Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum ordinati debeant coronae rasuram deferre Whether those who are ordained ought to wear the tonsure? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ordinati non debeant coronae rasuram habere. Quia Dominus comminatur captivitatem et dispersionem his qui sic attonduntur: ut patet Deut. 32, de captivitate inimicorum denudati capitis; et Ierem. 49, dispergam in omnem ventum eos qui attonsi sunt in comam. Sed ministris Christi non debetur captivitas, sed libertas. Ergo coronae rasura et tonsura eis non competit. Objection 1: It would seem that those who are ordained ought not to wear the tonsure in the shape of a crown. For the Lord threatened captivity and dispersion to those who were shaven in this way in Deuteronomy 32:42: and of the captivity of the bare head of the enemies, and Jeremiah 49:32: I will scatter into every wind them that have their hair cut round. Now the ministers of Christ should not be captives, but free. Therefore, shaving and tonsure in the shape of a crown does not become them. Praeterea, veritas debet respondere figurae. Sed figura coronae praecessit in veteri lege in tonsura Nazaraeorum, sicut in littera dicitur. Ergo, cum Nazaraei non essent ordinati ad ministerium divinum, videtur quod ministris Ecclesiae non debeatur tonsura vel rasura coronae. Et hoc etiam videtur per hoc quod conversi, qui non sunt ministri Ecclesiae, tonduntur in religionibus. Obj. 2: Further, the truth should correspond to the figure. Now the crown-shaped tonsure was prefigured in the old law by the tonsure of the Nazarenes, as stated in the text (Sentences IV, D. 24). Therefore, since the Nazarenes were not ordained to the divine ministry, it would seem that the ministers of the Church should not receive the tonsure or shave the head in the form of a crown. The same would seem to follow from the fact that lay brothers, who are not ministers of the Church, receive a tonsure in the religious orders. Praeterea, per capillos superflua significantur: quia capilli ex superfluis generantur. Sed ministri altaris omnem superfluitatem a se debent expellere. Ergo totaliter debent caput radere, et non in modum coronae. Obj. 3: Further, the hair signifies superfluity, because it grows from that which is superfluous. But the ministers of the Church should cast off all superfluity. Therefore, they should shave the head completely and not in the shape of a crown. Sed contra: Quia, secundum Gregorium, servire Deo regnare est. Sed corona est signum regni. Ergo illis qui ad divinum ministerium applicantur, corona competit. On the contrary, According to Gregory, to serve God is to reign (Expositions of the Psalms 101.23). Now a crown is the sign of royalty. Therefore, a crown-shaped tonsure is becoming to those who are devoted to the divine ministry. Praeterea, capilli in velamen dati sunt: ut patet I Cor, 11. Sed ministri altaris debent habere mentem revelatam. Ergo competit eis rasura coronae. Further, According to 1 Corinthians 11:15, hair is given us for a covering. But the ministers of the altar should have the mind uncovered. Therefore, the tonsure is becoming to them. Respondeo dicendum quod eis qui ad divina ministeria applicantur competit rasura et tonsura in modum coronae, ratione figurae. Quia corona est signum regni et perfectionis: cum sit circularis. Illi autem qui divinis ministeriis applicantur, adipiscuntur regiam dignitatem, et perfecti in virtute esse debent. I answer that, It is becoming for those who apply themselves to the divine ministry to be shaven or tonsured in the form of a crown by reason of the figure. For a crown is the sign of royalty and of perfection, since it is circular; and those who are appointed to the divine service acquire a royal dignity and ought to be perfect in virtue. Competit etiam eis ratione subtractionis capillorum: et ex parte superiori per rasuram, ne mens eorum temporalibus occupationibus a contemplatione divinorum retardetur; et ex parte inferiori per tonsuram, ne eorum sensus temporalibus obvolvantur. It is also becoming to them as it involves the hair being taken both from the higher part of the head by shaving, lest their mind be hindered by temporal occupations from contemplating divine things, and from the lower part by clipping, lest their senses be entangled in temporal things. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dominus comminatur illis qui hoc ad cultum daemonum faciebant. Reply Obj. 1: The Lord threatens those who did this for the worship of demons. Ad secundum dicendum quod ea quae fiebant in veteri Testamento imperfecte repraesentant ea quae sunt in novo. Et ideo ea quae pertinent ad ministros novi Testamenti non solum significabantur per officia levitarum, sed per omnes illos qui aliquam perfectionem profitebantur. Nazaraei autem profitebantur perfectionem quandam in depositione comae, significantes temporalium contemptum. Quamvis non in modum coronae deponerent, sed omnino totum: quia nondum erat tempus regalis et perfecti sacerdotii. Reply Obj. 2: The things that were done in the Old Testament represent imperfectly the things of the New Testament. Hence things pertaining to the ministers of the New Testament were signified not only by the offices of the Levites, but also by all those persons who professed some degree of perfection. Now the Nazarenes