In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de definitione Sacramenti, quam ponit Magister: Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum. Videtur enim male assignare, eo quod videtur aliis convenire,⁵ quae non sunt Sacramenta, et tamen sunt sacrae rei signum, ut est hoc nomen Deus. Si dicas, quod sit signum rei sacrae et ut sacrae; tunc hoc nomen sanctum et santificans est Sacramentum. Si tu dicas, quod hoc intelligitur de signo visibili; tunc ergo ratio haec non est convertibilis.⁶

In that part (of his) there are doubts about the text, and first it is doubted concerning the definition of a Sacrament, which Master (Peter) posits: A Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing. For it seems that he assigns (the definition) badly, for the reason that it seems to convene with other (signs),⁵ which are not Sacraments, and are, however, a sign of a sacred thing, as is this noun God. If you say, that it is a sign of a sacred thing and as sacred; then this noun the holy and the sanctifying is a Sacrament. If you say, that this is understood of a visible sign; then, therefore, this reason is not convertible.⁶

RESPONDEO: Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod Sacramentum accipitur tripliciter, scilicet communiter et proprie et propriissime; et secundum hoc Magister dat tres definitiones. Et prima est Sacramenti largissime accepti.⁷ — Potest tamen dici secundum Hugonem aliter,⁸ quod illa non est definitio, sed nominis interpretatio; et Magister non intendit ibi definitionem Sacramenti ponere, sed nominis interpretationem sive verbi notificationem. Et ex prima interpretatione habetur, quod Sacramentum sit signum rei sacrae; ex secunda, quod sit signum visibile rei sacrae et sanctificantis; ex tertia, quod sit signum⁹ rei sacrae et sanctificantis, ita quod ad illa habendum efficaciter ordinat suscipientem; et sic dicitur proprie Sacramentum, et ita venatur Magister definitionem Sacramenti. Si ergo prima ratio determinetur per has conditiones, tunc dicetur ratio Sacramenti; si autem in sua generalitate intelligitur, sic solum est interpretatio nominis, non definitio convertibilis.¹⁰

I RESPOND: to this some say, that "Sacrament" is accepted in a threefold manner, that is commonly and properly and most properly; and according to this Master (Peter) gives three definitions. And the first is of a Sacrament accepted in the most broad manner.⁷ — It can, however, be said, according to Hugo in another manner,⁸ that that is not a definition, but (rather) an interpretation of a noun; and (that) Master (Peter) does not intend there to posit the definition of a Sacrament, but (rather) the interpretation of the noun or the notification of the word. And from the first interpretation there is had, that a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing; from the second, that it is a visible sign of a sacred and sanctifying thing; from the third, that it is a⁹ sign of a sacred and sanctifying thing, to such an extent [ita] that it ordains the suscipient efficaciously to have them; and in this manner it is said properly (to be) a Sacrament, and thus does Master (Peter) hunt for [venatur] the definition of a Sacrament. Therefore if the first reason be determined through these conditions, then the reckoning of a Sacrament will be meant; but if it is understood in its generality, thus it is only an interpretation of a noun, not a convertible definition.¹⁰

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma. Videtur enim non bene definiri: quia corpus Christi verum est Sacramentum,¹¹ character est Sacramentum, et tamen neutrum est visibilis forma. Si tu dicas, quod visibile sumitur ad visibile sensu exteriori,

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: A Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace. For it seems that it is not defined well: because the Body of Christ is a true Sacrament,¹¹ the character is a Sacrament, and, nevertheless [tamen] neither is a visible form. If you say, that visible is taken for [ad] the "visible" in an exterior sense,

secundum quod dicitur Genesis tertio:¹ Vidit igitur mulier; et ad visibile quantum ad sensum communem, secundum quod dicitur Exodi vigesimo: Cuntus populus videbat voces etc.; et ad visibile secundum intellectum, secundum quod dicitur Genesis primo: Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona; obiicitur contra hoc, quod gratia secundum istum modum videndi² non est invisiblis: ergo male dicitur invisibilis gratiae.

according to what is said in the third (chapter) of Genesis:¹ Therefore the woman saw; and for the "visible" as much as regards the common sense, according to what is said in the twentieth (chapter) of Exodus: The whole people saw the voices etc.; and for the "visible" according to the intellect, according to what is said in the first (chapter) of Genesis: God saw all (those things) which He had made, and they were very [valde] good; it is objected against this, that grace according to that manner of seeing² is not invisible: therefore badly is there said of invisible grace.

