title: Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 651 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia nobilius et perfectius Sacramentum est Sacramentum ordinis quam Sacramentum matrimonii, et in altiori statu ponit; sed Sacramentum matrimonii non potest a furiosis et ratione carentibus contrahi, sicut expresse habetur infra[^1]: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc videtur *per formam*: quia nullus offert aliquid non intelligenti; sed in ordine dicit ordinans ordinato: «Accipe potestatem» etc.: ergo praesupponit in eo discretionem. Si ergo non habet discretionem, non videtur ordinem posse suscipere.

3. Item, usus istius Sacramenti nulli potest competere nisi habenti rationis usum: ergo si alii datur, frustra datur: ergo si «Deus nihil frustra facit[^2]», videtur, quod ei qui non habet rationis usum, nunquam Sacramentum ordinis conferatur.

4. Item, si quis offerret potestatem recusanti, non esset ibi potestatis susceptio, quoniam, sicut se habet *collatio* ad voluntatem *dantis*, ita *susceptio* ad voluntatem *suscipientis*: ergo si *dans* non dat, nisi velit et intendat, *suscipiens* non suscipit, nisi velit et intendat.

5. Item, tempus et aetas determinantur in susceptione ordinis distinctione septuagesima septima[^3]; sed hoc non est propter aliud nisi propter discretionem et usum rationis, qui non habetur in minoribus annis: ergo etc.

6. Item, sacris ordinibus de necessitate est annexa continentia; sed nullus obligatur ad continentiam, nisi usum habeat rationis, et per consensum propriae voluntatis: ergo saltem ad sacros ordines nullus potest ante annos discretionis promoveri[^4]: ergo necessarius est usus rationis.

**Contra:**
1. Alia Sacramenta, quae imprimunt characterem, ut baptismus et confirmatio, ante usum rationis dari possunt: ergo videtur pari ratione, quod et istud Sacramentum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur, *Extra, de Clerico ordinato per saltum*[^5], ubi dicitur, quod infra annos discretionis ad minores ordines est promotus, et post sine iteratione concessum est ei in huiusmodi ministrare.

3. Item, sacerdoti, quando ordinatur, dantur claves ligandi et solvendi, etiam si sacerdos scientia careat[^6]: ergo multo fortius puero dari poterit ordo, si careat usu rationis.

4. Item, si aliquis timore mortis compulsus ordinari patiatur et malit ordinari quam mori, est ordinatus, sicut et in baptismo manifeste potest ha-

<!-- page 652 -->

beri[^7]: ergo sufficit voluntas coacta: ergo non est necessarium, quod libere consentiat: ergo non videtur necessaria aetas.

5. Item, sapientis est respicere non tantum praesens, sed etiam quod futurum est[^8]: ergo si multi carent discretione, de quibus praesumitur, quod aliquando sint discreti; videtur, quod saltem ordo possit eis committi, et exsecutio maneat in suspenso.

6. Item, si aliquid ex parte suscipientis esset necessarium in ipsa ordinatione, oporteret, quod saltem consensum suum exprimeret, et quod ab eo requireretur, sicut fit in matrimonio; sed hoc modo non fit in ordine: ergo non videtur, quod sit necessarius consensus, ergo nec usus rationis.

### Conclusio.

> Ad septem ordinum susceptionem non requiritur usus rationis necessitate Sacramenti, sed necessitate sive praecepti, sive congruitatis.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod ad ordinum omnium susceptionem requiritur rationis consensus, pro eo quod in quolibet ordine officium committitur respectu actus *eliciti*[^9] a ratione; et officium nulli committitur, nisi ei qui vult recipere: et ideo dicunt, quod usus rationis requiritur in ordinato, alioquin nihil omnino fit. — Sed tamen illud videtur esse contrarium decretali *de Clerico per saltum ordinato*, ubi tangitur, quod ad minores ordines infra annos discretionis promotus est. *Amplius*, tota die videmus, parvulos ad ordines minores promoveri, qui nec sciunt, quid sit ordo, nec quid ibi detur. Et *iterum*, usus confirmationis non est ante adultam aetatem, et tamen Sacramentum dari potest.

Et ideo est alia opinio maiorum, quod ad aliquid[^10] usus rationis requiritur de necessitate *Sacramenti*, ad aliquem ordinem de necessitate *praecepti*, ad aliquos de *honestate* et *congruitate*. Ad *episcopatum* namque, quoniam ibi contrahitur matrimonium spirituale, necessario requiritur consensus, sine quo non fit matrimonium, nec spirituale nec corporale, ut infra[^11] videbitur; ac per hoc necessario requiritur usus rationis et discretionis de necessitate *Sacramenti*, licet multa alia requirantur de necessitate *praecepti*. — Ad *ordines* vero *sacros* requiritur rationis usus de necessitate *praecepti*, pro eo quod ad illos ordines non debent admitti, nisi qui possunt ad continentiam obligari; et ideo qui ordinant scienter eos qui non possunt obligari, quia ratione carent, faciunt contra statutum et praeceptum Ecclesiae; et ideo, si tales ordinantur exterius, characterem recipiunt *de facto*, quia non contradicunt, quamvis non consentiant[^12]. — Ad *minores* vero *ordines* requiritur de *honestate* rationis usus, quia ibi committuntur officia, quae spectant non solum ad habentes usum rationis, immo etiam ad habentes scientiam litteraturae. Sed tamen, quia illi ordines sunt ad quandam assuefactionem; ubi ex aliqua utilitate vel necessitate videtur expediens, possunt ad minores ordines promoveri etiam ante annos discretionis. Sed quod ita passim promoveantur et beneficiis ecclesiasticis ditentur, vix potest esse sine contemptu canonum et scandalo hominum et periculo animarum. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes ostendentes, quod non est necessarius usus rationis ad Sacramenti *esse* vel *suscipere*, sed solum quantum ad *bene esse* et *digne suscipere*, loquendo de ordinibus proprie.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de matrimonio, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia in matrimonio non requiritur usus rationis propter dignitatem Sacramenti, sed propter significationem coniunctionis Dei et animae, quae non est nisi in mutuo consensu. *Praeterea*, non concludit hoc generaliter de Sacramento ordinis, sed solum de dignitate episcopi[^13].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicit: *Accipe*; dicendum, quod illa oblatio significat magis imperium et potestatem *dantis* quam exercitationem *suscipientis*[^14]. Unde illius non tantum est *offerre*, sed *conferre*; et nisi sit obex contrariae voluntatis, ita quod omnino sit invitus, recipit Sacramentum, secundum quod iudicatur de Sacramento confirmationis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de usu, dicendum, quod etsi non habeat statim usum, quia tamen speratur aliquando habere, non frustra datur Sacramentum[^15], sicut etiam datur sacerdotium ei qui longo post tempore differt celebrare.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de recusante, dicendum, quod hic est *sophisma consequentis*[^16]: recusans non recipit: ergo oportet, quod recipiens

<!-- page 653 -->

consentiat; quia medium est inter *recusantem omnino* et *consentientem*.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de tempore et aetate, dicendum, quod determinatio illa temporis non est quantum ad *Sacramenti necessitatem*, sed potius quantum ad *susceptionis congruitatem* et *solemnitatem*; quam in maioribus ordinibus oportet servari, saltem quantum ad annos discretionis, propter votum continentiae et ordinum dignitatem; ulterior vero protelatio temporis quantum ad sacerdotes quantum ad tempora moderna non exigitur, quia, sicut in multis «malitia supplet aetatem[^17]», ita in multis bonitas et sanctitas supplet. *Praeterea*, multi nunc ordinantur, qui non praeficiuntur populo, ut religiosi; ideo non oportet in eis ita servare tempora, ut in aliis, maxime si sit sanctitas vitae et scientia et maturitas morum.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de continentia, iam patet responsio; nam continentia est in sacris ordinibus non de *esse*, sed de *bene esse*[^18].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the use of reason is necessary for receiving an order.*

In the second place it is asked whether the use of reason is necessary for receiving an order. And that it is, seems [to follow]:

1. Because the Sacrament of order is a nobler and more perfect Sacrament than the Sacrament of matrimony, and places [one] in a higher state; but the Sacrament of matrimony cannot be contracted by the insane and by those lacking reason, as is expressly had below[^1]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] *by [reason of] the form*: because no one offers something to one who does not understand; but in [conferring] an order the ordainer says to the ordained: "Receive the power," etc.: therefore he presupposes discretion in him. If therefore he does not have discretion, he does not seem able to receive the order.

3. Likewise, the use of this Sacrament can belong to no one except to one having the use of reason: therefore if it is given to another, it is given in vain: therefore if "God does nothing in vain[^2]," it seems that upon one who does not have the use of reason the Sacrament of order should never be conferred.