professed a certain perfection by having their hair cut off, thus signifying their contempt of temporal things, although they did not have it cut in the shape of a crown, but cut it off completely, for as yet it was not the time of the royal and perfect priesthood. Et similiter etiam conversi tonduntur propter renuntiationem temporalium. Sed non raduntur: quia non occupantur divinis ministeriis, in quibus divina oporteat eos mente contemplari. In like manner, lay brothers have their hair cut because they renounce temporalities. but they do not shave the head because they are not occupied in the divine ministry, so as to have to contemplate divine things with the mind. Ad tertium dicendum quod non solum debet significari temporalium abiectio, sed etiam regalis dignitas in forma coronae. Et ideo non debet totaliter coma tolli. Et etiam ne indecens videatur. Reply Obj. 3: Not only the renunciation of temporalities, but also the royal dignity has to be signified by the form of a crown; wherefore the hair should not be cut off entirely. Also, this would be unbecoming. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum corona sit ordo Whether the tonsure is an order? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corona sit ordo. Quia in actibus Ecclesiae spiritualia corporalibus respondent. Sed corona est quoddam corporale signum quod Ecclesia adhibet. Ergo videtur quod significatum interius ei respondeat. Et ita in coronatione imprimetur character, et erit ordo. Objection 1: It would seem that the tonsure is an order. For in the acts of the Church the spiritual corresponds to the corporal. Now the tonsure is a corporal sign employed by the Church. Therefore, seemingly there is some interior signification corresponding thereto, so that a person receives a character when he receives the tonsure, and consequently the latter is an order. Praeterea, sicut ab episcopo solum datur confirmatio et alii ordines, ita et corona. Sed in confirmatione et aliis ordinibus imprimitur character. Ergo et in corona. Et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 2: Further, just as confirmation and the other orders are given by a bishop alone, so is the tonsure. Now a character is imprinted in confirmation, and the other orders. Therefore, one is imprinted likewise in receiving the tonsure. And thus as before. Praeterea, ordo importat quendam dignitatis gradum. Sed clericus, hoc ipso quod clericus est, in gradu supra populum constituitur. Ergo corona, per quam efficitur clericus, est aliquis ordo. Obj. 3: Further, ‘order’ denotes a degree of dignity. Now a cleric, by the very fact of being a cleric, is placed on a degree above the people. Therefore, the tonsure by which he is made a cleric is an order. Sed contra: Nullus ordo datur nisi in missae celebratione. Sed corona datur etiam absque officio missae. Ergo non est ordo. On the contrary, No order is given except during the celebration of Mass. But the tonsure is given even outside the office of the Mass. Therefore, it is not an order. Praeterea, in collatione cuiuslibet ordinis fit mentio de aliqua potestate data. Non autem in collatione coronae. Ergo non est ordo. Further, In the conferring of every order mention is made of some power granted, but not in the conferring of the tonsure. Therefore, it is not an order. Respondeo dicendum quod ministri Ecclesiae a populo separantur ad vacandum divino cultui. In cultu autem divino quaedam sunt quae per potentias determinatas sunt exercenda: et ad hoc datur spiritualis potestas ordinis. Quaedam autem sunt quae communiter a toto ministrorum collegio fiunt: sicut dicere divinas laudes. Et ad hoc non praeexigitur aliqua potestas ordinis, sed solum quaedam deputatio ad tale officium. Et hoc fit per coronam. Et ideo non est ordo, sed praeambulum ad ordinem. I answer that, The ministers of the Church are severed from the people in order that they may give themselves entirely to the divine worship. Now in the divine worship are certain actions that have to be exercised by virtue of certain definite powers, and for this purpose the spiritual power of order is given; while other actions are performed by the whole body of ministers in common, for instance, the recital of the divine praises. For such things it is not necessary to have the power of order, but only to be deputed to such an office; and this is done by the tonsure. Consequently, it is not an order but a preamble to orders. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corona habet interius aliquod spirituale quod ei respondet sicut signum significato. Sed haec non est aliqua spiritualis potestas. Et ideo in corona non imprimitur character, nec est ordo. Reply Obj. 1: The tonsure has some spiritual thing inwardly corresponding to it, like a sign signified, but this is not a spiritual power. Therefore, a character is not imprinted in the tonsure as in an order. Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis per coronam non imprimatur character, tamen deputatur homo ad divinum cultum. Et ideo talis deputatio debet fieri per summum ministrorum, scilicet per episcopum: qui etiam vestes benedicit et vasa et omnia quae ad divinum cultum applicantur. Reply Obj. 2: Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to the divine worship. Hence this appointment should be made by the supreme minister, namely the bishop, who moreover blesses the vestments and vessels and whatsoever else is employed in the divine worship. Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc quod aliquid est clericus, est in altiori statu quam laicus: non tamen habet ampliorem potestatis gradum, quod ad ordinem requiritur. Reply Obj. 3: A man through being a cleric is in a higher state than a layman; but as regards power he has not the higher degree that is required for holy orders. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum per acceptionem coronae aliquis renuntiet temporalibus bonis Whether by receiving the tonsure a man renounces temporal goods? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod per acceptionem coronae aliquis renuntiet temporalibus bonis. Ipsi enim dicunt, cum coronantur: Dominus pars hereditatis meae. Sed, sicut dicit Hieronymus, Dominus cum his temporalibus fieri dedignatur pars: ergo abrenuntiant temporalibus. Objection 1: It would seem that men renounce temporal goods by receiving the tonsure, for when they are tonsured they say, the Lord is the portion of my inheritance. But as Jerome says (Epistle to Nepotian), the Lord disdains to be made a portion together with these temporal things. Therefore, he renounces temporalities. Praeterea, iustitia ministrorum novi Testamenti debet abundare super ministros veteris testamenti: ut patet Matth. 5. Sed ministri veteris Testamenti, scilicet levitae, non acceperunt partem hereditatis cum fratribus suis. Ergo nec ministri novi Testamenti habere debent. Obj. 2: Further, the justice of the ministers of the New Testament ought to abound more than that of the ministers of the Old Testament (Matt 5:20). But the ministers of the Old Testament, namely the Levites, did not receive a portion of inheritance with their brethren (Deut 10; 18). Therefore, neither should the ministers of the New Testament. Praeterea, Hugo dicit quod postquam aliquis est factus clericus, deinceps debet stipendiis ecclesiae sustentari. Sed hoc non esset si patrimonium suum retineret. Ergo videtur quod abrenuntiet in hoc quod clericus fit. Obj. 3: Further, Hugh says (On the Sacraments 2) that after a man is made a cleric, he must from thenceforward live on the pay of the Church. But this would not be so were he to retain his patrimony. Therefore, he would seem to renounce it by becoming a cleric. Sed contra: Est quod Ieremias fuit de ordine sacerdotali: ut patet Ierem. 1. Sed ipse habuit possessionem ex hereditatis iure: ut patet Ierem. 32. Ergo clerici possunt habere patrimonialia bona. On the contrary, Jeremiah was of the priestly order (Jer 1:1). Yet he retained possession of his inheritance (Jer 32:8). Therefore, clerics can retain their patrimony. Praeterea, si hoc non possent, non videretur tunc differentia inter religiosos et clericos saeculares. Further, If this were not so there would seem to be no difference between religious and the secular clergy. Respondeo dicendum quod clerici, in hoc quod coronam accipiunt, non renuntiant patrimonio, nec aliis rebus temporalibus. Quia terrenorum possessio non contrariatur divino cultui, ad quem clerici deputantur, sed nimia eorum sollicitudo: quia, ut dicit Gregorius, affectus in crimine est. I answer that, Clerics by receiving the tonsure do not renounce their patrimony or other temporalities, since the possession of earthly things is not contrary to the divine worship to which clerics are appointed, although excessive care for such things is. For, as Gregory says, it is not wealth but the love of wealth that is sinful (Morals on Job 10.30). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dominus dedignatur pars fieri ut ex aequo cum aliis diligatur: ita scilicet quod aliquis ponat finem suum in Deo et in rebus mundi. Non tamen dedignatur fieri pars eorum qui res mundi ita possident quod per eas a cultu divino non retrahuntur. Reply Obj. 1: The Lord disdains to be a portion as being loved equally with other things, so that a man place his end in God and the things of the world. He does not, however, disdain to be the portion of those who so possess the things of the world as not to be withdrawn thereby from the divine worship. Ad secundum dicendum quod levitae in veteri Testamento habebant ius in hereditate paterna. Sed ideo non acceperunt partem cum aliis tribubus, quia erant per omnes tribus dispergendi: quod fieri non potuisset si unam determinatam partem cepissent, sicut aliae tribus. Reply Obj. 2: In the Old Testament the Levites had a right to their paternal inheritance; and the reason why they did not receive a portion with the other tribes was because they were scattered throughout all the tribes, which would have been impossible if, like the other tribes, they had received one fixed portion of the soil. Ad tertium dicendum quod, si sint indigentes clerici ad sacros ordines promoti, episcopus qui eos promovit tenetur eis providere: alias non tenetur. Ipsi autem ex ordine suscepto tenentur ecclesiae ministrare. Verbum autem Hugonis intelligitur de illis qui non habent unde sustententur. Reply Obj. 3: Clerics promoted to holy orders, if they are poor, must be provided for by the bishop who ordained them; otherwise, he is not so bound. And they are bound to minister to the Church in the order they have received. The words of Hugh refer to those who have no means of livelihood. Articulus 4 Article 4