionis et numerum. In secunda vero determinat praeambulum specialiter ad baptismum, ibi: *Nunc vero de baptismi Sacramento videamus.*

Prima iterum pars habet duas. In prima determinat numerum. In secunda vero institutionis tempus, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur, quare non fuerunt* etc. — *Nunc vero de baptismi Sacramento* etc. Haec est secunda pars, in qua agit de praeambulo ad baptismum Christi, quod quidem fuit baptismus Ioannis, et habet haec pars tres partes. In prima Magister determinat de utilitate, sive ad quid fuit. In secunda vero de eius institutione sive denominatione, ibi: *Sed quaeritur, quare dictus est baptismus Ioannis.* In tertia vero agit de usu sive de iteratione[^1], ibi: *Hic considerandum est, si baptizati* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis[^2] distinctionis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de institutione Sacramentorum quantum ad primam partem.

Quantum vero ad secundam quaeritur de baptismo Ioannis.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum omne tempus fuerit idoneum ad institutionem Sacramentorum.

Secundo, utrum in diversis temporibus debuerint diversa institui.

Tertio, utrum in tempore gratiae debuerint institui unum, vel plura.

---

english:
<!-- page 48 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION II.

### *On the Sacraments in particular.*

*Now let us approach the Sacraments of the new law.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the second part, in which the Master treats of the Sacraments in particular. And this part has two parts. In the first it determines certain preliminaries. In the second it determines concerning each one individually, at: *After these things it must be seen what baptism is*, in the third distinction.

The first part has two parts. In the first part it determines the preliminaries to all the Sacraments, namely the time of institution and the number. In the second it determines the preliminary specially to baptism, at: *But now let us see concerning the Sacrament of baptism.*

The first part again has two [parts]. In the first it determines the number. In the second the time of institution, at: *But if it is asked why they were not* etc. — *But now concerning the Sacrament of baptism* etc. This is the second part, in which it treats of the preliminary to the baptism of Christ, which indeed was the baptism of John, and this part has three parts. In the first the Master determines concerning [its] usefulness, or to what end it was. In the second concerning its institution or naming, at: *But it is asked why it was called the baptism of John.* In the third it treats of [its] use or repetition[^1], at: *Here it must be considered whether those baptized* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present[^2] distinction, according to the two things which the Master determines, two questions are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the institution of the Sacraments, as to the first part.

But as to the second, inquiry is made concerning the baptism of John.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether every time was suitable for the institution of the Sacraments.

Second, whether in diverse times diverse [Sacraments] ought to have been instituted.

Third, whether in the time of grace one ought to have been instituted, or several.

---

la: Non pauci codd. perperam *narratione*, edd. *variatione*, quae etiam voci *usu* praemittunt *forma*.

en: Not a few codices wrongly read *narratione* (narration), the editions *variatione* (variation), which also prefix *forma* (form) to the word *usu* (use).

la: Codd. EGIZ *praedictae*, cod. L *sequentis*, edd. *huius*.

en: Codices E, G, I, Z read *praedictae* (aforesaid), codex L *sequentis* (following), the editions *huius* (of this).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 5728–5778), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed p.48 (PDF p.68; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE. This is the **Distinction II divisio** — Bonaventure's *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum*, opening with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II. / De Sacramentis in speciali. / Iam nunc ad Sacramenta novae legis accedamus.` Distinction II has **no pars split** (single article block follows), so the chunk id is `bon-sent-IV-d2-divisio` with no `pars` field. Per the locked chunking convention, the `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I` opener (raw L5779) that follows the *Tractatio* is folded into q1 and is **not** included here. No scholion (divisio carry none).

**TRACTATIO question-count alignment (for `d2-a1-q1`):** the *Tractatio* lists **two principal questions** (1 = de institutione Sacramentorum, on the first part; 2 = de baptismo Ioannis, on the second part), then immediately subdivides the first: "**Circa primum quaeruntur tria**" — (i) utrum omne tempus fuerit idoneum ad institutionem Sacramentorum; (ii) utrum in diversis temporibus debuerint diversa institui; (iii) utrum in tempore gratiae debuerint institui unum vel plura. So **Articulus I** (*De tempore institutionis et numero Sacramentorum*) carries these **three** quaestiones. The next chunk `d2-a1-q1` should open with `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I — Utrum omne tempus fuerit idoneum ad institutionem Sacramentorum` and verify its opener aligns with sub-question (i) above. The second principal question (de baptismo Ioannis) becomes a later article.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.48** (running head "48 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): the littera (baptism, with markers *fuerunt¹ / Hieronymus² / Ambrosius³*) fills the upper page; immediately below, **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.** and the entire *Divisio textus* + *Tractatio quaestionum* (both columns) sit on p.48 (raw L5728–5778). At the foot of p.48 the **ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I** body begins (raw L5779) → folded into `d2-a1-q1`.
- The p.48 footer has two note-series. The **left-column** series (1 = "De hac opinione Magistri communiter reprobata…"; 2 = "Epist. 69 [alias 83] ad Oceanum"; 3 = "Cap. c.3 n.41") is keyed to the littera's tail and to q1's opening *matrimonii* markers — handled by the littera (already committed) and by q1. The **right-column** "NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM" series (notes 1–3) is this divisio's: notes 1–2 = [^1]/[^2] above; note 3 forwards to q1.

**Hand-off picked up from `d2-littera` (committed).** The littera forwarded: "the p.48 R-column 'NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM' footer block (3 notes) belongs to THIS divisio chunk, not the littera; its OCR partly cascade-merged with the littera's L-column notes." Captured by reading `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p048-R-2.png` directly: NOTAE note 1 (*narratione/variatione*, variant of *iteratione*) = [^1]; NOTAE note 2 (*praedictae/sequentis/huius*, variant of *praesentis*) = [^2]; NOTAE note 3 (Gen. 2:24; Matth. 19:5, on *matrimonium*) is NOT this divisio's — it keys to the q1 body and is forwarded below.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d2-a1-q1`:** (a) the `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I` opener (raw L5779–L5784, printed p.48) folds into q1; (b) q1's body and its p.48 footer notes belong to that chunk — specifically the p.48 **L-column** footer notes (1 = "De hac opinione Magistri… vide Comment. hic a.2 q.3"; 2 = Jerome *Epist. 69 ad Oceanum* n.6; 3 = "Cap. c.3 n.41") keyed to q1's opening *matrimonii* / authority markers, **plus** the p.48 R-column **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM note 3** (Gen. 2:24; Matth. 19:5; "Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c.1 et infra d. XXVI…"), which is keyed to the *matrimonium* discussion in q1, not to this divisio.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Both markers and both footer notes are legible and unambiguous in the 450 dpi R-column band.