4. Likewise, if someone were to offer power to one refusing it, there would be no reception of power there, since, just as the *conferral* stands to the will of the *giver*, so the *reception* [stands] to the will of the *receiver*: therefore if the *giver* does not give unless he wills and intends, the *receiver* does not receive unless he wills and intends.

5. Likewise, the time and age are determined for the reception of an order in distinction seventy-seven[^3]; but this is not on account of anything else except on account of discretion and the use of reason, which is not had in the lesser years: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, to the sacred orders continence is of necessity annexed; but no one is bound to continence unless he has the use of reason, and through the consent of his own will: therefore at least to the sacred orders no one can be promoted before the years of discretion[^4]: therefore the use of reason is necessary.

**On the contrary:**
1. The other Sacraments which imprint a character, such as baptism and confirmation, can be given before the use of reason: therefore it seems by parity of reasoning that this Sacrament [can be given] too.

2. Likewise, this very thing seems [to hold from] the *Decretals, On the Cleric ordained by a leap*[^5], where it is said that within the years of discretion he was promoted to the minor orders, and afterwards, without reiteration, it was granted to him to minister in such [orders].

3. Likewise, to a priest, when he is ordained, are given the keys of binding and loosing, even if the priest lacks knowledge[^6]: therefore much more strongly can an order be given to a boy, [even] if he lacks the use of reason.

4. Likewise, if someone, compelled by fear of death, should allow himself to be ordained and prefer to be ordained rather than to die, he is ordained, just as also in baptism can manifestly be had[^7]: therefore a coerced will suffices: therefore it is not necessary that he freely consent: therefore the age does not seem necessary.

5. Likewise, it belongs to the wise man to regard not only the present, but also what is future[^8]: therefore if many lack discretion, of whom it is presumed that they will at some time be discreet; it seems that at least the order could be committed to them, and its execution remain in suspense.

6. Likewise, if something on the part of the receiver were necessary in the ordination itself, it would be required that he at least express his consent, and that it be required of him, as is done in matrimony; but in this manner it is not done in [conferring] an order: therefore it does not seem that consent is necessary, and therefore neither the use of reason.

### Conclusion.

> For the reception of the seven orders the use of reason is not required by necessity of the Sacrament, but by necessity either of precept or of fittingness.

**I respond:** To this some say that for the reception of all the orders the consent of reason is required, for the reason that in every order an office is committed with respect to an act *elicited*[^9] by reason; and an office is committed to no one except to him who wills to receive it: and therefore they say that the use of reason is required in the ordained, otherwise nothing at all is done. — But nevertheless that seems to be contrary to the decretal *On the Cleric ordained by a leap*, where it is touched upon that he was promoted to the minor orders within the years of discretion. *Furthermore*, all day long we see little children promoted to the minor orders, who neither know what an order is, nor what is given therein. And *again*, the use of confirmation is not before adult age, and yet the Sacrament can be given.

And therefore there is another opinion of the greater [masters], that for something[^10] the use of reason is required by necessity of the *Sacrament*, for some order by necessity of *precept*, for some [orders] by [reason of] *honesty* and *fittingness*. For to the *episcopate*, since therein a spiritual matrimony is contracted, consent is necessarily required, without which no matrimony comes to be, neither spiritual nor corporeal, as will be seen below[^11]; and through this the use of reason and of discretion is necessarily required by necessity of the *Sacrament*, although many other things are required by necessity of *precept*. — But to the *sacred orders* the use of reason is required by necessity of *precept*, for the reason that to those orders none ought to be admitted except those who can be bound to continence; and therefore those who knowingly ordain those who cannot be bound, because they lack reason, act against the statute and precept of the Church; and therefore, if such are ordained outwardly, they receive the character *in fact*, because they do not contradict, although they do not consent[^12]. — But to the *minor orders* the use of reason is required by [reason of] *honesty*, because therein offices are committed which pertain not only to those having the use of reason, but even to those having a knowledge of letters. But nevertheless, since those orders are for a certain habituation; where from some utility or necessity it seems expedient, they can be promoted to the minor orders even before the years of discretion. But that they be thus promoted indiscriminately and enriched with ecclesiastical benefices can scarcely be without contempt of the canons and scandal of men and peril of souls. — The arguments, therefore, showing that the use of reason is not necessary for the *being* or the *receiving* of the Sacrament, but only as regards the *well-being* and the *worthy receiving*, are to be granted, speaking of the orders properly.

1. To that which is objected concerning matrimony, it must be said that it is not similar: because in matrimony the use of reason is not required on account of the dignity of the Sacrament, but on account of the signification of the joining of God and the soul, which is not [effected] except in mutual consent. *Furthermore*, this does not conclude generally concerning the Sacrament of order, but only concerning the dignity of the bishop[^13].

2. To that which is objected, that it says: *Receive*; it must be said that that offering signifies rather the command and power of the *giver* than the exercise of the *receiver*[^14]. Hence it belongs to him not only to *offer*, but to *confer*; and unless there be an obstacle of a contrary will, so that he be altogether unwilling, he receives the Sacrament, according as is judged concerning the Sacrament of confirmation.

3. To that which is objected concerning use, it must be said that even if he does not have the use immediately, since nevertheless it is hoped that he will at some time have it, the Sacrament is not given in vain[^15], just as the priesthood is also given to one who for a long time afterward defers to celebrate.

4. To that which is objected concerning the one refusing, it must be said that here there is a *fallacy of the consequent*[^16]: the one refusing does not receive: therefore it is necessary that the one receiving consent; because there is a mean between *one refusing altogether* and *one consenting*.

5. To that which is objected concerning time and age, it must be said that that determination of time is not as regards the *necessity of the Sacrament*, but rather as regards the *fittingness of reception* and its *solemnity*; which in the greater orders must be observed, at least as regards the years of discretion, on account of the vow of continence and the dignity of the orders; but a further prolongation of time, as regards priests, as regards modern times, is not demanded, because, just as in many [cases] "malice supplies for age[^17]," so in many goodness and sanctity supply [for it]. *Furthermore*, many are now ordained who are not set over a people, as religious; therefore it is not necessary in them so to observe the times, as in others, especially if there be sanctity of life and knowledge and maturity of character.

6. To that which is objected concerning continence, the response is already evident; for continence is in the sacred orders not of [their] *being*, but of [their] *well-being*[^18].

---

la: Lit. Magistri, d. XXXIV. c. 4, et Comment. a. 3. q. I.

en: The text of the Master, d. 34, c. 4, and the Commentary, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Aristot., 1. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.). — In maiori respicitur illud Aristot., de Somno et vigilia, c. I: Cuius enim est potentia, huius est et actus.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 32 (c. 4). — In the major [premise] is regarded that [saying] of Aristotle, *On Sleep and Waking*, c. 1: "For whose is the potency, his is also the act."

la: Can. In singulis gradibus (2.), seqq. Vide hic lit. Magistri, in fine.

en: The canon *In singulis gradibus* (2) and following. See here the text of the Master, at the end.

la: Cfr. C. De iis quos (3.), d. 28.

en: Cf. the canon *De iis quos* (3), d. 28.

la: Libr. V. tit. 29. C. Tuae litterae.

en: Book V, tit. 29, the chapter *Tuae litterae*.

la: Vide supra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. I.

en: See above, d. 18, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. — Verbis compulsus ordinari edd. interserunt se.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1. — Between the words *compulsus ordinari* the editions insert *se*.

la: Vide Sap. 8, 8. et Matth. 7, 24. seqq. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota 6. — Cod. Z sed etiam futura. Inferius pro sint edd. fiant.

en: See Wisdom 8:8 and Matthew 7:24 and following. Cf. tom. III, p. 728, note 6. — Codex Z [reads] *sed etiam futura*. Below, for *sint* the editions [read] *fiant*.

la: Edd. eliciendi. Inferius pro in ordinato cod. F in ordinando.

en: The editions [read] *eliciendi*. Below, for *in ordinato* codex F [reads] *in ordinando*.

la: Edd., posito magistrorum pro maiorum, hic substituunt cum cod. E (a secunda manu) ad aliquem ordinem, cod. M ad aliquem, cod. K (1 a secunda manu) ad aliquos. Sed dicitur aliquid, quia episcopatus sec. Bonav. non est ordo. Inferius pro honestate plures codd. et ed. 1 perperam necessitate.

en: The editions, putting *magistrorum* for *maiorum*, here substitute (with codex E, by a second hand) *ad aliquem ordinem*; codex M, *ad aliquem*; codex K (by a second hand) *ad aliquos*. But *aliquid* is said, because the episcopate, according to Bonaventure, is not an order. Below, for *honestate* several codices and ed. 1 wrongly [read] *necessitate*.

en: Distinction 27, a. 2, q. 1 and following, and dd. 29–31.

la: Cfr. C. Vel non est compos (14.), X. de Temporibus ordinationum etc. (lib. 1. tit. 11.). Cfr. C. Pueri ad sacros (10.), C. 1. q. 1. — Verbis non consentiant cod. Z praemittit interius, quod codd. F P Q aa praefigunt verbis de facto.

