In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE QUAESTIO DE SACRAMENTIS IN GENERE ATTRIBUTED TO ALEXANDER OF HALES Through the researches of Pelster followed by those of Henquinet 1 the present Quaestio de sacramentis in genere has long been known and attributed to Alexander of Hales. But recently, it has been listed among the one hundred and twenty (Cuestiones Alexandri antequam esset frater by Doucet in the Prolegomena.2 Our interest here lies only in offering a text edition of this question according to all the known manuscripts, viz. Paris Bibl. Nat. 16406, ff. 137a-139b; Todi Bibl. Commun. 121, ff. 183a-d; Bologna, Bibl. Univ. 2554, ff. 97a-98a; Bodleian Library Oxford 859, ff. 337d-339a. While we have not recorded every single variant (or curiosity), we have inserted all that is of any critical or doctrinal interest. From the critical point of view, of first importance is the verbal fidelity of the codices one to another. The only omissions are quite evidently homoeoteleuta, and mutilations of the text when they occur are quite evidently provoked by the wording of the author himself. The Paris ms. shows a preference for the impersonal formula Dicendum instead dico, and the conjunction vel instead of item. The text of the several mss., making allowance for the usual minor discrepancies, is clear and well written; nothing unintelligible or indiscipherable occurs as is sometimes the case in the mss. of the Commentary of Alexander. What offers special interest both from the critical and doctrinal viewpoint, is the great affinity of argument which the question bears both to the Quaestiones attributed to the Chancellor in the Codex Duacensis, and to the Commentary of Alexander himself. 3 The affinity between the Commentary of Alexander and this ques1 .F. Pelster, "Die Quastionen des Alexander von Hales," in Gregorianum 14 (1933) 601520 ; F. Henquinet, "De Centum et Septem quaestionibus halesianis cod. Tudertini 121," in Antonianum 13 (1938). 2.Prolegomena to the Summa Fratris Alexandri T. IV, Quaracchi (1948) 153-172, cf. p. 169. Here we find indicated the connection of the present question with the Questiones of Middleto? (viz. Vat. lat. 4245, f. 230d-231c) and the Quarta Pars of the Summa Fratis Alexandri (viz. q. 5, m. 4, a. 2 and m. 7. ed. Cologne (1622) pp. 99-104). 3.The references are given as they occur in the edited text74 KILiAN F. LYNCH, OJM.75 tion shines forth very brightly when each outlines the triplex similitude necessary to man raised to the supernatural order, and the part sacramental grace plays in the similitudo gratiae as it conforms us to Christ. As indicated by V. Doucet, the present question reappears at times verbatim in the Quaestiones de Sacramentis of William Middleton , and again in the Summa Fratris Alexandri (Quarta pars); 4 the main response of the question though has been omitted by William. While it not intended here to take any definite position on the attribution to Alexander, it may be remarked that as yet this does not seem to exceed probability. 5 The letters used to indicate the mss. are as follows: 0=Oxford, B=Bologna, P=Paris, T=Todi. 4. Cf. supra n. 2. 6. At a later date we hope to treat of this point briefly. 76 QUAESTIO DE SACRAMENTIS IN GENERE Quaestio a est de sacramentis in genere, b et c primo utrum sit sacramentum unum vel plura; secundo, si sint plura, utrum Septem , d vel utrum sint plura vel pauciora; et si septem sint, propter quam rationem sint e septem; et circa hoc quaeritur quae sit differentia inter gratiam secundum quod est in sacramento, et secundum quod est in virtutibus, donis et beatitudinibus; tertio quaeritur de comparatione sacramentorum f Novae Legis ad sacramenta Veteris Legis, et ad ea quae erant ante Veterem Legem. Quod unum sit sacramentum videtur, quia sacramentum Eucharistiae est in quo datur totus g Christus, in quo est plenitudo gratiae, quia idem est ibi res significata et contenta. Ergo est ibi gratia ad delendum actĂșale et originale peccatum h et omnem sequelam horum; ergo alia erunt superflua. Praeterea, ! ad idem, baptismus ex sua virtute delet originale et actĂșale, et poenam utriusque; si ergo sunt sacramenta ad reparationem vulnerum, vulnera autem j non sunt nisi...

pdf

Share