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. 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 48 -->

### Articulus I. *De tempore institutionis et numero Sacramentorum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum omne tempus fuerit idoneum ad institutionem Sacramentorum.*

Et quod omne tempus fuerit idoneum ad institutionem Sacramentorum, ostenditur:

1. Et primo de tempore naturae institutae; videtur, quod in illo tempore debuerint alia multo magis institui[^1].

<!-- page 49 -->

Si dicas, quod usus matrimonii illi tempori congruebat, quia erat non in remedium, sed in officium, sed alia instituta sunt in medicinam, et ideo non ante lapsum; *contra:* Deus simul, cum condidit Angelum, condidit poenam sive ignem, ut ibi, si peccaret, puniretur, quia eius peccatum est irremediabile[^2]: ergo pari ratione, cum condidit hominem, cuius erat peccare remediabiliter, debuit instituere medicinam.

2. Item, Magister dicit distinctione praecedenti[^3], quod Sacramentorum usus est «ad humiliationem, exercitationem et eruditionem»; quae non tantum conveniunt aegro, sed etiam sano: ergo etc.

1. Item, quod tempus legis naturae post lapsum fuerit conveniens, videtur: quia boni et sapientis medici est medicinam usque ad indigentiam differre, et cum adest indigentia, ipsam offerre[^4]: ergo si tempus legis naturae fuit tale, tunc sine dilatione et anticipatione debuit Sacramenta instituere.

2. Item, quod tempus legis scriptae fuerit magis idoneum, videtur: quia Sacramenta non ideo sunt praecepta, quia bona, sed ideo bona, quia praecepta et instituta; sed talia praecepta maxime conveniunt legi scriptae, non Evangelio vel naturae, quo[^5] sunt leges morales: ergo et Sacramentorum institutio.

3. Sed quod tempus legis evangelicae fuerit conveniens, videtur: quia «Sacramenta sunt medicinae[^6]»; sed illud tempus maxime illorum institutioni convenit, in quo advenit medicus; et iterum sunt «vasa gratiae[^7]»: ergo illi tempori congruunt, quod est tempus gratiae.

**Contra:** Quod non congruerint tempori naturae institutae, ostenditur: quia qui sperat resurgere facilius dimittit se cadere; ergo si primo homini essent remedia parata[^8], data esset ei occasio peccandi: ergo si Sacramenta debent esse via ad resurgendum, non ad cadendum, non debuerunt tunc institui.

1. Item, quod nec tempori legis naturae, videtur: quia tempore illo solum cucurrit ius naturale; sed ea quae dictat ius naturale, sunt de se bona, sunt etiam immobilia: ergo si Sacramenta non sunt talia, non conveniunt illi tempori.

2. Item, quod nec tempori legis scriptae, videtur; quia lex scripta data est in onus et ad convincendum de impotentia, ut dicit Hugo[^9]: ergo si Sacramenta sunt medicinae reparantes virtutem, nullatenus conveniunt legi scriptae.

3. Item, quod non legi evangelicae, videtur, quia haec lex est eliminativa figurarum et signorum, quia aperte praedicat veritatem[^10]: ergo si Sacramenta sunt figuralia, nullatenus legi evangelicae conveniunt.

4. Item, lex Evangelii est lex libertatis, ad Galatas quinto[^11]: *Vos autem fratres in libertatem vocati estis:* ergo ad minus non debuerunt institui Sacramenta sub praecepto, sed solum sub consilio. Et hoc videtur dicere Hugo de Sacramentis: «Primo parvulos consilio nutrivit, secundo provectos praecepto tentavit, tertio perfectos in libertate spiritus ambulare permisit». Sed hoc non potest stare, quia Ioannis tertio[^12] dicitur: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit* etc.

### Conclusio

> Tempora legis naturae, legis scriptae et Evangelii conveniunt institutioni Sacramentorum, tamen secundum magis et minus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod omnia Sacramenta instituta sunt in remedium specialiter et principaliter, excepto matrimonio, quod primo institutum est in officium; et quia tempus remedii incepit a lapsu et profecit in Lege et consummatum est in Evangelio, ideo ista tria tempora conveniunt institutioni, tamen secundum magis et minus.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod conveniat tempus naturae institutae propter matrimonium; dicendum, quod tunc est institutum, quia fuit institutum in officium. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de poena Angelorum, patet responsio: quia poena vel ignis revocat a culpa, sed medicina occasionem praestat; ideo non sic debebat esse ex sua[^13] parte.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de usu, dicendum, quod humiliari sub creaturis, ab eis erudiri et in eis a fastidio liberari non est de natura hominis instituti, sed potius hoc exigit poena damnati; quia

<!-- page 50 -->

homo stans erat medius inter creaturas et Deum; in se enim expressius quam in aliis cognoscebat et in ipso delectabatur et varietate rerum ad fugiendum fastidium non egebat[^14].

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de tempore legis naturae, dicendum, quod lex naturae quaedam dictat ut necessaria, quaedam ut expedientia; item, quaedam dictat ex se, quaedam adiuta fide et inspiratione. Et dico, quod primo modo dictat praecepta moris; secundo modo praecepta, quae dictabat in generali, ut esset Deo sacrificandum; et haec fides cum inspiratione etiam ulterius determinabat[^15]. Et sic patet illud.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de tempore legis scriptae, dico, quod lex scripta a duris observabatur carnaliter et eius Sacramenta, et in talibus nullam habebat efficaciam; sed a spiritualibus observabatur spiritualiter, et non erat in onus praecipue, sed in viam salutis[^16]; et talibus Sacramenta illa erant in medicinam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Evangelio, quod evacuat figuras; dicendum, quod quaedam figurae erant tantum ad significandum, quaedam autem sunt ad significandum et sanctificandum. Figuras primas evacuat, sed secundas instituit, quia est lex sanctificationis, non tantum veritatis[^17].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex Evangelii est lex libertatis etc. dicendum, quod praecepta sunt in servitutem timentibus, sed sunt in libertatem amantibus; quia ergo lex evangelica est lex amoris, ideo dicitur lex libertatis, non quia non praecipiebat, sed quia non ad timorem, sed ad amorem trahebat[^18].

english:
### Article I. *On the time of institution and the number of the Sacraments.*
### Question I. *Whether every time was suitable for the institution of the Sacraments.*

And that every time was suitable for the institution of the Sacraments is shown:

1. And first concerning the time of nature as instituted [in its original state]; it seems that in that time others ought much more to have been instituted[^1].

If you say that the use of marriage was fitting to that time, because it was not for a remedy but for an office, whereas the others were instituted for medicine, and therefore not before the Fall; *on the contrary:* God, at the same time as He created the angel, created punishment, that is, fire, so that there, if he should sin, he might be punished, because his sin is irremediable[^2]: therefore by parity of reasoning, when He created man, whose lot it was to sin remediably, He ought to have instituted medicine.

2. Likewise, the Master says in the preceding distinction[^3] that the use of the Sacraments is "for humiliation, exercise, and instruction"; and these things befit not only the sick man but also the healthy one: therefore etc.

1. Likewise, that the time of the law of nature after the Fall was fitting, it seems: because it belongs to a good and wise physician to defer the medicine until [there is] need, and when need is present, to offer it[^4]: therefore if the time of the law of nature was such, then without delay or anticipation He ought to have instituted the Sacraments.