en: Cf. the canon *Vel non est compos* (14), in the Decretals *On the times of ordinations*, etc. (book 1, tit. 11). Cf. the canon *Pueri ad sacros* (10), C. 1, q. 1. — Before the words *non consentiant* codex Z prefixes *interius*, which [word] codices F P Q aa prefix to the words *de facto*.

la: Cod. K episcopali.

en: Codex K [reads] *episcopali*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. p. II. a. I. q. i. in fine. — Pro exercitationem, quod habet cod. F, alii codd. excitationem, edd. exsecutionem.

en: Cf. above, d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, at the end. — For *exercitationem*, which codex F has, other codices [read] *excitationem*, the editions *exsecutionem*.

la: Communiter substituunt codd. vel sacerdotium, vel sacerdotibus. Mox verbis longo post tempore cod. Y transponit tempore ante post, edd. tantum longe post.

en: The codices commonly substitute either *sacerdotium* or *sacerdotibus*. Presently, in the words *longo post tempore*, codex Y transposes *tempore* before *post*; the editions [read] *tantum longe post*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 10. — Medium, de quo inferius, est non dissentiens.

en: Cf. above, p. 14, note 10. — The mean, of which [is spoken] below, is the one not dissenting.

la: Iustinian., C. II. Si minor se maiorem dixerit etc. (tit. 43.), lex Si alterius (3.). — Prius requirebatur pro sacerdotio annus 30. (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, in fine), sed postea secundum C. Cum in cunctis (7.), X. de Electione et electi potestate (lib. I. tit. 6.) pro sacerdotio annus 25, pro episcopatu annus 30. — Pro non exigitur plures codd. non extenditur.

en: Justinian, *Codex* [book] II, *Si minor se maiorem dixerit*, etc. (tit. 43), the law *Si alterius* (3). — Formerly the 30th year was required for the priesthood (cf. here the text of the Master, at the end), but afterwards, according to the canon *Cum in cunctis* (7), in the Decretals *On election and the power of the elect* (book I, tit. 6), the 25th year for the priesthood, the 30th year for the episcopate. — For *non exigitur* several codices [read] *non extenditur*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.651–653 (PDF pp.671–673; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 70618–70859) as the base for clean *videtur/Contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two-column IA OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo, the two *opiniones*, and every footer, so the column-band read is authoritative there per the override; the OCR supplied marker spacing only. Bands regenerated at **split L=2120 / R=1780** (vol4's default 1880 clips both the left column's right edge *and* the right column's left edge on these pages — the two columns nearly abut). Marginal editorial glosses trimmed from the body: *Fundamenta* (p.651 R), *Opinio 1 / Non probatur / Opinio 2 et conclusio 1 / Conclusio 2* (p.652 L), *Concl / Solutio oppositorum / Notandum* (p.652 R, p.653 R).

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L70618 `QUAESTIO II` + title `Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis`, body opening `Secundo quaeritur, utrum ad susceptionem ordinis necessarius sit usus rationis` — matches `title_la` and the "Secundo" position in the article's question-list (a2 asks four questions; this is the second). No q-swap.

**Scholion: ABSENT (`has_scholion: false`).** The **Article II SCHOLION** (sections I–IV) physically prints at the *top* of p.651 — immediately after a2-q1's body-tail and *above* the QUAESTIO II heading — and belongs to **a2-q1**, which covers all four of the article's questions. It is entirely outside this chunk's raw range (it precedes L70618). This is confirmed from within q2 itself: the last footnote of the quaestio, [^18] on reply 6 (*bene esse*), is literally `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` ("See the scholion to the preceding question"). No scholion text anchored to q2 alone appears in the range. (a2-q1, promoted in the same session, carries the scholion with `has_scholion: true`.)

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on against the bands):**
- **p.651** (running head "DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAE[ST. II.] — 651"): shared page. Top half = a2-q1 body-tail + the Art. II SCHOLION. q2 begins lower: *videtur* args 1–6 (arg 5 spans L→R col) and *Contra* args 1–4 (arg 4 carries to p.652). p.651 has **7** footer notes; **note 1** (`Codd. R S T X et ed. I quam constat mulieribus` — the *mulieribus* variant) anchors in a2-q1's tail and is **claimed by a2-q1** (its [^1c]), not here. q2 claims **notes 2–7** → rendered [^1]–[^6] (arg1 *infra*→[^1]; arg3 *frustra facit*→[^2]; arg5 *septuagesima septima*→[^3]; arg6 *promoveri*→[^4]; contra2 *per saltum*→[^5]; contra3 *careat*→[^6]).
- **p.652** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 652"): not shared. *Contra* 4 tail (*haberi*), *Contra* 5–6, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (opinio 1 *Non probatur*; opinio 2 / conclusiones), and *Ad obiecta* replies 1–4 (reply 4 carries to p.653). All **10** footer notes are q2's → [^7]–[^16] (contra4 *haberi*→[^7]; contra5 *futurum est*→[^8]; opinio1 *eliciti*→[^9]; opinio2 *aliquid*→[^10]; concl *infra videbitur*→[^11]; *consentiant*→[^12]; reply1 *episcopi*→[^13]; reply2 *suscipientis*→[^14]; reply3 *Sacramentum*→[^15]; reply4 *sophisma consequentis*→[^16]).
- **p.653** (running head "DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. III. — 653"): shared page. q2 finishes at the *top*: reply 5 (*de tempore et aetate*, marker on *malitia supplet aetatem*) and reply 6 (*de continentia*, marker on *bene esse*). Then QUAESTIO III opens. q2 claims **p.653 notes 1–2** → [^17] (reply5 *malitia supplet aetatem* / the *non exigitur* + `annus 30`/`annus 25` age-canon note) and [^18] (reply6 *bene esse* → `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`). **Notes 3+ of p.653** (`Vers. 2: Oportet ergo episcopum … unius uxoris virum`, `Can. 14: Cognoscamus …`, etc. — all *bigamy / unius uxoris* material) belong to **q3** (`bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q3`, *Utrum … necessaria sit indivisio carnis*); this chunk claims none of them.

**Apparatus count = 18** (p.651: 6 of the page's 7; p.652: 10; p.653: 2 of the page's series), all keyed to body markers in both languages.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- *Received / reconciled with `bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q1`:* p.651 footer **note 1** (*mulieribus*) is a2-q1's, not q2's — confirmed captured there as [^1c]. The Art. II SCHOLION (top of p.651) is likewise a2-q1's (its `has_scholion: true`).
- *Forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q3`:* QUAESTIO III opens at raw L70860 (OCR `QUAESTIO in.`) on printed p.653. q2's body ends cleanly at *…non de esse, sed de bene esse* — no mid-page body splice into q3. q3 carries printed **p.653's footer notes 3 onward** in full (bigamy/*unius uxoris* series) plus its own later pages; q2 claims only p.653 notes 1–2.

**[?] flags:** none. All codex sigla (R S T X, E F K M P Q Y Z, aa), canon/authority citations (Aristotle *de Caelo* / *de Somno et vigilia*; Gratian *In singulis gradibus*, *De iis quos*, *Vel non est compos*, *Pueri ad sacros*; Decretals *de Clerico per saltum*, *Cum in cunctis*; Justinian *Codex*; Sap. 8:8, Matth. 7:24), and formulae resolved cleanly against the PDF bands. Running-head digit-mangles ("QUAE" clipped; "QUAEST. III." on the shared p.653) resolved by the `pdf = printed + 20` offset and running-head text.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 653 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis sit necessaria indivisio carnis.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ad ordinis susceptionem necessaria sit indivisio carnis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae ad Timotheum tertio[^3]: *Oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris virum*; et hoc ipsum dicitur de diacono.

2. Item, Ambrosius ad Vercellenses, et habetur trigesima quarta distinctione[^4]: «Cognoscimus, non solum de episcopo et presbytero Apostolum statuisse, sed etiam Patres in Concilii Nicaeni tractatu addidisse, clericum quempiam non debere esse, qui secunda coniugia sit sortitus».

3. Item, ille non potest promoveri, qui habuit uxorem, cuius caro est divisa: ergo multo minus potest ille qui habuit plures uxores. *Prima* patet ex hoc quod dicit distinctione trigesima quarta[^5] Innocentius Papa: «Si quis viduam, licet laicus, duxerit uxorem, seu ante baptismum, seu post, non admittatur ad clerum».

4. Item, sacerdos sive episcopus gerit figuram Christi; sed Christus non fuit divisus, immo unitus unitate: ergo deficit in tali significatio ordinis: ergo et ordo, quoniam significatio est essentialis Sacramento[^6].

5. Item, bigamia est proprietas, quae nunquam relinquitur, nec potest ille qui est bigamus, fieri non bigamus: ergo si impedit Sacramentum, videtur, quod reddat se impossibilem ad ordinis susceptionem[^7].

