TERTIO QUAERITUR, utrum requireretur virtus sacrificii in remedium originalis in adultis. Et quod sic, videtur:

THIRD THERE IS ASKED, whether there was required the virtue of sacrifice for the remedy of original (sin) in adults. And it seems, that (it is) so:

1. Per Gregoriam in littera,² qui dicit, quod maioribus necessaria erat non tantum fides, sed virtus sacrificii: ergo cum Gregorius loquatur praecise, determinat, quod est necessarium. Si dicas, quod loquitur sine praecisione, ut tangat, quid sit congruum; tunc nulla esset differentia, quia similiter congruebat, pro parvulis offerri sacrificium.

1. Through (St.) Gregory in the text,² who says, that for those older [maioribus] not only was faith necessary, but (also) the virtue of sacrifice: therefore since (St.) Gregory speaks precisely, he determines, that it is a necessary. If you say, that he speaks without precision, so that he indicates [tangat], what is congruous; then there would be no difference, because it was similarly congruous [congruebat], that sacrifice be offered on behalf of little ones.

2. Item, plus poterat adultus quam parvulus, et maius debitum peccati habebat: ergo et plus tenebatur facere quam parvulus.

2. Likewise, an adult could (do) more than a little one, and had a greater debt of sin: therefore he was bound also to do more than a little one.

CONTRA: 1. Tempore legis naturae non fuit praeceptum nisi naturale; sed Sacramenta non sunt naturalia, ut supra³ patuit: ergo nullum fuit ibi sub praecepto, nullum fuit ergo necessitatis: ergo sine sacrificio poterat esse salus adulto.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In the time of the law of Nature there was not but a natural precept; but the Sacraments are not natural, as was clear above³: therefore at that time [ibi] nothing was under precept, therefore there was nothing of necessity (to be done): therefore without sacrifice there could have been salvation for an adult.

2. Item, Hugo de Sacramentis⁴ dicit, quod remedium contra originale fuit decimatio; Gregorius dicit, quod sacrificium. Sed contra: unius generis morbi unum debet esse remedii genus.

2. Likewise, Hugo (of St. Victor) in On the Sacraments says,⁴ that the remedy against original (sin) was tithing [decimatio]; (St.) Gregory says, that (it was) sacrifice. But on the contrary: to one genus of disease [morbi] there ought to be one genus of remedy.

3. Item, morbus originalis peccati non iteratur,⁵ ergo debet habere remedium non iterabile; sed tam sacrificium quam decimatio sunt iterabilia: ergo non sunt convenientia remedia contra originale.

3. Likewise, the disease of original sin is not repeated [iteratur],⁵ therefore it ought ot have a non-repeatable [non iterabile] remedy; but both sacrifice and tithing are repeatable: therefore they are not convenient remedies against original (sin).

Item, quae erat ista virtus sacrificii? et videtur, quod nullius utilitatis,⁶ quia huiusmodi oblatio non erat praeceptum, quia bonum, quia tunc semper esset praeceptum: ergo erat bonum, quia praeceptum; sed non erat praeceptum: ergo non erat bonum. — Si tu dicas, quod valet ad fidem, quae erudiebatur in illo signo; contra: ibi fiebat oblatio et fumus materialis: ergo si credebat fumum acceptum a Deo, credebat, Deum odorare⁷ materialiter: ergo credebat, eum esse corporeum: ergo videtur, quod potius esset in nocumentum fidei. — Si dicas, quod valebat ad excitationem devotionis; contra omnis devotio, quae est contra pietatis opus, non potest esse accepta: unde dona iniquorum non probat Altissimus;⁸ sed ista erat contra pietatum, quia consumebat frustra quod erat utile pauperibus: ergo etc.

Likewise, what was that virtue of sacrifice? and it seems, that (it was) of no utility,⁶ because an oblation of that kind was not a precept, that (was) good, because then it would always be a precept: therefore it was good, because (it was) a precept; but it was not a precept: therefore it was not good. — If you say, that it prevailed for the faith, which was instructed [erudiebatur] in that sign; on the contrary: in that [ibi] there was an oblation and material smoke: therefore if one believed the smoke to have been accepted by God, one believed, that God smelled⁷ materially: therefore one believed, that He was corporeal: therefore it seems, that it was rather something injurious [in nocumentum] to the faith. — If you say, that it prevailed for the excitation of devotion; on the contrary: all devotion, which is a work contrary to piety, cannot be accepted: whence the gifts of the iniquitous the Most High does not approve;⁸ but that was against piety, because in vain was there consubmed what was useful to the poor: ergo etc..