Propter hoc quaeritur: quomodo accipitur ibi visibilis; et quare magis signi visibilis quam audibilis, cum vox sit signum magis expressivum? Et iterum, cum Sacramentum sit compositum, quaeritur, quomodo sit forma.

On accont of this there is asked: in what manner is visible accepted there; and why (does it belong) more to a visible sign that to an audible one, since the voice is a more expressive sign? And again, since a Sacrament is a composite, there is asked, in what manner is it a form.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod visibile accipitur ibi pro sensibili sensu exteriori, maxime quantum ad duos sensus disciplinales;³ unde visibile comprehendit audibile. Sed magis dicitur visibile quam audibile propter hoc, quod ratio signandi, ut infra⁴ videbitur, magis residet penes elementum; et hoc est perceptibile visu, et utrumque concurrit ad Sacramentum. — Quod obiicitur de charactere,⁵ dicendum, quod non est Sacramentum, nisi quia annexum est sensibili sive visibili exteriori, et Magister definit principaliter quod est exterius. — Quod obiicitur de forma, dicendum, quod forma uno modo dicitur perfectio rei; alio modo paradigma sive exemplar;⁶ tertio modo dicitur forma quasi foris manens, id est aliqua similitudo exterius repraesentans; et sic accipitur in proposito.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that the visible is accepted there on behalf of the "sensible" in an exterior sense, most of all as much as regards the two disciplinary [disciplinales] senses;³ whence the visible comprehends the audible. But the "visible" is meant more than the audible on account of this, that the reckoning of the one signing, as shall be seen below,⁴ resides more within [penes] the element; and this is perceptible by sight, and each concur for [ad] the Sacrament. — That which is objected concerning the character,⁵ it must be said, that it is not a Sacrament, unless because it has been annexed to the sensible or visible exterior, and Master (Peter) defines principally what is exterior. — That which is objected concerning form, it must be said, that form in one manner is said (to be) the perfection of a thing; in another manner the paradigm or exemplar;⁶ in a third manner form is meant as (that which is) remaining outward [foris manens], that is some similitude representing exteriorly; and in this manner it is accepted in the proposed.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sacramentum eius rei similitudinem gerit, cuius est signum. Videtur enim male dicere: quia Sacramentum est res corporalis, et gratia res spiritualis: ergo cum nulla sit convenientia in aliqua qualitate inter illa, non est similitudo.⁷

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: A Sacrament bears the similitude of that thing, of which it is a sign. For he seems to speak badly: because a Sacrament is a corporal thing, and grace a spiritual thing: therefore since there is no agreement [convenientia] in any quality among them, there is not a similitude.⁷

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod similitudo duobus modis attenditur: uno modo secundum unius rationis proprietatem sive naturae participationem; alio modo secundum unius formae comparationem. Prima dicitur similitudo proportionis, secunda dicitur similitudo proportionalitatis. Sacramentum⁸ gerit similitudinem gratiae secundo modo, non primo, pro eo quod, sicut aqua abluit carnem, ita gratia mundat animam; et sicut oleum lenit exterius, ita gratia interius. Et haec similitudo est in quatuor terminis.⁹

I RESPOND: It must be said, that a similitude is tended towards in two manners: in one manner according to the property of one reckoning or a participation of nature; in another manner according to the comparison of one form. The first is said (to be) a similitude of proportion, the second is said (to be) a similitude of proportionality. A Sacrament⁸ bears the similitude of grace in the second manner, not the first, in virtue of this [pro eo] that, just as water washes clean the flesh, so grace washes the soul; and just as oil smoothes [lenit] the exterior, so grace the interior. And this similitude is in the four terms.⁹

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Cinis vitulae aspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis, non animae. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia immunditia carnis non amovebatur, immo plus¹⁰ caro inficiebatur.