**Contra:** 1. Carnis corruptio non impedit Sacramenti susceptionem: ergo nec divisio consimili ratione.

2. Item, si carnis divisio impedit, quae est cum uxore, cum multo vituperabilior sit illa quae est cum meretrice, multo fortius illa impediret; sed illa non impedit: ergo nec ista.

3. Item, si carnis divisio impedit, aut ratione alicuius, quod fit in *carne*, aut ratione eius quod fit in *anima*. Ratione alicuius, quod fit in *carne*; non videtur, quia non relinquit[^8] aliam dispositionem quam in cognitione unius. Ratione alicuius, quod fit in *anima*; non, quoniam, mortua uxore, nihil remanet de matrimonio.

4. Item, quaero: quare impedit? Si propter *defectum Sacramenti*; quaero: cuius? Si *matrimonii*; contra: plus deficit a Sacramento matrimonii qui nunquam contraxit, quam qui bis contraxit: ergo non deficit a Sacramento matrimonii. — Si a Sacramento *ordinis*; contra: bigamia non attenditur secundum Sacramentum *ordinis*, sed secundum *matrimonium*: ergo non deficit ordo.

Est igitur quaestio: quare *divisio* impedit, et non *corruptio*?

Et iterum: quare corruptio impedit in muliere, ut non consecretur[^9], quare non similiter et in episcopo?

<!-- page 654 -->

Et iterum: quare fornicatio uxoris potius facit virum irregularem[^1b] quam fornicatio viri, cum magis puniendus sit propter divisionem carnis suae quam alienae?

### Conclusio.

> *Bigami propter defectum significationis inepti sunt ad susceptionem ordinis, praesertim sacri, ita tamen, ut valide ordinem recipiant.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod Sacramentum ordinis abundat ab aliis in ratione *significandi*, quoniam non solum illud quod adhibetur exterius, significat, immo ipse suscipiens signum est, et significat ipse episcopus consecratus vel presbyter ordinatus ipsum Christum, secundum quod superius[^2b] tactum est. Et in hac proprietate differt ab aliis Sacramentis, praeterquam a matrimonio, in quo ipse vir, qui est subiectum ipsius Sacramenti, signum est ipsius Christi, sicut mulier signum est Ecclesiae, et ita concurrunt ad idem significandum.

Quoniam ergo de significatione ordinis *primaria* est, quod ordinatus significet Christum ut sponsum Ecclesiae; et hoc non potest significare bigamus, qui habuit uxorem viduam, quoniam Ecclesia unicum habuit sponsum, et Christus unicam sponsam: hinc est, quod tales inepti sunt ad ordines, maxime *principales* et *sacros*, in quibus homo iam incipit expresse figurare Christum[^3b]. Unde bigamia reddit ineptum ad diaconatum et subdiaconatum et sacerdotium et potissime ad episcopatum; et ideo in his ordinibus nunquam legitur dispensatum nec dispensari debet[^4b]; non quia Sacramentum *essentialiter deficiat*, immo bigamus recipit characterem, sed quia *perfectio* Sacramenti in ipso *deficit*, quae nulla ratione potest suppleri per hominem nec recompensari. Tamen in ordinibus inferioribus ex causa necessitatis dispensationem recipit, sicut dicitur trigesima quarta distinctione[^5b], *Necessitate cogente*; et iterum, *Lector si viduam* etc. — Ex his patet, quod divisio carnis impedit, et quare impedit, et quae divisio.

**1, 2.** Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de corruptione, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia non repugnat *necessitati*[^6b] Sacramenti nec *significationi*, ut bigamia. Similiter divisio per fornicationem non impedit, quia non est divisio per *significationem*; sed haec est divisio *significans*.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, aut hoc est ex parte animae, aut ex parte carnis; dicendum, quod ratio sumitur ex parte *totius hominis*, cuius est matrimonium contrahere, et quod est subiectum matrimonii; in quo quidem est impedimentum non ratione *immunditiae* vel *qualitatis absolutae*, quae fit in carne, sed propter *significationem deficientem*. Quia enim contraxit cum una, significavit Christum; quia vero ab una recessit et contraxit cum secunda, recessit a significatione; et ita est *defectus Sacramenti*, scilicet unitatis, quae in Sacramento matrimonii et ordinis debebat significari.

4. Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicitur de defectu Sacramenti; dico enim, quod in eo deficit Sacramentum *unitatis*, quod sive deficiat ex parte sua, sive ex parte uxoris, reddit ipsum minus idoneum ad ordinis Sacramentum[^7b]. Si ergo quaeras: quod Sacramentum deficit, utrum ordinis, vel matrimonii? dico, quod Sacramentum *ordinis* deficit, quia non est perfectio, quae possit significare quod exigit ordo. *Praeterea*, est defectus Sacramenti *matrimonii*, defectus, inquam, non simplicis *negationis*, sicut est in eo qui nunquam fuit uxoratus, sed defectus *privationis*, ubi aliquid est de significatione, aliquid de privatione, quae generat quandam enormitatem sive deformitatem, ratione cuius ad tam nobile Sacramentum non debet admitti.

Ex his patent quaestiones sequentes, quare scilicet impedit divisio, non corruptio, quia non privatur Sacramentum aliquod, nec efficitur defectivum propter *corruptionem*, sicut propter *divisionem*.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare non impedit corruptio consecrationem viri, sicut et mulieris? dicunt aliqui iuristae, quod episcopus significat Ecclesiam militantem, sed virgo significat Christum, qui fuit virgo. Sed illud non capit ratio recta. — Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod episcopus significat Christum, sed mulier significat Ecclesiam triumphantem, sive ipsam Ecclesiam, quae virgo est et nunquam fuit nisi uxor Christi; Christus autem, etsi virgo fuit, tamen Synagogam habuit non ut uxorem, sed ut concubinam[^8b].

Et per hoc patet ultimum, quare ille qui desponsat corruptam ab alio et cognoscit, est ineptus <!-- page 655 --> et bigamus iudicatur. Dicendum, quod quia non est unicus unicae; ista enim non est unica[^1c], et maiorem oportet significari unitatem ex parte uxoris quam viri, quoniam Ecclesia non fuit copulata nisi Christo, nec matrimonialiter nec alio modo. Christus autem copulatus fuit Synagogae, quamvis non insolubiliter, et ita non matrimonialiter. — Et sic patet, quod omnia talia statuta sunt valde rationabilia, quia in eorum constitutione non pensatur culpa, sed potius significatio congrua[^2c].

---

english:
<!-- page 653 -->

### Question III. *Whether integrity of the flesh is necessary for receiving an order.*

Thirdly it is asked whether, for the reception of an order, integrity of the flesh is necessary. And that it is, seems [to be the case].

1. First to Timothy, chapter three[^3]: *A bishop must be the husband of one wife*; and the same is said of a deacon.

2. Likewise, Ambrose to the Vercellenses, and it is found in the thirty-fourth distinction[^4]: «We recognize that not only concerning a bishop and a presbyter did the Apostle so establish, but that the Fathers also, in the tract of the Council of Nicaea, added that no cleric ought to be one who has obtained a second marriage».

3. Likewise, he who has had a wife whose flesh is divided cannot be promoted: therefore much less can he who has had several wives. *The first* is clear from what Pope Innocent says in the thirty-fourth distinction[^5]: «If anyone, even a layman, has married a widow, whether before baptism or after, let him not be admitted to the clergy».

4. Likewise, a priest or bishop bears the figure of Christ; but Christ was not divided, but rather united by unity: therefore the signification of the order is deficient in such a one: therefore the order also [is deficient], since signification is essential to the Sacrament[^6].

5. Likewise, bigamy is a property which is never relinquished, nor can he who is a bigamist become a non-bigamist: therefore, if it impedes the Sacrament, it seems that it renders him incapable of the reception of an order[^7].

**On the contrary:** 1. The corruption of the flesh does not impede the reception of the Sacrament: therefore neither does division, by a like reasoning.

2. Likewise, if the division of the flesh which is with a wife impedes, since that which is with a harlot is much more blameworthy, it would impede much more strongly; but that does not impede: therefore neither does this.

3. Likewise, if the division of the flesh impedes, [it does so] either by reason of something that occurs in the *flesh*, or by reason of that which occurs in the *soul*. By reason of something that occurs in the *flesh*: this does not seem [so], because it leaves[^8] no other disposition than [that found] in the knowledge of one [woman]. By reason of something that occurs in the *soul*: not [so], since, the wife having died, nothing remains of the marriage.

4. Likewise, I ask: why does it impede? If on account of a *defect of the Sacrament*; I ask: of which? If of *matrimony*; on the contrary: he who has never contracted [marriage] is more deficient in the Sacrament of matrimony than he who has contracted twice: therefore he is not deficient in the Sacrament of matrimony. — If [a defect] of the Sacrament of *order*; on the contrary: bigamy is not considered according to the Sacrament of *order*, but according to *matrimony*: therefore the order is not deficient.