RESPONDEO: Ad horum intelligentiam est praenotandum, quod sicut dicit magister Hugo,⁹ « in legi naturae tria fuerunt Sacramentorum genera, scilicet decimationes, oblationes et sacrificia ». Ad quorum notitiam tria sunt notanda: primo, quae sit ratio instituendi illa Sacramenta; secundo, quis modus; tertio, quae efficacia.

I RESPOND: For an understanding of these it must be noted beforehand, that just as master Hugo says,⁹ « in the law of Nature there were three genera of Sacraments, namely tithes, oblations and sacrifices ». To distinguish [ad notitiam] these, three (things) must be noted: first, what is the reason for instituting those Sacraments; second, what (is) the manner (in which they were instituted); third, what (is their) efficacy.

Prima ratio est Dei honorificatio. — Notandum ergo, quod fides in iustis omni tempore cucurrit, et nullus nisi in fide salvatus est. Tempore igitur legis naturalis haec fides erat, quae fideles illuminabat ad hoc, quod crederent, quod Deus erat creator, quod redemptor, quod remunerator.¹⁰ Ideo fides illuminabat, et dictamen naturae consonabat, ut homo Deo serviret, et sua ab ipso recognosceret, et hoc quod credebat, signo visibili etiam quodam modo manifestaret. Ideo signa fuerunt tempore legis naturae, in quibus Deus ut creator¹¹ honorabatur, qui omnia creaverat, ut in oblatione; similiter honorabatur ut redemptor, ut puta in sacrificio; ut perfectus remunerator, in decimationes. — Denarius enim est numerus perfectissimus, quia tres perfectiones habet in se: prima est unitas, secunda ternarii, tertia senarii, quae simul iuncta¹² faciunt denarium; et ideo ibi status est. Propter hoc honorabatur Deus ut perfectus remunerator. Unitas est enim perfecta, quia est omnis numeri perfectio;

The first reason is the honorification of God [Dei honorificatio]. — Therefore it must be noted, that faith in the just is concurrent at every time, and no one has been saved except in faith. Therefore in the time of the natural law there was a faith, which used to illuminate the faithful for this, that they would believe, that God was the Creator, that (He was) the Redeemer, that (He was) the Remunerator.¹⁰ For that reason faith illuminated, and the dictate of Nature sounded in harmony [consonabat], so that man might serve God, and recognize his own (faith) by this (service), and in a certain manner [quoddam modo] manifest this which he believed even by a visible sign. For that reason there were signs in the time of the law of Nature, in which God was honored as the Creator,¹¹ He who had created all (things), as (was done) in oblation; similarly He was honored as the Redeemer, as He was thought (to be) in sacrifice; as the perfect Remunerator, in tithes [decimationes]. — For a group of ten [denarius] is a most perfect number, because it has three perfections in itself: the first is a unity, the second a group of three [ternarii], third a group of six [senarii], which joined together¹² make a group of ten; and for that reason it was established at that time [ibi]. On account of this God was honored as the perfect Remunerator. For unity is perfect, because it is the perfection of every number;

ternarius, quia constat ex omnibus partibus suis, ex parte aliquota et non aliquota; senarius vero, quia constat ex omnibus partibus aliquotis.

a group of three (is perfect), because it stands together [constat] out of all its own parts, from (its) several and non-several part; a group of six, however, (is perfect), because it stands together out of all (its) several parts.