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: The sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer sanctifies the polluted as regards the cleansing forth of the flesh, not of the soul. For he seems to say (what is) false, because the uncleanliness of the flesh was not removed, nay the flesh was stained [inficiebatur] more.¹⁰

RESPONDEO: Immunditia carnis dicitur, non quia pure erat carnalis, sed quia erat irregularitas contracta ex solo actu carnali; sicut erat tangere mortuum, ex quo dicebatur immundus, non quia macula erat¹¹ in anima vel in carne, sed quia ex hoc aliquam contraxerat irregularitatem, ut non esset idoneus ingredi in templum.¹²

I RESPOND: The uncleanliness is said (to be) of the flesh, not because it was purely carnal, but because it was an irregularity contracted out of a carnal act alone; just as was the touching of the dead, out of which one was said (to be) unclean, not because there was¹¹ a stain in the soul and/or in the flesh, but because out of this one had contracted some irregularity, to not be fit [idoneus] to step into the Temple.¹²

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sed purificabatur secundum Legem die tertio et septimo;

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: But he was purified according to the Law on the third and seventh day;

unde hoc erat, quod sacerdos erat purificandus¹ secundum Legem, cum idem non debeat esse causa purificationis et inquinationis?

whence was this, that a priest was to be purified¹ according to the Law, since the same ought not to be the cause of purification and of pollution?

RESPONDEO: Ratio huius erat litteralis, allegorica et moralis: litteralis, quia tangebat cinerem animalis mortui, et summus etiam sacerdos in peccato populi communicabat; ideo in poena² contrahendi immunditiam communicabat. Allegorica ratio est, quia in hoc significabatur, quod immunditia Iudaeorum non erat totaliter auferenda usque ad finem, quando reliquiae Israel salvae fient, ad Romanos nono.³ Moralis vero ratio erat, quia illa immunditia significabat, quod homo debeat se reputare immundum; et sacerdos, qui pro aliis purificandis orat, debet se reputare immundum, quia aliena peccata debet reputare quasi sua; vel etiam debet credere, se in illo officio aliquid commisisse, iuxta illud Gregorii:⁴ « Bonarum mentium est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est ».

I RESPOND: The reason for this was litteral, allegorical and moral: litteral, because he used to touch the ashes of a dead animal, and the high priest also used to communicate in the sin of the people; for that reason he used to communicate in the punishment² of contracting uncleanliness. The allegorical reason is, that in this there was signified, that the uncleanliness of the Jews was not to be totally borne away until the end, when the remnant of Israel shall be saved, ninth (chapter of the Letter) to the Romans.³ But the moral reason was, that that uncleanliness used to signify, that a man ought to repute himself unclean; and a priest, who prays [orat] on behalf of the ones to be purified, ought to repute himself unclean, because he ought to repute the sins of another as his own; and/or he also ought to believe, that he has committed something (of fault) in that office, according to that (word) of (St.) Gregory (the Great):⁴ « It belongs to good minds there to acknowlege fault, where fault is not ».

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Mundabant etiam interdum a corporali lepra illa legalia; quia si hoc verum erat, tunc ergo illa erant maioris virtutis, quam sint ista.

Likewise is asked of this which he says: Those (sacraments) of the Law sometimes used to cleanse even leprosy from the corporal (man); because if this was true, then, therefore, those (of old) were of greater virtue, than these (of ours) are.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod mundare dicuntur, quia mundatum ostendebant. — Et si tu quaeras, quae utilitas sit; respondeo: dicendum, quod magna; quia leprosi eiiciebantur extra castra et non poterant redire, nisi⁵ purificarentur et iudicio sacerdotis essent mundi. — Sed tunc obiices: cum lepra sit morbus incurabilis, videtur, quod nullus mundaretur. Dici potest, quod aliqui radicitus habebant causam morbi, et isti nunquam mundabantur, nec secundum veritatem nec secundum iudicium sacerdotis. Aliqui vero habebant signa,⁶ et isti mundari poterant, id est mundati ostendi, cum illa signa iam cessabant.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that they are said to cleanse, because they used to show that (one had been) cleansed. — And if you ask, of what utility is it; I respond: it must be said, that (it is) great; because lepers used to be ejected outside the camp and could not return, unless⁵ they were purified and by the judgement of a priest were clean. — But then you shall object: since leprosy is an incurable disease, it seems, that none would be cleansed. It can be said, that they had the cause of the disease radically [radicitus], and those (who did) never were cleansed, neither according to truth nor according to the judgement of a priest. But some had the signs (of leprosy),⁶ and those could have been cleansed, that is to be shown (to have been) cleansed, since those signs had already ceased.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Triplici ex causa instituta sunt Sacramenta. Videtur enim male dicere: quia unius rei unicus est finis: ergo videtur, quod una sola sit causa principalis.