2. Likewise, that the time of the written law was more suitable, it seems: because the Sacraments are not commanded because they are good, but rather they are good because they are commanded and instituted; but such commands befit most of all the written law, not the Gospel or [the law of] nature, by which[^5] are [given] the moral laws: therefore also the institution of the Sacraments.

3. But that the time of the evangelical law was fitting, it seems: because "the Sacraments are medicines[^6]"; but that time befits their institution most of all, in which the physician came; and again they are "vessels of grace[^7]": therefore they are fitting to that time, which is the time of grace.

**On the contrary:** That they were not fitting to the time of nature as instituted is shown: because he who hopes to rise more readily lets himself fall; therefore if remedies were prepared for the first man[^8], occasion of sinning would be given him: therefore if the Sacraments ought to be a way to rising again, not to falling, they ought not then to have been instituted.

1. Likewise, that [they were fitting] not even to the time of the law of nature, it seems: because in that time the natural right [of law] alone ran its course; but the things which the natural right dictates are of themselves good, and are also immutable: therefore if the Sacraments are not such, they do not befit that time.

2. Likewise, that [they were fitting] not even to the time of the written law, it seems; because the written law was given as a burden and to convict [man] of [his] powerlessness, as Hugh says[^9]: therefore if the Sacraments are medicines restoring power [virtue], they in no way befit the written law.

3. Likewise, that [they did] not [befit] the evangelical law, it seems, because this law is the eliminator of figures and signs, since it openly preaches the truth[^10]: therefore if the Sacraments are figurative, they in no way befit the evangelical law.

4. Likewise, the law of the Gospel is the law of liberty, to the Galatians, fifth chapter[^11]: *But you, brethren, have been called unto liberty:* therefore at the least the Sacraments ought not to have been instituted under precept, but only under counsel. And this Hugh seems to say in *On the Sacraments:* "First He nourished the little ones by counsel, secondly He tested the grown by precept, thirdly He permitted the perfect to walk in the liberty of the spirit." But this cannot stand, because in John, third chapter[^12], it is said: *Unless one be born again* etc.

### Conclusion

> The times of the law of nature, of the written law, and of the Gospel befit the institution of the Sacraments, yet according to more and less.

**I respond:** It must be said that all the Sacraments were instituted as a remedy specially and principally, except marriage, which was first instituted for an office; and because the time of the remedy began at the Fall and advanced under the Law and was consummated in the Gospel, therefore these three times befit the institution, yet according to more and less.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the time of nature as instituted is fitting on account of marriage; it must be said that it was then instituted because it was instituted for an office. — To that which is objected about the punishment of the angels, the response is plain: because punishment, that is, fire, calls [one] back from fault, whereas medicine affords [an] occasion; therefore it ought not to be so on its[^13] part.

2. To that which is objected about [their] use, it must be said that to be humbled under creatures, to be instructed by them, and to be freed from weariness in them is not part of the nature of man as instituted, but rather the punishment of the condemned demands this; because

man, while standing [upright], was midway between creatures and God; for in himself he knew [God] more expressly than in others and delighted in Him, and had no need of the variety of things for fleeing weariness[^14].

1. To that which is objected about the time of the law of nature, it must be said that the law of nature dictates some things as necessary, some as expedient; likewise, it dictates some things of itself, some aided by faith and inspiration. And I say that in the first way it dictates the precepts of morals; in the second way the precepts which it was dictating in general, namely that sacrifice ought to be made to God; and this faith together with inspiration was further determining [it][^15]. And thus that [objection] is clear.

2. To that which is objected about the time of the written law, I say that the written law was observed carnally by the hard[-hearted], and its Sacraments [likewise], and in such [people] it had no efficacy; but by the spiritual it was observed spiritually, and was not chiefly a burden but a way of salvation[^16]; and for such [people] those Sacraments were for medicine.

3. To that which is objected about the Gospel, that it empties out the figures; it must be said that some figures were only for signifying, but some are for signifying and sanctifying. The first figures it empties out, but the second it institutes, because it is the law of sanctification, not only of truth[^17].

4. To that which is objected, that the law of the Gospel is the law of liberty etc. it must be said that the precepts are unto servitude for those who fear, but are unto liberty for those who love; therefore because the evangelical law is the law of love, it is therefore called the law of liberty, not because it did not command, but because it was drawing [men] not to fear but to love[^18].

la: Gen. 2, 24; Matth. 19, 5. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et infra d. XXVI. c. 1, nec non ibid. Comment. a. 1. q. 1, ubi etiam insinuatur instantia, quae paulo inferius fertur et ex verbis Augustini sumta est.

en: Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 1, and below, dist. XXVI, c. 1, as well as ibid. the Commentary, a. 1, q. 1, where there is also intimated the instance which is brought forward a little below and is taken from the words of Augustine.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 7. p. I. a. I. q. I. et d. 21. a. 3. q. 2, ubi de peccato remissibili primorum parentum. — Paulo superius pro *in medicinam* cod. Z *in remedium.*

en: See II *Sent.* d. 7, pt. I, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 21, a. 3, q. 2, where [it treats] of the remissible sin of the first parents. — A little above, for *in medicinam* (for medicine) codex Z [reads] *in remedium* (for a remedy).

la: Cap. 5.

en: Chapter 5.

la: Vide supra d. I. p. I. q. 5. arg. 2. verba ad oppos. Hugonis. — Cod. Z statim *ipsam afferre.* Mox post *naturae* cod. U addit *post lapsum.*

en: See above, dist. I, pt. I, q. 5, arg. 2, the words of Hugh in the opposing [arguments]. — Codex Z [reads] at once *ipsam afferre* (to bring it). Soon, after *naturae* (of nature), codex U adds *post lapsum* (after the Fall).

la: Codd. MO *quo tempore,* plures codd. *quae,* cod. Z legit *nec naturae, cuiusmodi;* edd. omittunt *non Evangelio... morales.*

en: Codices M, O [read] *quo tempore* (at which time), several codices *quae* (which), codex Z reads *nec naturae, cuiusmodi* (nor of nature, of which kind); the editions omit *non Evangelio... morales* (not the Gospel... moral).

la: Hugo a S. Vict., I. *de Sacram.* p. IX. c. 5.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* bk. I, pt. IX, c. 5.

la: Hugo a S. Vict., loc. cit. c. 4. Vide supra pag. 17, nota 1.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, loc. cit. c. 4. See above, p. 17, note 1.

la: Cod. Z *praeparata.* Superius pro *quia qui* cod. C *quia si,* Vat. *quia ibi.* In fine arg. codd., exceptis OZ, omittunt *tunc,* pro quo edd. *illo tempore.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *praeparata* (prepared). Above, for *quia qui* (because he who) codex C [reads] *quia si* (because if), the Vatican edition *quia ibi* (because there). At the end of the argument the codices, except O and Z, omit *tunc* (then), for which the editions [read] *illo tempore* (at that time).

la: Libr. II. *de Sacram.* p. II. c. I. Cfr. lib. I. p. VIII. c. 3. et p. XI. c. 1. — Superius post *legis scriptae* ex cod. H supplevimus *videtur.*

en: Bk. II *On the Sacraments* pt. II, c. 1. Cf. bk. I, pt. VIII, c. 3, and pt. XI, c. 1. — Above, after *legis scriptae* (of the written law) we have supplied *videtur* (it seems) from codex H.