There is therefore the question: why does *division* impede, and not *corruption*?

And again: why does corruption impede in a woman, so that she is not consecrated[^9], [and] why not likewise also in a bishop?

<!-- page 654 -->

And again: why does the fornication of a wife rather make the husband irregular[^1b] than the fornication of the husband, since he is the more to be punished on account of the division of his own flesh than of another's?

### Conclusion.

> *Bigamists, on account of the defect of signification, are unfit for the reception of an order, especially a sacred one; yet in such wise that they validly receive the order.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that the Sacrament of order abounds beyond the others in the character of *signifying*, since not only does that which is applied externally signify, but rather the very one receiving is a sign, and the very bishop consecrated or presbyter ordained signifies Christ himself, according to what was touched on above[^2b]. And in this property it differs from the other Sacraments, except from matrimony, in which the man himself, who is the subject of the Sacrament itself, is a sign of Christ himself, just as the woman is a sign of the Church, and thus they concur unto the same signification.

Since therefore it belongs to the *primary* signification of order that the ordained signify Christ as the spouse of the Church; and a bigamist cannot signify this, who has had a widow to wife, since the Church has had a single spouse, and Christ a single bride: hence it is that such persons are unfit for the orders, especially the *principal* and *sacred* ones, in which a man now begins expressly to figure Christ[^3b]. Hence bigamy renders one unfit for the diaconate and subdiaconate and priesthood and most of all for the episcopate; and therefore in these orders one never reads of a dispensation being granted, nor ought one to be granted[^4b]; not because the Sacrament is *essentially deficient* — rather the bigamist receives the character — but because the *perfection* of the Sacrament is *deficient* in him, which can in no way be supplied or compensated by a man. Yet in the lesser orders, by reason of necessity, he does receive a dispensation, as is said in the thirty-fourth distinction[^5b], *Necessity compelling*; and again, *A lector, if [he has married] a widow*, etc. — From these things it is clear that division of the flesh impedes, and why it impedes, and what division [impedes].

**1, 2.** To that, then, which is objected concerning corruption, it must be said that it is not similar: because it is not repugnant to the *necessity*[^6b] of the Sacrament nor to its *signification*, as bigamy is. Likewise division by fornication does not impede, because it is not a division by *signification*; but this [bigamy] is a division *signifying*.

3. To that which is objected — [namely, whether] this is on the part of the soul, or on the part of the flesh — it must be said that the reason is taken on the part of the *whole man*, whose it is to contract matrimony, and who is the subject of matrimony; in which indeed there is an impediment, not by reason of *uncleanness* or of an *absolute quality* which occurs in the flesh, but on account of the *deficient signification*. For because he contracted with one [woman], he signified Christ; but because he withdrew from the one and contracted with a second, he withdrew from the signification; and thus there is a *defect of the Sacrament*, namely of unity, which ought to be signified in the Sacrament of matrimony and of order.

4. And by this the following is made clear, which is objected concerning the defect of the Sacrament; for I say that in him is deficient the Sacrament of *unity*, which, whether it be deficient on his own part, or on the part of the wife, renders him less suitable for the Sacrament of order[^7b]. If therefore you ask: which Sacrament is deficient, whether of order or of matrimony? I say that the Sacrament of *order* is deficient, because there is not the perfection which could signify what the order requires. *Moreover*, there is a defect of the Sacrament of *matrimony* — a defect, I say, not of simple *negation*, as is the case in one who was never married, but a defect of *privation*, where there is something of signification, something of privation, which begets a certain enormity or deformity, by reason of which he ought not to be admitted to so noble a Sacrament.

From these things the following questions are made clear, namely why division impedes, [and] not corruption, because no Sacrament is deprived, nor is [the Sacrament] made defective on account of *corruption*, as [it is] on account of *division*.

To that which is asked: why does corruption not impede the consecration of a man, as [it does] of a woman? some jurists say that a bishop signifies the Church militant, but a virgin signifies Christ, who was a virgin. But right reason does not accept that. — And therefore it must be said otherwise, that a bishop signifies Christ, but a woman signifies the Church triumphant, or the Church herself, who is a virgin and never was [anything] except the bride of Christ; but Christ, although he was a virgin, nevertheless had the Synagogue not as a wife, but as a concubine[^8b].

And by this the last [question] is made clear, why he who betroths a woman corrupted by another and knows her is unfit, <!-- page 655 --> and is judged a bigamist. It must be said that [this is] because he is not one [man] of one [woman]; for she is not one [woman] of one[^1c], and the greater unity ought to be signified on the part of the wife than of the husband, since the Church was joined to none save Christ, neither matrimonially nor in any other way. But Christ was joined to the Synagogue, though not indissolubly, and thus not matrimonially. — And thus it is clear that all such statutes are exceedingly reasonable, because in their establishment fault is not weighed, but rather fitting signification[^2c].

---

la: Vers. 2: Oportet ergo, episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, unius uxoris virum. Ibid. v. 12: Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri. Cfr. Gratian., d. 26-34.

en: Verse 2: A bishop therefore must be blameless, the husband of one wife. Ibid. v. 12: Let deacons be the husbands of one wife. Cf. Gratian, dd. 26–34.

la: Can. 14: Cognoscamus, non solum hoc de episcopo etc. (ex Ambros. Epist. 63. n. 64.). Pro *in Concilii Nicaeni tractatu* plurimi codd. et ed. 1 *in Conciliis invicem* [cod. K omittit *invicem*] *tractatum*, ed. Maur. operum Ambros. *in Concilii Nicaeni tractatus*.

en: Canon 14: We recognize, not only this concerning a bishop, etc. (from Ambrose, Letter 63, n. 64). For *in the tract of the Council of Nicaea* very many codices and edition 1 [read] *in the Councils mutually* [codex K omits *mutually*] *the tract*; the Maurist edition of the works of Ambrose [reads] *in the tract of the Council of Nicaea*.

la: Can. 13. — Pro *dicit* plurimi codd. (plures omittunt *Innocentius Papa*) *dicitur*.

en: Canon 13. — For *he says* very many codices (many omit *Pope Innocent*) [read] *it is said*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. — Superius post *unitus* [cod. Z addit *in*] *unitate* Vat. subiungit *naturae*.

en: As was shown above at d. 1, p. I, q. 2. — Above, after *united* [codex Z adds *in*] *by unity*, the Vatican [manuscript] appends *of nature*.

la: Cfr. Ambros., 1. de Offic. minist. c. 50. n. 257, et Epist. 63. n. 62, allegatus a Gratiano C. *Una tantum* (4.) et C. *Qui sine crimine* (5.), d. 26.

en: Cf. Ambrose, book 1 of *On the Duties of Ministers*, c. 50, n. 257, and Letter 63, n. 62, cited by Gratian at C. *Una tantum* (4) and C. *Qui sine crimine* (5), d. 26.

la: Ita codd. E F I L N aa, in aliis et edd. *quod relinquat*.

en: Thus codices E F I L N aa; in the others and in the editions, *that it may leave*.

la: Cfr. C. *Acutius* (2.), d. 26, C. *Si quis non iratus* (13.), C. 15. q. 1. § 1. et C. *De pudicitia* (6.), C. 32. q. 5. § 2. — Superius post *quaestio* codd. L P Z addunt *difficilis*.

en: Cf. C. *Acutius* (2), d. 26; C. *Si quis non iratus* (13), C. 15, q. 1, § 1; and C. *De pudicitia* (6), C. 32, q. 5, § 2. — Above, after *question*, codices L P Z add *difficult*.

la: Vide C. *Curandum* (9.), seqq., d. 34.

en: See C. *Curandum* (9) and following, d. 34.

la: Dist. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. et q. 4. in fine. — Inferius respicitur Eph. 5, 22. seqq.

en: Distinction 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, reply to 2, and q. 4 at the end. — Below there is reference to Eph. 5:22 ff.

la: Cfr. C. *Acutius* (2.), d. 26. (qui est August., de Bono coniugali, c. 18. n. 21.), et Petr. Damian., lib. inscriptus «Dominus vobiscum», c. 12.

en: Cf. C. *Acutius* (2), d. 26 (which is Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*, c. 18, n. 21), and Peter Damian, the book entitled «Dominus vobiscum», c. 12.

la: In C. *Super eo* (2.), X. de Bigamis non dispensandis (lib. I. tit. 21.) dicitur: Quia in bigamis contra Apostolum dispensare non licet, ut debeant ad sacros ordines promoveri vel in eis, si promoti fuerint, remanere.

en: In C. *Super eo* (2), X, On Bigamists Not To Be Dispensed (book I, tit. 21), it is said: Since in the case of bigamists it is not permitted to dispense against the Apostle, so that they should be promoted to sacred orders, or, if they have been promoted, remain in them.