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: Out of a threefold cause have the Sacraments been instituted. For he seems to speak badly: because of one thing there is a unique end: therefore it seems, that there is alone one principle cause.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod una est causa principlais, scilicet animae ornatus sive reparatio; sed quia anima plures habet potentias, possunt fines plurificari penes illas, uno tamen principali fine existente. Est enim in nobis vis regitiva,⁷ et quantum ad hanc est eruditio; est vis irascibilis, et quantum ad hanc est humiliatio; est concupiscibilis, et quantum ad hanc, ne fastidiat, est exercitatio. — Vel aliter: eruditio quantum ad cognitivum, humiliatio quantum ad affectivum, sed exercitatio quantum ad operativam.⁸

I RESPOND: It must be said, that there is one principle cause, that is the ornament or reparation of the soul; but because the soul has more powers, ends can be plurified from within them, with, however, one principle end existing. For there is in us a ruling force [vis regitiva],⁷ as much as regards this there is erudition; there is an irascible force, and as much as regards this there is humiliation; there is a concupiscible, and as much as regards this, so that one loath (it), there is exercitation. — And/or in another manner: erudition as much as regards the cognitive, humiliation as much as regards the affective, but exercitation as much as regards the operative.⁸

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod dum homo rebus sensibilibus, quae natura infra ipsum sunt, subiicitur. Videtur enim in hoc perverti ordo: quia anima est supra huiusmodi creaturas: ergo si eis se subiicit, pervertitur in hoc ordo naturalis.

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says, that while man is subjected to sensible things, which are by nature below himself. For it seems that in this the order is perverted: because the soul is above creatures of this kind: therefore if he subjects himself to them, the natural order is in this perverted.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod subiicere se his rebus potest homo quatuor considerationibus: aut propter peccati meritum, aut propter Dei praeceptum, aut quia sunt gratiae signum, aut quia in eis statuit summum bonum et finem ultimum. Primis tribus de causis est meritorium, et nulla inordinatio. Propter peccati enim meritum est aliquis infra illa, et ita eius subiectio respectu talium est ordinata. Item, qui propter praeceptum se subiicit ordinate facit, quia se subiicit magis praecepto quam rei sensibili.⁹ Et qui propter significationem, magis signato subiicit se quam signo. Sed in quarta consideratione ordo pervertitur, et est peccatum; et sic non spectat ad propositum.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that man can subject himself to these things by four considerations: either on account of the merit of sin, or on account of the precept of God, or because they are a sign of grace, or because in them there is established the Most High Good and Last End. By the first three of the causes it is meritorious, and (there is) no inordinance. For on account of the merit of sin one is below those, and thus his subjection in respect of such is ordinate. Likewise, he who on account of a precept subjects himself does (something) in an ordinate manner, because he subjects himself more to the precept than to a sensible thing.⁹ And he who (subjects himself) on account of signification, subjects himself more to the thing signed than to the sign. But in the fourth consideration the order is perverted, and there is sin; and in this manner it does not pertain [spectat] to the proposed.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Homo, qui ante peccatum sine medio Deum videbat. Videtur enim dicere falsum: quia qui videt Deum sine medio videt Deum per essentiam, videt etiam facie ad faciem;¹⁰ sed omnis talis est beatus: ergo etc.