Secunda ratio est fidei Redemptoris professio. Sicut enim nullus sine fide potest Deo placere,¹ sic nullus sine fide Mediatoris a peccato resurgere; et sicut fides simpliciter dictabat Dei honorificationem, ita et hanc professionem. Et quia tunc profitetur homo, quando quod interius credit exterius manifestat; ideo tempore legis naturae fuerunt signa ad hoc² manifestandum et etiam ad manifestandum Redemptorem. In redemptione autem tria considerantur: redemptum, et hoc per decimationem — homo enim significatur per decimam drachmam perditam³ — ipse modus redimendi, et hoc per oblationem; ipsum pretium, et hoc per sacrificium, in quo erat sanguinis effusio. Et ista professio in huiusmodi signis maxime necessaria erat pro ipsis imperfectis; perfectis enim Deus revelavit Sacramenta fidei, imperfectis celavit. Unde minores adhaerebant fidei maiorum et credebant implicte; et sicut implicite credebant, sic signa data sunt eis a maioribus, in quibus fidem implicite profiterentur.⁴

The second reason is the profession of faith in the Redeemer. For just as no one without faith can please God,¹ in the same manner no one without faith in the Mediator (can) rise again from sin; and just as faith dictated simply the honorification of God, so also (does it) this profession. And because a man does professes then, when he manifests exteriorly what he believes interiorly; for that reason in the time of the law of Nature there were signs to manifest this² and also to manifest the Redeemer. In the redemption, moreover, there are three (things) to be considered: the redeemed, and this through tithing — for a man is signified through the lost, tenth drachma³ — the manner of redeeming itself, and this through oblation; the price itself, and this through a sacrifice, in which there was the effusion of blood. And that profession of theirs in signs of this kind was in the greatest manner necessary on behalf of the imperfect themselves; for to the perfect God has revealed the Sacraments of Faith, (but) to the imperfect He has veiled (them). Whence those younger used to adhere to the faith of those older and they believed implicitly; and just as they believed implicitly, in the same manner signs were given to them by those older, in which they professed the Faith implicitly.⁴

Tertia ratio est vitae agendae institutio. Sicut enim aliquis non poterat Deo placere sine fide nec a peccato resurgere sine fide Redemptoris, sic nec in bono stare sine bono opere; et ideo fidei adiecta sunt signa, quae significarent ea quae necessaria sunt cum fide.⁵ Haec autem sunt sex, quorum tria sunt in corde, et tria exterius; quae his signantur: in decimatione peccati recognitio et eius dimissio; quia in ea datur Deo quod perfectum et quod bonum est, et remanet nobis quod est imperfectum; unde significatur, quod bona tantum sunt a Deo, sed mala a nobis;⁶ rursus, in separatione decimae partis in partem Dei signatur recessus a peccato. — In sacrificio signatur interna contritio — sacrificium enim Deo spiritus contribulatus⁷ — et exterior carnis maceratio, quia occidebatur pecus; unde mortificanda sunt membra nostra, ad Romanos duodecimo: Exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam etc. — In oblatione, mentis devotio et exterior bona operatio, quae, si adsunt cum fide, sufficiunt ad salutem. — Sic igitur patet, quae sit ratio institutionis illorum, scilicet Dei honorificatio, fidei Redemptoris professio, vitae agendae instructio.⁸

The third reason is the institution of the life to be lived [vitae agendae institutio]. For just as anyone could not please God without faith nor rise up from sin without faith in the Redeemer, in the same manner neither (could he) stand in the good without good work; and for that reason there were added to faith signs, which would signify those things which are necessary with faith.⁵ These, moreover are six, of which three are in the heart, and three exterior; which are signed by these: in tithing the recognition of sin and its forgiveness [eius dimissio]; because in this there is given to God what is perfect and what is good, and there remains for us what is imperfect; whence there is signified, that good (things) are only from God, but evil ones from us;⁶ again, in the separation of the tenth part as God's part the retreat from sin [recessus a peccato] is signed. — In sacrifice internal contrition is signed — for sacrifice to God (is) a thoroughly troubled heart⁷ — and the exterior maceration of the flesh, because the livestock [pecus] was struck down; whence our members are to be mortified, (as is said in) the twelfth (chapter of the Letter) to the Romans: Exhibit [Exhibeatis] your bodies (as) a victim etc.. — In oblation, the devotion of the mind and exterior good working, which, if they are present with faith, do suffice for salvation. — Thus, therefore, it is clear, what is the reason for their institution, namely the honorification of God, the profession of faith in the Redeemer, the institution of the life to be lived.⁸

Secundo debet attendi modus instituendi; non enim instituta sunt per modum praecepti, ut dicit Hugo:⁹ « Primo parvulos consilio nutrivit », loquens pro illis qui fuerunt tempore legis naturae. — Et si quaeras: quomodo? dicendum, quod fides dictabat, ut visum est, et natura consonabat, et inspiratio auctoritatem dabat; et ideo per modum consilii data erant, et hoc per superiores, in quibus erat fides explicita.