la: Gratian., C. *Lector, si viduam* (18.), d. 34, haec verba praemittit: Necessitate tamen exigente, bigamus usque ad subdiaconatum potest promoveri. Unde Martinus Papa ait.

en: Gratian, C. *Lector, si viduam* (18), d. 34, prefaces these words: Yet, necessity demanding, a bigamist may be promoted as far as the subdiaconate. Whence Pope Martin says.

la: Ita codd. et edd. Fortasse legendum *integritati*.

en: Thus the codices and editions. Perhaps it should be read *integritati* (to the integrity).

la: Cfr. C. *Debitum pastoralis* (5.), X. de Bigamis non ordinandis (lib. I. tit. 21.). — Inferius pro *perfectio* non pauci codd. *perfecta*, codd. F bb *persona*, cod. L *persona perfecta*, codd. K X (I a secunda manu) *perfecta significatio*.

en: Cf. C. *Debitum pastoralis* (5), X, On Bigamists Not To Be Ordained (book I, tit. 21). — Below, for *perfection* not a few codices [read] *perfect*, codices F bb *person*, codex L *perfect person*, codices K X (I by a second hand) *perfect signification*.

la: Duplex haec expositio insinuatur in *Glossa* super C. *Debitum pastoralis* in nota praecedente allegatum.

en: This twofold exposition is suggested in the *Gloss* on C. *Debitum pastoralis*, cited in the preceding note.

la: In praeallegato C. *Debitum pastoralis* dicitur: Quoniam nec illa est unica unici, nec iste unus unius. — Vat. *dicendum enim, quod ratio est, quia* etc. Mox pro *significari* codd. et ed. 1 *significare*.

en: In the aforecited C. *Debitum pastoralis* it is said: Since neither is she the one [wife] of one [husband], nor is he the one [husband] of one [wife]. — The Vatican [manuscript reads] *for it must be said that the reason is, because*, etc. Presently, for *to be signified* the codices and edition 1 [read] *to signify*.

la: Praeter hanc principalem rationem in iure canonico aliae secundariae afferuntur, quare bigamus ad sacros ordines non promoveatur, scil. propter praerogativam sacerdotalis dignitatis, et quia talis non potest esse hortator castitatis (cfr. C. *Una tantum* (4.), seq. d. 26.), et propter suspicionem futurae incontinentiae (cfr. C. *Proposuisti* (2.), d. 82.). Vide infra d. 42. a. 3. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Besides this principal reason, other secondary ones are brought forward in canon law as to why a bigamist should not be promoted to sacred orders, namely on account of the prerogative of the sacerdotal dignity, and because such a one cannot be an exhorter to chastity (cf. C. *Una tantum* (4) and following, d. 26), and on account of the suspicion of future incontinence (cf. C. *Proposuisti* (2), d. 82). See below at d. 42, a. 3, q. 3. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 653–655 (PDF pp. 673–675; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 70860–71065) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. On these pages the two columns nearly abut, so the vol4 default split (1880) clips both the left column's right edge and the right column's left edge; bands were regenerated at **split L=2120 / R=1780** (same as the sibling a2-q1/q2 chunks). Marginal editorial glosses trimmed from the body: *Quaestio incid. 1 / 2 / 3*, *Ad oppositum*, *Notandum* (p.653); *Differentia ordinis*, *Conclusio*, *Corollarium 1 / 2*, *Solutio oppositorum* (p.654).

**Opener alignment verified.** Raw L70860 `QUAESTIO III.` (OCR `QUAESTIO in.`) + title `Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis sit necessaria indivisio carnis`; body opening `Tertio quaeritur, utrum ad ordinis susceptionem necessaria sit indivisio carnis` — matches `title_la` and the "Tertio" position in the article's four-question list (a2 asks four; this is the third). No q-swap. Quaestio ends cleanly at *…significatio congrua* (raw L71065, top of p.655 left col); QUAESTIO IV (`Utrum … necessaria conditio libertatis`) opens immediately after at L71066 — that chunk's material (title, *Quarto et ultimo quaeritur*, its own footers) is entirely excluded here.

**Scholion: ABSENT (`has_scholion: false`).** The **Article II SCHOLION** (sections I–IV) prints at the top of p.651 and belongs to **a2-q1**, which explicitly says it covers all four questions of the article. Confirmed from within this quaestio: p.655 footnote [^2c] ends `Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.` ("See the scholion to question 1 of this article"). No scholion is anchored to q3.

**Apparatus / page-footer split (17 footnotes).** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page:
- **p.653** (running head "DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. III. — 653"): shared page. Notes **1–2** belong to **a2-q2** (its [^17] age-canon on *malitia supplet aetatem*; its [^18] `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` on *bene esse*) — reconciled with q2's own `## Notes` ("Notes 3+ of p.653 belong to q3"). q3 claims **notes 3–9** → [^3] (arg1 *unius uxoris*), [^4] (arg2 *Cognoscimus*), [^5] (arg3 *Si quis viduam*), [^6] (arg4 *significatio essentialis*), [^7] (arg5 *susceptionem*), [^8] (contra3 *relinquit*), [^9] (incid.-question *consecretur* / *difficilis* variant).
- **p.654** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 654"): not shared. All **8** footer notes are q3's → [^1b]–[^8b] (incid.3 *irregularem*→[^1b]; Respondeo *superius*→[^2b]; *figurare Christum*→[^3b]; *dispensari debet*→[^4b]; *distinctione*→[^5b]; sol.1-2 *necessitati*→[^6b]; sol.4 *ordinis Sacramentum*→[^7b]; *concubinam*→[^8b]).
- **p.655** (running head "DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. IV. — 655"): shared page. q3 finishes at the top of the left column (the *Et per hoc patet ultimum* solution, ending *…significatio congrua*). q3 claims **p.655 notes 1–2** → [^1c] (*unica* / *Debitum pastoralis*) and [^2c] (*significatio congrua* / *Praeter hanc principalem rationem* → the cross-ref `Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.`). **Notes 3 onward of p.655** (`Can. 1. Pro ad clericatum …`, etc.) belong to **QUAESTIO IV** (`bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q4`); this chunk claims none of them.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- *Received / reconciled with `bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q2`:* p.653 footer notes 1–2 are q2's (confirmed captured there as [^17]/[^18]); q2's body ends cleanly at *…de bene esse* with no splice into q3.
- *Forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d25-a2-q4`:* QUAESTIO IV opens at raw L71066 on printed p.655; q4 carries p.655's footer notes 3 onward plus its own later pages. q3 claims only p.655 notes 1–2. No mid-page body splice: q3's tail *…significatio congrua* is grammatically complete, and the QUAESTIO IV heading + *Quarto et ultimo quaeritur* opener follow it.

**[?] flags:** none. Two apparatus micro-readings noted as confident-but-lightly-blurred on the bands (no inline flag): [^4]'s Maurist variant tail read *in Concilii Nicaeni tractatus* (line-broken `in Conci-/…caeni tractatus` on the p.653 right footer band); [^2c]'s clause read *ad sacros ordines non promoveatur* (a faint gap between *ordines* and *promoveatur* on the p.655 left footer band). Both resolved by sense and grammar. All codex sigla (E F I K L N P X Z aa bb), canon/authority citations (Ambrose *de Offic. ministrorum* / Epist. 63; Augustine *de Bono coniugali*; Peter Damian *Dominus vobiscum*; Gratian and the Decretals *de Bigamis*; Justinian *Codex*; 1 Tim. 3; Eph. 5), and Quaracchi formulae resolved cleanly against the PDF bands.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 655 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis sit necessaria conditio libertatis.*

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum ad susceptionem ordinis sit necessaria conditio libertatis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Distinctione quinquagesima quarta[^3]: «Nullus episcoporum ad clericatum servum alterius promovere praesumat».

2. Item, in eadem decretali, capitulo secundo: «Nulli de servili conditione ad sacros ordines promoveantur, nisi a dominis suis prius legitimam libertatem consequantur».

3. Item, si servus intret religionem, redditur domino suo et non potest ingredi, nisi efficiatur liber: ergo pari ratione, nisi efficiatur liber, non poterit ad sacros ordines promoveri[^4].

4. Item, *nemo potest duobus dominis servire*, sicut ipse Salvator testatus est[^5]: ergo cum officium clericale totum hominem sibi requirat dedicari, nullus ad hoc poterit promoveri, qui sit in alterius potestate.

**Contra:** 1. *Servus sapiens dominabitur stultis filiis*, dicitur Proverbiorum decimo septimo[^6]: ergo videtur, quod ubi est sapientia et vitae bonitas, quod nihil ex parte servitutis obsistat.

2. Item, ordo dicit potestatem spiritualem, servitus dicit subiectionem corporalem; sed subiectio corporalis non habet repugnantiam cum eo quod spirituale est: ergo etc.