la: Cfr. Ioan. 1, 17. et Hebr. 10, 1. — Superius pro *est eliminativa* plures codd. vel *evacuativa* vel *elucidativa.*

en: Cf. John 1:17 and Hebrews 10:1. — Above, for *est eliminativa* (is the eliminator) several codices [read] either *evacuativa* (empties out) or *elucidativa* (makes clear).

la: Vers. 13. — Verba Hugonis habentur I. *de Sacram.* p. XI. c. 4, in quibus cod. F cum textu originali *permittit* pro *permisit.* Cfr. supra pag. 36, nota 9.

en: Verse 13. — The words of Hugh are found in [bk.] I *On the Sacraments* pt. XI, c. 4, in which codex F, with the original text, [reads] *permittit* (permits) for *permisit* (permitted). Cf. above, p. 36, note 9.

la: Vers. 3.

en: Verse 3.

la: Codd. FGIX *illa,* codd. U aa *ista,* Vat. *ipsa.*

en: Codices F, G, I, X [read] *illa* (that), codices U, aa *ista* (this), the Vatican edition *ipsa* (it/the same).

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius edd. *intutus* pro *stans,* et perperam *in Creatore enim se* pro *in se enim* (supple: *eum*). Pro *fugiendum* codd. EI *fuganda,* cod. Z *evitandum.*

en: Cf. II *Sent.* d. 23, a. 2, q. 3. — Above the editions [read] *intutus* (unguarded) for *stans* (standing), and wrongly *in Creatore enim se* (for in the Creator himself) for *in se enim* (for in himself) (supply: *eum* [Him]). For *fugiendum* (for fleeing) codices E, I [read] *fuganda* (to be put to flight), codex Z *evitandum* (to be avoided).

la: Vide supra d. I. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. — Pro *haec* cod. Z *sed,* et pro *quae dictabat* edd. *quae dictabant.* Superius pro *adiuta fide* edd. *adiuncta fide.*

en: See above, dist. I, pt. II, a. 1, q. 3, in the body. — For *haec* (this) codex Z [reads] *sed* (but), and for *quae dictabat* (which it was dictating) the editions [read] *quae dictabant* (which they were dictating). Above, for *adiuta fide* (aided by faith) the editions [read] *adiuncta fide* (with faith adjoined).

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 2. — Vat. omittit *praecipue.* Pars superius post *et eius Sacramenta* cod. X, variata interpunctione, prosequitur: *etiam in talibus nullam habebant efficaciam,* a qua lectione in tantum discedit lectio cod. E, qua secunda manus eliminavit *etiam.* Pro *a duris* cod. Z et ed. 1 *a Iudaeis.*

en: Cf. III *Sent.* d. 40, q. 2. — The Vatican edition omits *praecipue* (chiefly). The portion above, after *et eius Sacramenta* (and its Sacraments) codex X, with altered punctuation, continues: *etiam in talibus nullam habebant efficaciam* (also in such [people] they had no efficacy), from which reading the reading of codex E so far departs that a second hand eliminated *etiam.* For *a duris* (by the hard) codex Z and ed. 1 [read] *a Iudaeis* (by the Jews).

la: Vide supra d. I. p. I. q. 5. — [Cf.] etiam infra d. 40. q. 1.

en: See above, dist. I, pt. I, q. 5. — [Cf.] also below, d. 40, q. 1.

la: Libr. I. *de Sacram.* p. XI. c. 6, ubi textus originalis circa finem testimonii *ut cum effectus* pro *ut effectus,* et codd. cum edd. *et ipsa signatio* pro *et ipsa sanctificatio.*

en: Bk. I *On the Sacraments* pt. XI, c. 6, where the original text, near the end of the testimony, [reads] *ut cum effectus* for *ut effectus,* and the codices with the editions [read] *et ipsa signatio* (and the very sealing) for *et ipsa sanctificatio* (and the very sanctification).

latin_scholion:
**I.** De 1. et 2. quaestione cfr. d. 1. p. I. a. 1. q. 1, ubi dictum est in scholio, alios commentatores Petri Lombardi has duas quaestiones coniungere cum praedicta; unde vide ibi auctores citatos, et praeterea Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 1. m. 3. a. 3, et q. 2. m. 2. a. 1. 2; S. Thom., S. III. q. 61. a. 2. — Doctores aliqualiter dissentiunt de congruitate Sacramentorum pro statu innocentiae, et primo quidem respectu matrimonii iam in paradiso instituti, utrum fuerit institutum tantum in officium naturae, non proprie in ratione Sacramenti — ut docent cum S. Bonav. S. Thomas, d. 1. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. ad 3; Scot., d. 1. q. 3. n. 7, d. 26. q. unica n. 11. seqq.; Richard. a Med., d. 1. a. 2. q. 1 — an etiam ut Sacramentum, sicut putat Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 1. § 1. Attamen multi cum Scoto et Dionysio Carth. putant, probabilius esse, aliqua Sacramenta instituenda fuisse, si status innocentiae diu durasset. — De seq. (2.) quaestione, sive de variatione Sacramentorum, plura hic repetita vel excerpta docet Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 5. m. 2. a. 2. § 2. et passim in praecedentibus qq.; item cfr. S. Thom., d. 1. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 2. — De mundi aetatibus cfr. infra d. 40. dub. 3 et praecipue Hexaëm. Serm. 16.

**II.** Quoad 3. quaestionem congruitas septenarii numeri Sacramentorum novae legis (de quo numero cfr. Conc. Trident. Sess. VII. can. 1.) etiam infra dub. 1. et ab aliis Scholasticis rationibus suadetur, de quo Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 5. m. 7. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. III. q. 63. a. 1; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 58. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the 1st and 2nd questions, cf. dist. 1, pt. I, a. 1, q. 1, where it was said in the scholion that other commentators on Peter Lombard join these two questions with the aforesaid one; whence see there the authors cited, and besides Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 1, m. 3, a. 3, and q. 2, m. 2, a. 1, 2; St. Thomas, *Summa* III, q. 61, a. 2. — The Doctors somewhat disagree about the fittingness of the Sacraments for the state of innocence, and first indeed with respect to marriage already instituted in paradise, whether it was instituted only for the office of nature, not properly under the formal character of a Sacrament — as, with St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas teaches, d. 1, q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; St. [Thomas] loc. cit. ad 3; Scotus, d. 1, q. 3, n. 7, d. 26, q. unica, n. 11 ff.; Richard of Middleton, d. 1, a. 2, q. 1 — or also as a Sacrament, as Alexander of Hales holds, loc. cit. a. 1, § 1. Yet many, with Scotus and Dionysius the Carthusian, hold it to be more probable that some Sacraments would have had to be instituted, if the state of innocence had long endured. — Concerning the following (2nd) question, that is, the variation of the Sacraments, Alexander of Hales teaches many things here repeated or excerpted, loc. cit. q. 5, m. 2, a. 2, § 2, and throughout in the preceding questions; likewise cf. St. Thomas, d. 1, q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 4; Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — On the ages of the world cf. below, d. 40, dub. 3, and especially *Hexaëmeron*, Sermon 16.