Second the manner of instituting ought to be attended to; for they were not instituted through the manner of precept, as Hugo says:⁹ « First He nourished the little ones with counsel », speaking on behalf of those who were in the time of the law of Nature. — And if you ask: in what manner? it must be said, that faith used to dictate, as has been seen, and Nature sounded in harmony, and inspiration gave authority; and for that reason they were given through the manner of counsel, and this through the superiors, in whom faith was explicit.

Tertio attendenda est in his efficacia. Et notandum, quod de se nullam habebant efficaciam currandi vel iustificandi, sed solum ratione fidei Redemptoris; non enim erant instituta ad hoc,¹⁰ sed ad haec quae praedicta sunt. — Ex his patent obiecta.

Third the efficacy in this must be attended to. And it must be noted, that of themselves [de se] they had no efficacy for curing and/or for justifying, but only by reason of faith in the Redeemer; for they were not instituted for this,¹⁰ but for those (things) which have been aforesaid. — From these the (things) objected are clear.

1. Quod enim obiicit primo, quod non sunt de necessitate, concedendum est.

1. For that which first is objected, that they do not concern necessity, must be conceded.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hugone, quod remedium erat decimatio; dicendum, quod nec decimatio nec sacrificium erat per se remedium, sed tantum ratione fidei; et quia omnia illa tria erant signa redemptionis, ideo indeterminate fides cum quolibet istorum mundare poterat.

2. To that which is objected concerning Hugo, that tithing was a remedy; it must be said, that neither tithing nor sacrifice were a remedy per se, but only by reason of faith; and because all those three were signs of the redemption, for that reason faith could indeterminately cleanse with any of those.

3. Ex hoc etiam patet aliud de iteratione, quoniam ideo poterant iterari, quia non erant medicinae ex se impositae¹¹ contra morbum non iterabilem.

3. From this there is also clear another (point) concerning (their) repetition [iteratione], since for that reason they could be repeated, because they had not been imposed¹¹ out of themselves [ex se] as medicines against a non-repeatable, deadly disease [morbum non iterabilem].

Ad illud quod quaeritur de virtute sacrificii,

To that which is asked concerning the virtue of sacrifice,

dicendum, quod virtus sacrificii vel dicitur hic fides, quae faciebat sacrificium valere, vel dicitur interna mentis contritio, quae faciebat exterius sacrificium virtuosum; et quia adultis necessaria erat contritio propter actuale,¹ ideo Gregorius dicit, sacrificium curasse maiores.

it must be said, that the virtue of sacrifice means here the faith, which made sacrifice to have value [valere], and/or the internal contrition of the mind, which made exterior sacrifice virtuous; and because for adults contrition was necessary on accout of actual (sin),¹ for that reason (St.) Gregory says, that sacrifice cured those older.

Quod obiicitur, quod sacrificium erat via erroris; dicendum, quod verum est illis qui accipiebant ipsum ut rem, sed non his qui accipiebant ut signum; et quia fideles accipiebant ut signum, ideo eis non erat via erroris.

Because it is objected, that sacrifice was a way of error; it must be said, that it is true for those who used to accept it as a thing [rem], but not for these who used to accept it as a sign; and because the faithful used to accept it as a sign, for that reason for them it was not a way of error.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod erat contra pietatem; dicendum, quod non est verum, quia adeo abundabant animalia, et pauperes ita pauci erant, quod sufficiebant pietati quantum ad cultum Dei et quantum ad sustentiationem proximi.

To that which is objected, that (sacrifice) was contrary to piety; it must be said, that it is not true, because to that extent animals used to abound, and the poor were so few, that (the animals) sufficied for piety as much as regards the cult of God and as must as regards the sustenance of (one's) neighbor.