3. Item, *Deus non est acceptor personae*[^7]: ergo tantum placet ei obsequium servi, sicut obsequium domini: ergo sicut possunt ad divinum cultum et clericatum assumi domini, ita etiam possunt servi.

4. Item, alia Sacramenta ita libere possunt accipere servi, ut domini, et ad ea ita communiter admittuntur: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod ad ordinem.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, si servus sit ordinatus, ignorante domino, utrum sit ei restituendus. Item, si restituitur, quare non res aliae consecratae; et iterum, quanto tempore possit repetere.

> **Conclusio.** Servus propter Sacramenti honestatem ordinari non debet.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum est, quod Sacramentum ordinis non solum abundat ab aliis secundum rationem *signi*, propter hoc quod non tantum *Sacramentum*, sed etiam *suscipiens* Sacramentum tenet rationem signi[^8]; immo etiam abundat secundum rationem *remedii*: quia non solum ibi gratia ad curandum *subiectum* ordinatur, sed etiam datur gratia, quae ordinat ad curandum *alios*; unde collocat hominem non tantum in statu *sanitatis*, immo etiam in gradu *honestatis* et dignitatis: et ideo ad hoc Sacramentum requiritur non persona quaelibet, sed persona *honesta*, cui honor et dignitas competat clericalis. Et quoniam *honestas* multa[^9] respicit exteriora; ideo non solum propter defectum *vitae* efficitur quis inhabilis ad hoc Sacramentum suscipiendum, sed etiam propter defectum *multorum aliorum*.

Ad hoc enim, quod persona sit *honesta*, oportet, quod in ea concurrat honestas a parte *originis*, *nominis*, *corporis*, *actionis*, *conditionis* et *conversationis*. Propter defectum a parte *originis* ineptus est filius sacerdotis spurius, vel etiam quilibet illegitimus, Deuteronomii vigesimo tertio[^10]. — A parte *nominis* sive famae inepti sunt infames et publice poenitentes, distinctione quinquagesima[^11], *Ex poenitentibus*. — Propter defectum a parte *corporis*,
<!-- page 656 -->
corpore vitiati et daemoniaci et epileptici, distinctione trigesima tertia, *Communiter definimus*. — Propter defectum a parte *actionis*, ut quando incidit in peccatum enorme, sive factum, ut homicidium, distinctione quinquagesima fere per totum[^1b]; et hoc est propter magnum horrorem, qui est in sanguinis effusione, sive iuste fiat, sive iniuste; vel propter hoc, quod dividit unitatem animae et corporis. — Propter defectum *conditionis*, ut servus, distinctione quinquagesima quarta. — Propter defectum *conversationis*, ut curiales, distinctione quinquagesima prima. — In omnibus autem tradunt distinctiones sive exceptiones; sed illae spectant ad scientiam inferiorem. Haec tantum in generali dixisse sufficiat, quod quia Sacramentum ordinis non tantum personae *meritum*, sed *honestatem* considerat, quia clericus est persona communis, et ordo ponit in gradu dignitatis; debent excludi illi, in quibus Sacramentum et alia per consequens possint dehonestari. Quoniam *servus*, quamdiu in tali statu est, est ignobilis et ad ignobilia opera potest cogi; et ideo non potest se totum mancipare, cum alii sit subiectus: ideo non potest ad sacros ordines promoveri, quantum est de Sacramenti honestate, recipit tamen ordinem.

1. 2. 3. 4. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod servitus non impedit, ad totum[^2b] patet responsio per iam dicta.

Verumtamen quod quaerit, si servus debet reddi domino suo; respondendum, quod aut est ordinatus, domino *sciente* et *consentiente*, aut *ignorante* et *nolente*. Si *sciente* et *consentiente*, vel etiam non contradicente, generat[^3b] sibi praeiudicium, ut amplius non possit repetere eum. Si *ignorante* domino et *nolente*; aut *ignorante praesentatore et episcopo*, aut *altero*, vel *utroque sciente*. Si eis *ignorantibus*, tunc servus tenetur se redimere, si habet pecuniam; quodsi non habet, nec Ecclesia vult eum redimere, domino suo debet reddi. Si autem *sciente* ordinante et praesentatore, tenentur domino in pecunia, vel in alio servo, vel in duplum: quod si non habent, dominus potest sibi resumere servum. — Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod non, si pervenerit ad sacerdotium; sed de omnibus videtur[^4b], quod dominus debeat servari indemnis, habet tamen ius petendi eum infra annum; et quidam dicunt, quod post *ordinationem*, quidam dicunt, quod post *cognitionem*. Et haec omnia probantur per illa iura, quae dicuntur distinctione quinquagesima quarta[^5b].

Sunt et alia multa, quae determinantur in iure, quae, inquam, competunt ordinandis, quae ex diversis locis Scripturae sunt tracta, et maxime primae ad Timotheum tertio[^6b], et haec omnia determinantur a distinctione vigesima tertia usque in finem primae partis. Et quoniam haec distinctio magis spectat ad scientiam inferiorem, ideo ad praesens ista sufficiant, ne extra metas nostrae scientiae exeamus. Verum est tamen, quod omnes huiusmodi ordinationes a sacra Scriptura habent ortum[^7b], et omnia ad ipsam sicut ad originem possent reduci, si quis haberet peritiam iuris canonici et divini[^8b].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the condition of freedom is necessary for receiving an order.*

Fourth and last it is asked whether, for receiving an order, the condition of freedom is necessary. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:

1. In distinction fifty-four[^3]: «Let no bishop presume to promote to the clerical state the slave of another».

2. Likewise, in the same decretal, chapter two: «Let none of servile condition be promoted to sacred orders, unless they first obtain lawful liberty from their masters».

3. Likewise, if a slave enters religion, he is restored to his master and cannot enter [it], unless he be made free: therefore by parity of reasoning, unless he be made free, he will not be able to be promoted to sacred orders[^4].

4. Likewise, *no one can serve two masters*, as the Savior himself testified[^5]: therefore, since the clerical office requires the whole man to be dedicated to it, no one will be able to be promoted to this who is in the power of another.

**On the contrary:** 1. *A wise servant shall rule over foolish sons*, it is said in Proverbs, chapter seventeen[^6]: therefore it seems that where there is wisdom and goodness of life, nothing on the side of servitude stands in the way.

2. Likewise, an order bespeaks spiritual power, servitude bespeaks bodily subjection; but bodily subjection has no repugnance with that which is spiritual: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, *God is no respecter of persons*[^7]: therefore the service of a slave pleases him just as much as the service of a master: therefore, just as masters can be taken up for divine worship and the clerical state, so also can slaves.

4. Likewise, the other Sacraments can be received by slaves as freely as by masters, and to them they are admitted just as commonly: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems [the same holds] as regards an order.

Alongside this it is asked, if a slave has been ordained, the master being unaware, whether he must be restored to him. Likewise, if he is restored, why not other consecrated things; and again, for how long a time [the master] can reclaim [him].

> **Conclusion.** A slave, on account of the honorableness of the Sacrament, ought not to be ordained.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said it must be noted that the Sacrament of order not only abounds beyond the others according to the character of a *sign*, on account of this, that not only the *Sacrament*, but also the one *receiving* the Sacrament holds the character of a sign[^8]; indeed it also abounds according to the character of a *remedy*: because not only is grace there ordained for healing the *subject* [ordained], but grace is also given which ordains toward the healing of *others*; whence it places a man not only in a state of *health*, but even in a grade of *honorableness* and dignity: and therefore for this Sacrament there is required not just any person, but an *honorable* person, to whom clerical honor and dignity are fitting. And since *honorableness* regards many[^9] exterior things; therefore not only on account of a defect of *life* does one become unfit for receiving this Sacrament, but also on account of a defect of *many other things*.

For, that a person be *honorable*, it is required that there concur in him honorableness on the side of *origin*, of *name*, of *body*, of *action*, of *condition*, and of *manner of life*. On account of a defect on the side of *origin*, the bastard son of a priest is unfit, or also any illegitimate person, Deuteronomy twenty-three[^10]. — On the side of *name* or reputation, the infamous and the publicly penitent are unfit, distinction fifty[^11], *Ex poenitentibus*. — On account of a defect on the side of *body*,
<!-- page 656 -->
those impaired in body and the possessed and epileptics, distinction thirty-three, *Communiter definimus*. — On account of a defect on the side of *action*, as when one falls into an enormous sin, whether a deed, such as homicide, distinction fifty almost throughout[^1b]; and this is on account of the great horror which is in the shedding of blood, whether it be done justly or unjustly; or on account of this, that it divides the unity of soul and body. — On account of a defect of *condition*, such as a slave, distinction fifty-four. — On account of a defect of *manner of life*, such as courtiers, distinction fifty-one. — In all [these], however, the distinctions hand down exceptions; but those pertain to the lower science. Let it suffice to have said these things only in general: that, since the Sacrament of order considers not only the *merit* of the person, but *honorableness*, because a cleric is a public person, and order places [him] in a grade of dignity; there ought to be excluded those in whom the Sacrament and other things could consequently be dishonored. Since a *slave*, as long as he is in such a state, is ignoble and can be compelled to ignoble works; and therefore he cannot give himself over entirely, since he is subject to another: therefore he cannot be promoted to sacred orders, so far as pertains to the honorableness of the Sacrament, yet he does receive the order.