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: The man, who before sin used to see God without a medium. For he seems to say (what is) false: because he who sees God without a medium sees God per essentiam, sees (Him) also face to face;¹⁰ but every such is blessed: ergo etc..

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod videre sine medio est dupliciter: aut sine medio adminiculante, aut sine medio obumbrante. Primum medium est speculare, secundum aenigmaticum. Sine primo non erat homo,¹ sed erat sine secundo, in quod incidit per peccatum; et ideo, quia caecus erat, indiguit erudiri et manuduci; non sic in statu primo.²

I RESPOND: It must be said, that to see without a medium is in a twofold manner: either without a supporting medium [medio adminiculate], or without an overshadowing medium [medio obumbrante]. The first medium is a looking out, according to the enigmatic. Man was not without the first (kind),¹ but he was without the second, into which he fell through sin; and for that reason, because he was blind, he needed to be instructed [erudiri] and lead by hand; not so in the first state.²

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Propter exercitationem similiter instituta sunt; quia, si hoc verum est; cum corporalis exercitatio ad modicum sit utilis,³ cum ergo Sacramenta sint corporales res: ergo ad modicum sunt utilia propter exercitationem.

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: Similarly they have been institution on account of exercitation; because, if this is true, when corporal exercitation is useful to a small extent [ad modicum],³ therefore since the Sacraments are corporal things: therefore they are useful to a small extent on account of exercitation.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod exercitari⁴ in observantia ipsorum Sacramentorum potest esse dupliciter: aut in solo exteriori ritu, et sic ad modicum valet; aut iuncta devotione mentis, et sic non est corporalis, sed quodam modo spiritualis, ac per hoc multum utilis.⁵.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that to be exercitated⁴ in the observance of the Sacraments themselves can be in a two fold manner: either in the exterior rite alone, and thus it has value to a small extent; or by the joined devotion of the mind, and thus it is not corporal, but in a certain manner spiritual, and through this (it is) useful for much [multum].⁵

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod duo sunt, in quibus consistunt Sacramenta, scilicet res et verba. Videtur enim, quod male dividat, quia omne verbum et res. — Item, videtur quod dividat insufficienter, quia Hugo⁶ dicit, quod consistunt in rebus, dictis et factis.

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says, that there are two, in which the Sacraments consists, that is things and words. For it seems, that he divides badly, because every word is a thing. — Likewise, it seems that he divides insufficiently, because Hugo (of St. Victor)⁶ says, that they consist in things, said and done.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod res arctatur hic ad visibilia, et Magister strictius accipit Sacramenta, quam Hugo: quia ille accipiebat, quamcumque institutionem honestatis in Dei Ecclesia Sacramentum esse, Magister vero strictius accipit.⁷

I RESPOND: It must be said, that things is constrained here to visibles. and Master (Peter) accepts "Sacraments" more strictly, than Hugo: because he accepted, whatever institution of honesty in the Church of God to be a Sacrament, but Master (Peter) accepts (it) more strictly.⁷

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quia promittebant et significabant tantum. Videtur enim male dicere: quia aut promittebant illis qui erant illius temporis, aut futuris. Futuris non, quia non promittit aliquis aliquid alicui, nisi ille sit. Si illis qui tunc erant; constat, quod ad Sacramenta novae legis illi non pervenerunt: ergo decepti erant in promissione.

Likewise is asked concerning this which (St.) Augustine says, that they promised and signified only. For he seems to speak badly: because either they used to promise to those who were of that time, or to those to come [futuris]. To those to come not (so), because someone does not promise something to someone, unless he is. If to those who were then; it is established, that those did not arrive at the Sacraments of the New Law: therefore they had been decieved in the promise.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod hic accipitur promissio non gratiae iustificantis, sed gloriae; et illa promittebant, sed non dabant, quia ianua nondum erat aperta; haec autem promittunt et dant, cum ianua sit aperta a Christo.⁸

I RESPOND: It must be said, that here it is not accepted as a promise of justifying grace, but of glory; and (this) those (of old) use to promise, but did not give, because the gate (of Heaven) was not yet opened; but these (of ours) do promise and give (this), since the gate (of Heaven) has been opened by Christ.⁸