**II.** As to the 3rd question, the fittingness of the sevenfold number of the Sacraments of the new law (concerning which number cf. the Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 1) is also persuaded below, dub. 1, and by other Scholastics by [various] reasons, concerning which [see] Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 5, m. 7, a. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; *Summa* III, q. 63, a. 1; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 58. — Bl. Albert, IV *Sent.* d. 1, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 5779–5955), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 48–50 (PDF pp. 68–70; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative wherever the two-column OCR is cascade-shattered; OCR base for clean running prose + footnote-marker spacing). `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1880` was used (vol4 column split is x≈1880). Per the locked chunking convention, the short `ARTICULUS I` opener (raw L5779–5780, "De tempore institutionis et numero Sacramentorum") is folded into this q1 rather than given a standalone chunk.

**Alignment check (PASS).** The d2 *Tractatio quaestionum* lists Art. I = 3 quaestiones: (i) utrum omne tempus idoneum; (ii) utrum diversa institui; (iii) utrum unum vel plura. This chunk's opener (raw L5784) reads *Utrum omne tempus fuerit idoneum ad institutionem Sacramentorum* = quaestio (i). Confirmed aligned; QUAESTIO II (*Utrum in diversis temporibus debuerint alia et alia Sacramenta institui* = quaestio ii) begins at raw L5956, the chunk's end boundary.

**Scholion.** Present in this chunk (it sits at the foot of p.50 after the Respondeo, before QUAESTIO II), with two parts (I, II). Part I covers the cross-references for q1 and q2 (state-of-innocence / marriage debate); Part II covers q3 (the sevenfold number). The scholion is therefore the *article-level* scholion and is not duplicated in q2/q3.

**Page-split map:**
- **p.48** (foot): ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I opener + arg. "1. Et primo de tempore naturae institutae" (marker `[^1]` on *matrimonii*, = p.48 *Notae ad Commentarium* note 3).
- **p.49** (head "DIST. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 49"): the *Si dicas* continuation, args 2/1/2/3 pro, Contra + args 1/2/3/4 contra, CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO + replies 1, 2 (start). Footer notes 1–12 → `[^2]`–`[^13]` (L-column block notes 1–6, R-column block notes 7–12).
- **p.50** (head "50 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): replies 2 (tail), 1, 2, 3, 4 of the second reply-series + SCHOLION I–II. Footer notes 1–5 → `[^14]`–`[^18]` (L-column block 1–3, R-column block 4–5). p.50 footer notes 6 (Libr. I de Sacram. p.XI c.6) and 7 (variato / Vide verba August. infra pag.51) belong to QUAESTIO II's body (markers `[^6]`/`[^7]` on the q2 Hugo / variato anchors) and are NOT taken here.

**p.48 footer reconciliation (CONFLICT FOUND — two sibling fixes needed).** The p.48 footer has TWO note-blocks, each numbered 1–3:
- **L-column block** — all three belong to the **LITTERA** (`d2-littera`), anchoring its p.48 Cap. VI tail: ¹ *De hac opinione Magistri communiter reprobata vide Comment. hic a. 2. q. 3.* (anchors "non post baptizati **fuerunt**¹", the Master's rejected opinion); ² *Epist. 69 ad Oceanum* (anchors the **Hieronymus** quote); ³ *Cap. c. 3 n. 41. 42 … novatum/innovatum* (anchors the **Ambrosius** *de Spiritu sancto* quote, "sed novatum»").
- **R-column block** = *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* — ¹ *Non pauci codd. perperam narratione…* (divisio, on *usu*/*iteratione*) and ² *Codd. EGIZ praedictae…* (divisio, on *praesentis*) belong to **`d2-divisio`**; ³ *Gen. 2, 24; Matth. 19, 5…* belongs to **this q1** (= `[^1]`, on *matrimonii*).

Resolution: q1 takes ONLY the R-column *Notae ad Commentarium* note 3. The divisio's forwarded hand-off (which told q1 to take the p.48 L-column Jerome/Cap-c.3 notes) was **wrong** — those are the littera's. No apparatus change is needed in the divisio chunk itself (its `[^1]`/`[^2]` are correct); only its forwarded hand-off text was mistaken.

**SIBLING FIX REQUIRED (coordinator action):** The committed `d2-littera` (cd3d997) has a wrong note: its `[^8]` currently reads "Non pauci codd. perperam *narratione*…" — but that is the R-column *Notae ad Commentarium* note 1 (already correctly held by the divisio as its `[^1]`), NOT a littera note. The littera **duplicated the divisio's note 1 and dropped its own true note 1**. The littera's `[^8]` should be replaced with: *De hac opinione Magistri communiter reprobata vide Comment. hic a. 2. q. 3.* (anchored to "non post baptizati fuerunt¹"). The littera's `[^9]` (Epist. 69 ad Oceanum) and `[^10]` (Cap. c. 3 … novatum) are correct as-is.

**Hand-offs picked up.** From `d2-divisio` (40e8059): ARTICULUS I/QUAESTIO I opener at raw L5779–5784 folds here (done); p.48 *Notae ad Commentarium* note 3 (Gen 2:24/Matth 19:5) keys to q1's *matrimonii* marker (taken as `[^1]`, done). The divisio's further claim that q1 also owns the p.48 L-column notes is rejected (see reconciliation above).

**Hand-offs forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d2-a1-q2`:** (a) QUAESTIO II opener at raw L5956–5958 (*Utrum in diversis temporibus debuerint alia et alia Sacramenta institui, vel semper eadem*); (b) q2's body begins on p.50 (markers `[^6]` Hugo *Dispensationis ordo* / `[^7]` *variato*) and continues onto p.51 — so q2 must take **p.50 footer notes 6 and 7** (note 6 = *Libr. I de Sacram. p. XI c. 6…*; note 7 = *Vide verba August. infra pag. 51 nota 8 … pro variato cod. Z variante…*), then p.51's footer; (c) the article scholion lives HERE in q1 (parts I–II already cover q2 and q3), so q2 and q3 carry no scholion of their own — note "scholion in q1".

**`[?]` flags:** none. All 18 apparatus entries, both bodies, and the scholion were confirmed eyes-on against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (pp. 48 L+R, 49 L+R, 50 L+R). The OCR-garbled openers (`C NCLUS I 0` = CONCLUSIO; `Uirum` = Utrum; `oO` = 50) were corrected against the PDF.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 50 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in diversis temporibus debuerint alia et alia Sacramenta institui, vel semper eadem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in diversis temporibus debuerint alia et alia Sacramenta institui, vel semper eadem. Et quod non semper eadem, sed quod debuerint mutari, hoc rationabiliter ostendit

1. Hugo[^1] sic dicens: «Dispensationis ordo et ratio hoc poposcit, ut, sicut ab initio, currente tempore, magis ac magis Salvatoris adventus appropinquavit, sic magis ac magis effectus salutis cresceret et cognitio veritatis; propter quod et ipsa signa salutis per successionem temporum alia post alia mutari debuerunt, ut effectus gratiae divinae in salutem cresceret, simul quoque et ipsa sanctificatio in signis visibilibus evidentior appareret».