1. 2. 3. 4. To that, then, which is objected, that servitude does not impede, as to the whole[^2b] the answer is clear from what has already been said.

Nevertheless, as to what he asks, whether a slave ought to be restored to his master; it must be answered that either he was ordained with his master *knowing* and *consenting*, or *unaware* and *unwilling*. If [with his master] *knowing* and *consenting*, or even not contradicting, he generates[^3b] a prejudice against himself, so that he can no longer reclaim him. If [with his master] *unaware* and *unwilling*; or with the presenter and the bishop *unaware*, or one, or *both being aware*. If they are unaware, then the slave is bound to redeem himself, if he has the money; but if he does not have it, nor does the Church wish to redeem him, he must be restored to his master. But if [it was done] with the ordainer and the presenter *knowing*, they are bound to the master in money, or in another slave, or in double: but if they do not have [it], the master can take back the slave for himself. — Some, however, say that [he may] not, if he has attained to the priesthood; but concerning all [cases] it seems[^4b] that the master ought to be kept indemnified, yet he has the right of seeking him within a year; and some say that [this holds] after ordination, some say that [it holds] after [his] becoming known. And all these things are proved by those laws which are stated in distinction fifty-four[^5b].

There are also many other things which are determined in law, which, I say, pertain to those to be ordained, which are drawn from various places of Scripture, and especially from the first [Epistle] to Timothy, chapter three[^6b], and all these things are determined from distinction twenty-three to the end of the first part. And since this distinction pertains more to the lower science, therefore for the present let these things suffice, lest we go beyond the bounds of our science. It is true, however, that all ordinations of this kind have their origin from sacred Scripture[^7b], and all could be reduced to it as to their origin, if one had expertise in canon and divine law[^8b].

---

la: Can. 1. Pro *ad clericatum* textus originalis *ad clericatus officium*, cod. L *ad ordinis clericatum*.

en: Canon 1. For *ad clericatum* the original text [reads] *ad clericatus officium*, cod. L *ad ordinis clericatum*.

la: Cfr. C. *Generalis etiam querelae* (12.), d. 54. et C. *Instruendi* (1.), seq., X. de Servis non ordinandis etc. (lib. 1. tit. 18.).

en: Cf. the Canon *Generalis etiam querelae* (12), d. 54, and the Canon *Instruendi* (1), and following, Decretals, on Slaves not to be ordained, etc. (bk. 1, tit. 18).

en: Matthew 6, 24.

la: Vers. 2. — Pro *obsistat* codd. E Z *obstat*.

en: Verse 2. — For *obsistat* codd. E Z [have] *obstat*.

la: Act. 10, 34. Vulgata *personarum*.

en: Acts 10, 34. The Vulgate [reads] *personarum*.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. in corp.

en: Cf. the preceding question, in the body [of the response].

la: Vat. *multum*.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *multum*.

la: Vers. 2: Non ingredietur mamzer, hoc est de scorto natus, in ecclesiam Domini usque ad decimam generationem. Cfr. Gratian., d. 56. et X. de Filiis presbyterorum etc. (lib. 1. tit. 17.).

en: Verse 2: A mamzer, that is, one born of a harlot, shall not enter into the church of the Lord even to the tenth generation. Cf. Gratian, d. 56, and Decretals, on the Sons of presbyters, etc. (bk. 1, tit. 17).

la: Can. 55. — Seq. can. *Communiter definimus* est c. 3.

en: Canon 55. — The following canon, *Communiter definimus*, is c. 3.

la: Praecipue c. 4-8.

en: Especially cc. 4-8.

la: Pro *ad totum* edd. *et ad omnia sequentia*.

en: For *ad totum* the editions [read] *et ad omnia sequentia*.

la: Codd. F L O bb *generatur*.

en: Codd. F L O bb [read] *generatur*.

la: Cod. K *ab omnibus tenetur*, edd. *sed omnibus videtur*.

en: Cod. K [reads] *ab omnibus tenetur*, the editions *sed omnibus videtur*.

la: Can. *Si servus, absente* (19.), seq. — Codd. E F L aa omittunt *iura*.

en: The Canon *Si servus, absente* (19), and following. — Codd. E F L aa omit *iura*.

la: Vers. 2. seqq. — Gratian., d. 23. data differentia diversorum officiorum ecclesiasticorum, d. 24. pro explicatione I. Tim. 5, 22: *Manus cito nemini imposueris* etc., varia decreta affert; idem facit in seqq. dist. usque ad finem I. partis circa locum I. Tim. 3, 2. seqq.: *Oportet episcopum irreprehensibilem esse* etc.

en: Verse 2 ff. — Gratian, d. 23, the difference of the various ecclesiastical offices having been given, at d. 24, for the explanation of 1 Tim. 5, 22: *Lay hands hastily on no one*, etc., adduces various decrees; he does the same in the following distinctions down to the end of the first part, regarding the passage 1 Tim. 3, 2 ff.: *A bishop must be blameless*, etc.

la: In edd. desideratur haec propositio *Verum... ortum*. Pro *ordinationes* cod. M *quaestiones*, cod. O *rationes*.

en: In the editions this proposition, *Verum... ortum*, is wanting. For *ordinationes* cod. M [reads] *quaestiones*, cod. O *rationes*.

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 655–656 (pdf 675–676; offset pdf = printed + 20), read column-by-column (full Left column, then full Right column), corrected against IA djvu OCR raw lines 71066–71216. Page numbers verified against running heads (`DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. IV.` on p. 655; `656 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` on p. 656 — the OCR mangles the folio number to `6o6`). No standalone article opener here: the four-question `Articulus II` opener and the article scholion live in `a2-q1`.

**Two-thread column layout.** On both pages the quaestio is set in two body columns read Left-then-Right. On p. 655 the left column carries the videtur arguments (1–4) and the *Contra* (1–4); the right column carries the *incidental-questions* statement (`Iuxta hoc quaeritur…`), the `CONCLUSIO`, and the opening of the *Respondeo*. The *Respondeo* continues down the p. 656 left column (defect-enumeration → `Conclusio 2` → the `1. 2. 3. 4. Ad illud ergo…` reply → the start of the *Ad quaestiones incidentes* answer, `Verumtamen quod quaerit…`) and finishes in the p. 656 right column (`nolente. Si sciente…` through `iuris canonici et divini`). Marginal editorial glosses (`Notandum.`, `Quaestiones incidentes.`, `Dupliciter abundat.`, `Conclusio 1./2.`, `Defectus 6.`, `Primus./Secundus./…/Sextus.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Ad quaest. incidentes.`, `Distinctio 1./2.`) were dropped — they are printed marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.

**Chunk boundary.** This chunk ends at `…iuris canonici et divini` (raw L71216); the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` section header + `DUB. I.` (raw L71217+) begin the *next* chunk. The DUBIA opens at the bottom of p. 656 (both columns) and runs onto p. 657 — its content and footnotes are not claimed here.

**Apparatus / page-footer split (17 footnotes).** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page.
- **p. 655 → [^3]–[^11]** (9 notes). Footnotes **1–2 of p. 655 belong to Quaestio III** (they gloss the q3 tail printed above the `QUAESTIO IV` title — `unica unici` / `significari` at note 1; `bigamus … non promoveatur` at note 2) and must be claimed by the (still-skeleton) `a2-q3` chunk, not here.
- **p. 656 → [^1b]–[^8b]** (8 notes). Printed page 656 carries footnotes 1–10+, but only **1–8** anchor to this quaestio; footnotes **9–10 (and following) of p. 656 belong to the DUBIA** (`Dub. I`: `Hic c. 1` = fn 9; `Can. Episcopus in dioecesim` = fn 10) and are the next chunk's to claim.

**[?] flags.**
- **[^6b] biblical digit:** the footer prints the closing cross-reference as `locum I. Tim. [?], 2. seqq.: Oportet episcopum irreprehensibilem esse`. The band digit is ambiguous (reads like `3` or `4`); since *Oportet episcopum irreprehensibilem esse* is unambiguously **1 Tim 3:2**, it is rendered `I. Tim. 3, 2`. Digit not glyph-certain. **[?]**
- **[^11] tail:** the p. 655 footer note 11 closes `Seq. can. Communiter definimus est c. 3.`; the final numeral sits at the extreme page edge and is rendered as printed (`c. 3`) but is not glyph-certain. **[?]**