2. Item, hoc ostenditur per *rationem*, quia, variato morbo et conditione aegrotantis, necesse est, variari remedium[^2]: ergo cum his temporibus fue<!-- page 51 -->rint homines diversarum conditionum, et morbus invaluerit; necesse fuit, medicamenta alia et alia adhiberi.

**Sed contra:** 1. Institutio Sacramentorum fuit non a quocumque, sed a summo medico, cuius consilium[^3] est *immutabile* et est summe *commendabile*; sed si *immutabile*: ergo et Sacramenta secundum illud instituta debent esse immutabilia; si summe *laudabile*: ergo debent esse optima: ergo secundum hoc, cum Sacramenta legis gratiae optima sint, semper illa debuerunt esse, nec ante nec post alia debuerunt institui nec mutari.

2. Item, morbus originalis peccati semper idem fuit, nec crevit nec decrevit[^4], et ratio infirmandi semper fuit eadem: ergo videtur, quod medicina correspondens morbo debuerit esse eadem, non mutata.

3. Item, omnia Sacramenta habent efficaciam a passione primo et a fide passionis immediate, et virtus illa est ad sanandum per gratiam: ergo cum passio sit eadem, et fides eadem, sicut dicit Augustinus[^5], et gratia similiter eadem: ergo debent esse eadem Sacramenta, non mutata.

> **Conclusio.** Diversis temporibus diversa debuerunt institui Sacramenta.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod Sacramenta sunt in documentum, sunt in medicamentum, sunt et in ornamentum; et secundum statum perfectum sunt in *apertum documentum* divini secreti, sunt in *efficax remedium* morbi et in *pulcrum ornamentum* sponsae Christi. — Quoniam igitur revelatio secretorum non debet fieri quocumque modo nec in omni tempore, sed illo quo est intellectus hominis capacior; ideo Sacramenta perfecta dilata sunt usque ad tempus tale. Hoc autem tempus, sicut in homine est sexta aetas, quae appellatur senectus, iuxta illud Ecclesiastici vigesimo quinto[^6]: *Quam speciosa veteranis sapientia et gloriosus intellectus et consilium*; similiter in mundo est sexta aetas, quae est post Christum, in qua aetate homines sunt sapientiores et capaciores. Ideo dilata sunt Sacramenta completa usque ad hoc tempus.

Rursus, quia sunt in *medicamentum* morbi efficax, eo tempore debent dari, in quo efficacius curant[^7]; sed spiritualis infirmitas efficaciter non curatur, nisi quando cognoscitur et sentitur, alioquin redditur homo ingratus et peiori vulnere infirmatur: ideo necesse fuit, Sacramenta differri, quousque morbus tantum invalesceret quod homo ipsum cognosceret et remedium quaereret. Hoc autem fuit in tempore gratiae: quia tempore legis naturae convictus est esse caecus; et tunc venit *Lex* docens et onerans, et tunc convictus est de impotentia; tunc ergo restabat tempus gratiae, in quo morbus iam cognitus curaretur, et in hoc Sacramenta completa darentur[^8].

Rursus, quia sunt in *pulcrum ornamentum*, debuit ea Christus illi sponsae dare, a qua numquam separari deberet; et quia talis fuit Ecclesia collecta de gentibus, non synagoga quae ipsum deseruit et negavit: usque ad tempus gratiae perfecta Sacramenta non instituit[^9]; nihilominus tamen aliqua imperfecta, secundum quod congruebat illis temporibus, in sustentationem dedit. — Et sic patet, quod conclusio non semper eadem, sed alia et alia debuerint institui.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de *consilio*, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de *Vera Religione*[^10], «sicut unus medicus secundum eandem artem non mutatam pro mutatione morbi mutat remedia»; sic, immo multo fortius, in proposito. — Quod vero addit: quia summe laudabile etc.; dicendum, quod summe laudabilis est divina sapientia in operibus, non quia omnia sunt optima, quae facit in se, sed in ordine. Unde dicit Augustinus, de *Libero Arbitrio*[^11]: *Si quis quaerit: quare Deus non fecit duos soles? non videt, quia fuisset superfluum.*<!-- page 52 --> *Si quaerit: quare fecit lunam? non videt, quia, si deesset luna, aliquod bonum deesset de ordine.* Sic et in proposito attendendum, quia ordinatissime fecit. Sicut enim haec Sacramenta huic tempori conveniunt, ita illa Sacramenta illi tempori congruebant.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod morbus est idem; dicendum, quod etsi morbus originalis quantum ad essentiam non creverit, tamen crevit in effectu, quia semper magis ac magis homines sequebantur concupiscentiam et de uno errore labebantur in alterum[^12].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, si fides eadem, et passio etc.; dicendum, quod etsi passio eadem sit, tamen prius fuit promissa, et modo est persoluta; et ideo, accepta satisfactione, misericordia Dei liberalior fuit ad remittendum, quam cum tantum erat promissa: liberalior, inquam, dico quantum ad effectum, cum semper in se sit summe et aequaliter liberalis; ideo effectus maior. Praeterea, etsi fides sit eadem, tamen haec est dignior et ad amandum efficacior, quia apertius credimus quam antiqui[^13], et fides de passione iam praeterita et solutione facta magis ad amandum incitat quam de promissa. Ideo Deus et merito fidei et merito passionis iam praeteritae maiorem contulit Sacramentis efficaciam. — Et rursus, quia fides est expressior, Sacramenta sunt evidentiora; sed fides expressa remanet eadem, quia ratio credendi eadem[^14]; sed Sacramenta alia, quia signa sunt alia, et signa non numerantur quantum ad significatum, sed quantum ad speciem significantem[^15].

---

english:
<!-- page 50 -->

### Question II. *Whether in different times other and other sacraments ought to have been instituted, or always the same ones.*

Secondly it is asked whether in different times other and other sacraments ought to have been instituted, or always the same ones. And that not always the same ones, but that they ought to have been changed, this is reasonably shown:

1. Hugh[^1] thus says: «The order and ground of the dispensation demanded this, that, as from the beginning, with time running on, the Savior's advent drew nearer and nearer, so the effect of salvation should grow more and more, and the knowledge of the truth; on account of which the very signs of salvation also had, through the succession of times, to be changed, other after other, so that the effect of divine grace might grow unto salvation, and at the same time the very sanctification might appear more evident in visible signs».

2. Likewise, this is shown by *reason*, because, the disease and the condition of the sick man being varied, it is necessary that the remedy be varied[^2]: therefore since in these times there have been<!-- page 51 --> men of diverse conditions, and the disease has grown strong, it was necessary that other and other medicines be applied.

**On the contrary:** 1. The institution of the sacraments was not from just anyone, but from the supreme physician, whose counsel[^3] is *immutable* and is in the highest degree *commendable*; but if it is *immutable*: therefore the sacraments instituted according to it ought to be immutable; if in the highest degree *praiseworthy*: therefore they ought to be the best: therefore according to this, since the sacraments of the law of grace are the best, those ought always to have been, and neither before nor after ought others to have been instituted or changed.

2. Likewise, the disease of original sin was always the same, and neither increased nor decreased[^4], and the ground of the sickening was always the same: therefore it seems that the medicine corresponding to the disease ought to have been the same, not changed.

3. Likewise, all the sacraments have their efficacy from the passion first and from faith in the passion immediately, and that power is for healing through grace: therefore since the passion is the same, and the faith the same, as Augustine says[^5], and the grace likewise the same: therefore the sacraments ought to be the same, not changed.

> **Conclusion.** In different times different sacraments ought to have been instituted.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the sacraments are for instruction, are for medicine, and are also for adornment; and according to the perfect state they are for an *open instruction* of the divine secret, are for an *efficacious remedy* of the disease, and are for a *beautiful adornment* of the bride of Christ. — Since therefore the revelation of secrets ought not to be made in just any way nor at every time, but at that in which the understanding of man is more capacious; therefore the perfect sacraments were deferred until such a time. And this time, as in man it is the sixth age, which is called old age, according to that of Ecclesiasticus, chapter twenty-five[^6]: *How beautiful is wisdom for the aged, and glorious understanding and counsel*; likewise in the world it is the sixth age, which is after Christ, in which age men are wiser and more capable. Therefore the complete sacraments were deferred until this time.

Again, because they are for an efficacious *medicine* of the disease, they ought to be given at that time in which they heal more efficaciously[^7]; but spiritual infirmity is not efficaciously healed except when it is known and felt, otherwise a man is rendered ungrateful and is afflicted with a worse wound: therefore it was necessary that the sacraments be deferred, until the disease should grow strong enough that a man might know it and seek a remedy. And this came to pass in the time of grace: because in the time of the law of nature he was convicted of being blind; and then came the *Law* teaching and burdening, and then he was convicted of his impotence; then therefore there remained the time of grace, in which the disease now known might be healed, and in this the complete sacraments might be given[^8].

Again, because they are for a *beautiful adornment*, Christ ought to give them to that bride from whom He should never be separated; and because such was the Church gathered from the Gentiles, not the synagogue which forsook and denied Him: until the time of grace He did not institute the perfect sacraments[^9]; yet nevertheless He gave some imperfect ones, according as it was fitting to those times, for sustenance. — And thus it is clear, as the conclusion [states], that not always the same, but other and other ought to have been instituted.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the *counsel*, it must be said that, as Augustine says in the book *On True Religion*[^10], «just as one physician according to the same art, not changed, changes the remedies for the change of the disease»; so, indeed much more strongly, in the case at hand. — But as to what he adds: that it is in the highest degree praiseworthy etc.; it must be said that the divine wisdom is in the highest degree praiseworthy in its works, not because all things which it makes are the best in themselves, but in their order. Whence Augustine says, *On Free Choice*[^11]: *If anyone asks: why did God not make two suns? he does not see that it would have been superfluous.*<!-- page 52 --> *If he asks: why did He make the moon? he does not see that, if the moon were lacking, some good would be lacking from the order.* So also in the case at hand it must be attended to, because He made it in the most ordered way. For as these sacraments suit this time, so those sacraments were fitting for that time.

2. To that which is objected, that the disease is the same; it must be said that although original disease as to its essence did not increase, nevertheless it increased in effect, because men ever more and more followed concupiscence and slipped from one error into another[^12].

3. To that which is objected, if the faith is the same, and the passion etc.; it must be said that although the passion is the same, nevertheless it was first promised, and now is paid out; and therefore, satisfaction being accepted, the mercy of God was more liberal to remit than when it was only promised: more liberal, I say, I mean as to the effect, since in itself it is always supremely and equally liberal; therefore the effect is greater. Moreover, although the faith is the same, nevertheless this is more worthy and more efficacious unto loving, because we believe more openly than the ancients[^13], and faith concerning a passion now past and a payment now made incites to loving more than [faith] concerning a promised one. Therefore God conferred a greater efficacy upon the sacraments both by the merit of faith and by the merit of the passion now past. — And again, because faith is more express, the sacraments are more evident; but the express faith remains the same, because the ground of believing is the same[^14]; but the sacraments are other, because the signs are other, and signs are not numbered as to the thing signified, but as to the signifying species[^15].

---

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6, ubi textus originalis circa finem testimonii *ut cum effectus* pro *ut effectus*, et codd. cum edd. *et ipsa signatio* pro *et ipsa sanctificatio*.

en: Book I *On the Sacraments*, part XI, c. 6, where the original text near the end of the testimony [reads] *ut cum effectus* for *ut effectus*, and the codices together with the editions [read] *et ipsa signatio* for *et ipsa sanctificatio*.

la: Vide verba August. infra pag. 51, nota 8. — Superius pro *variato* cod. Z *variante*. Mox pro *homines*, quod codd. F G H I P Q (V a secunda manu) exhibent, cod. K *aegrotantes*, cod. bb a secunda manu *homines aegrotantes*, edd. *morbi et aegrotantes*; alii codd. omittunt utrumque.

en: See the words of Augustine below, p. 51, note 8. — Above, for *variato* codex Z [reads] *variante*. Presently for *homines*, which codices F G H I P Q (V by a second hand) exhibit, codex K [reads] *aegrotantes*, codex bb by a second hand *homines aegrotantes*, the editions *morbi et aegrotantes*; other codices omit both.

la: Cod. F *iudicium*; idem cod. F cum cod. H paulo inferius, verbis transpositis, *ergo cum secundum hoc* pro *ergo secundum hoc, cum*.

en: Codex F [reads] *iudicium*; the same codex F together with codex H a little below, with the words transposed, [reads] *ergo cum secundum hoc* for *ergo secundum hoc, cum*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — In fine arg. ex codd. F G H I K N U Y supplevimus *eadem*.

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 33, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — At the end of the argument we have supplied *eadem* from codices F G H I K N U Y.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 50, 14. n. 17; in Ioan. Evang. tr. 45. n. 9; XVIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 47. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 315, nota 2. et ibid. d. 25. a. 2. q. 1.

en: *Enarration on Psalm* 50, 14, n. 17; *On the Gospel of John*, tract 45, n. 9; *City of God* XVIII, c. 47. Cf. tome III, p. 315, note 2, and ibid., d. 25, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vers. 7, ubi Vulgata *gloriosis* pro *gloriosus*. — Sex aetates generis humani describit August., I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 23. n. 35. seqq., ita ut prima aetas, quasi infantia, tendatur ab Adam usque ad Noe, secunda tanquam pueritia a Noe usque ad Abraham, tertia similis adolescentiae ab Abraham usque ad David, quarta similis iuventuti a David usque ad transmigrationem in Babyloniam, quinta tanquam declinatio a iuventute in senectutem ab hac transmigratione usque ad Christum, sexta, in qua senectus veteris hominis apparet, a Christo usque ad iudicium sive finem mundi.

en: Verse 7, where the Vulgate [reads] *gloriosis* for *gloriosus*. — Augustine describes the six ages of the human race, *On Genesis against the Manichees* I, c. 23, n. 35 ff., such that the first age, as it were infancy, is extended from Adam to Noah, the second as childhood from Noah to Abraham, the third like adolescence from Abraham to David, the fourth like youth from David to the migration into Babylon, the fifth as the decline from youth into old age from this migration to Christ, the sixth, in which the old age of the old man appears, from Christ to the judgment or the end of the world.

la: Cod. F *curarent*, non pauci alii codd. *curent*. Superius *eo tempore* omisimus cum codd. E F G L (H I a secunda manu) *etiam*.

en: Codex F [reads] *curarent*, not a few other codices *curent*. Above we have omitted *eo tempore* together with codices E F G L (H I by a second hand) *etiam*.

la: Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 3. et II. p. II. c. 1. Vide etiam III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 4, ubi simile arg. occurrit de tempore incarnationis Christi. — Superius post *in quo* cod. F addit *adiutorium quaereretur et in quo*.

en: Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, part VIII, c. 3, and II, part II, c. 1. See also *Sentences* III, d. 1, a. 2, q. 4, where a similar argument occurs concerning the time of Christ's incarnation. — Above, after *in quo* codex F adds *adiutorium quaereretur et in quo*.

la: Cod. Z legit: *distulit usque ad tempus gratiae perfecta Sacramenta. Instituit nihilominus* etc. Aliquanto superius pro *deberet* non pauci codd. cum edd. *deberent*.

en: Codex Z reads: *distulit usque ad tempus gratiae perfecta Sacramenta. Instituit nihilominus* etc. Somewhat above, for *deberet* not a few codices together with the editions [read] *deberent*.

la: Cap. 17. n. 34: *Ut enim ars medicinae, cum eadem maneat neque ullo pacto ipsa mutetur, mutat tamen praecepta languentibus, quia mutabilis est nostra valetudo, ita divina providentia, cum sit ipsa omnino incommutabilis, mutabili tamen creaturae varie subvenit* etc. — Superius post *de consilio* cod. H addit *sive incommutabili iudicio*.

en: Chapter 17, n. 34: *For just as the art of medicine, though it remains the same and is in no way itself changed, nevertheless changes its precepts for the sick, because our health is mutable, so divine providence, although it is itself wholly unchangeable, nevertheless variously comes to the aid of the mutable creature* etc. — Above, after *de consilio* codex H adds *sive incommutabili iudicio*.

la: Libr. III. c. 9. n. 24: *Quodsi non dicit: luna non esset, sed qualem solem videt, talem lunam esse debuisse, non dicit intelligit, nihil aliud se dicere quam: non esset luna, sed essent soles duo.* In quo dupliciter errat: quod rerum perfectioni et addere aliquid cupit, cum desiderat alterum solem, et minuere, cum lunam vult detrahi. — Superius pro *laudabilis est divina sapientia* edd. *laudabile est consilium divinae sapientiae*. Subinde post *in operibus* in cod. Z additur *omnibus*. Inferius pro *Si quaerit* (ita codd. G I) cod. F *Si quaerat*, in aliis et codd. *Si quaeras*, quod minus congruit verbis *non videt*; denique post *quare* codd. A H supplent *Deus*.

en: Book III, c. 9, n. 24: *But if he does not say: let there be no moon, but [says] that the moon ought to be such as the sun he sees—he does not understand that he says nothing other than: let there be no moon, but let there be two suns.* In which he errs in two ways: in that he both wishes to add something to the perfection of things, when he desires another sun, and to diminish it, when he wishes the moon to be taken away. — Above, for *laudabilis est divina sapientia* the editions [read] *laudabile est consilium divinae sapientiae*. Then after *in operibus* in codex Z is added *omnibus*. Below, for *Si quaerit* (so codices G I) codex F [reads] *Si quaerat*, in others and codices *Si quaeras*, which agrees less with the words *non videt*; finally after *quare* codices A H supply *Deus*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.

en: See *Sentences* II, d. 33, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 25. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Mox pro *incitat* codd. B Z *inducit*, non pauci alii codd. *invitat*.

en: Cf. *Sentences* III, d. 25, a. 2, q. 2 ff. — Presently for *incitat* codices B Z [read] *inducit*, not a few other codices *invitat*.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. — Inferius solae edd. *mutantur* pro *numerantur* i. e. alia sunt.

en: See *Sentences* III, d. 24, a. 1, q. 3. — Below the editions alone [read] *mutantur* for *numerantur*, i.e. they are other.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 5956–6157) and collated column-by-column against 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 50–52 (PDF pp. 70–72; offset pdf = printed + 20), per the Vol II override (PDF-priority inversion in cascade-fragmented regions). The q2 body runs from the bottom of the left column of p.50 (after the article-level SCHOLION that closes q1) through the left column and into the right column of p.52, ending at *…speciem significantem* immediately before QUAESTIO III.

**Scholion.** None in this chunk. The article-level scholion (parts I–II) sits in **q1** (`bon-sent-IV-d2-a1-q1.md`), printed at the foot of p.50 after q1's Respondeo and before the QUAESTIO II header; part I covers cross-references for q1 and q2, part II covers q3. This is the normal d.2-a.1 arrangement, not a dropout.

**Apparatus page-split map (Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page).** 15 entries total:
- **p.50** — chunk `[^1]`–`[^2]` = Quaracchi p.50 notes **6, 7**. (Notes 1–5 of p.50 belong to q1, which captured them; this chunk picks up notes 6–7, the markers attached to q2's body that begins on p.50.)
- **p.51** — chunk `[^3]`–`[^11]` = Quaracchi p.51 notes **1–9** (the whole page is q2 body).
- **p.52** — chunk `[^12]`–`[^15]` = Quaracchi p.52 notes **1–4** (q2's three *Ad illud* replies). Notes 5–11 of p.52 belong to QUAESTIO III, which begins on p.52's right column.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up from q1:* p.50 footer notes 6 (*Libr. I de Sacram. p. XI c. 6*) and 7 (*variato* variant), per the q1 agent's hand-off.
- *Forwarded to q3 (`bon-sent-IV-d2-a1-q3.md`):* p.52 footer notes **5–11** (Matth. 11:30 yoke note onward) belong to QUAESTIO III, whose body opens at the foot of p.52's right column (*Tertio quaeritur de numero Sacramentorum…*). q3 also opens with the running text *…tantum septem?* visible at the top of p.52's right footer region. Raw boundary: QUAESTIO III at raw L6158.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All readings resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands. Note that chunk `[^11]` (Quaracchi p.51 note 9, the *de Libero Arbitrio* quotation + variants) spans the p.51→p.52 page break: its opening prints in the right-column footer of p.51 (*…rerum perfe-*) and its tail in the left-column footer of p.52 (*-ctioni et addere aliquid cupit…*); both halves were read directly from the PDF bands and joined verbatim.