title: Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 887 -->

### Quaestio II. *De differentia secundum effectum, videlicet quod Lex vetus fuerit occidens, Lex nova sit vivificans.*

Secundo quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes effectum, videlicet quod Lex vetus erat lex occidens, Lex vero nova est lex vivificans, quam Magister ponit in littera[^1]; et hoc accipitur ex secundae ad Corinthios tertio, ubi dicit Apostolus: *Littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat;* et ex eo quod dicitur ad Romanos septimo, et ad Galatas secundo, et primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto: *Virtus peccati Lex.* Et ex pluribus aliis locis sumi potest ex verbis Apostoli.

**Sed contra** hanc differentiam obiicitur primo ratione primae partis:

1. Quia dicitur ad Romanos septimo[^2]: *Lex quidem sancta, et mandatum sanctum et iustum;* Glossa: « *Iustum, iustificans* »; sed nihil sanctum et iustum occidit: ergo Lex non occidit.

2. Item, cum dicitur Lex occidens, aut intelligitur de Lege servata, aut de Lege non servata[^3]. Si de Lege servata, constat, quod hoc est falsum. Si de Lege non servata; sed similiter Evangelium non observatum occidit, quia peccat qui non observat Legem evangelicam, sicut peccabat qui non observabat Legem scriptam: ergo Lex evangelica est lex occidens: ergo penes hoc non debet assignari differentia.

3. Item, si est Lex occidens, aut ergo per causam, aut per occasionem, aut per ostensionem. Si per causam[^4]; et quod est causa spiritualis occisionis est simpliciter malum: ergo Lex mala est: verum ergo dixit Manichaeus, quod Lex vetus fuit a malo deo. Si per occasionem[^5]: cum ergo frequenter homo sumit occasionem peccandi de virtutibus et bonis operibus, de quibus superbit; tunc ergo virtus et bona operatio debent dici occidere, quod omnino absurdum est. Si per ostensionem, quia ostendit peccati morbum[^6]: ergo cum Evangelium similiter ostendat peccati morbum, tunc Evangelium debet dici lex occidens: ergo penes hoc nulla est differentia.

Item, obiicitur contra secundam partem differentiae, qua dicitur, quod Evangelium est lex iustificans.

4. Lex enim consistit in doctrina[^7]; sed iustificatio consistit in gratia: ergo videtur, quod iustificatio nihil pertineat ad Legem evangelicam.

<!-- page 888 -->

5. Item, si Evangelium dicitur iustificare, aut sua instructione, aut sua observatione, aut alio modo. Sua instructione non; multi enim Evangelium audiunt et non iustificantur. *Non enim auditores Legis, sed factores iusti sunt apud Deum,* sicut dicitur ad Romanos secundo[^8]. Si sua observatione; sed similiter Lex vetus iustificabat, secundum quod dicitur Matthaei decimo nono: *Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata;* et Beda dicit, quod « iustitia Legis suo tempore custodita non solum temporalia, sed etiam aeterna bona conferebat ».

6. Item, Lex Evangelii consistit in praeceptis et consiliis; sed praecepta et consilia consistunt in operibus bonis, iustitia autem non causatur in nobis ex operibus bonis, immo magis e converso[^9]: non videtur ergo, quod effectus Legis evangelicae aliquo modo sit iustificatio.

> ### Conclusio.
> Lex nova iure dicitur vivificans, quia triplici modo iustificat; Lex vero vetus, secundum litteralem tantum sensum observata, dicitur occidens per occasionem, non per causam.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod multipliciter dicitur aliquid iustificare sive iustificans: uno modo *effective;* et sic solus Deus dicitur iustificare. Alio modo *formaliter;* et sic gratia dicitur iustificare, quae informat ipsam animam, expellendo obliquitatem culpae et dando rectitudinem iustitiae[^10]. Tertio modo dicitur aliquid iustificans non solum in *habitu,* verum etiam in *effectu;* et sic caritas iustificat, sive *fides, quae per caritatem operatur*[^11]. Quarto modo dicitur aliquid iustificans in ipsius iustitiae exercitatione et usu; et hoc modo mandata Dei, in quibus iustitia exercetur, iustificare dicuntur, quando modo debito observantur[^12].

His praesuppositis, intelligendum est, quod in Lege veteri tria erant consideranda, similiter et in Lege nova, videlicet moventia, et ista erant promissa; dirigentia, et ista erant praecepta; adiuvantia, et ista erant Sacramenta: quia, secundum quod dicit Hugo[^13], « Sacramenta sunt adiutoria, ut per praecepta veniatur ad promissa ». — Similiter haec tria sunt in Lege evangelica, sed differenter: quia in Lege nova secundum primam faciem ista omnia sunt spiritualia, quia promissa sunt aeterna, praecepta sunt spiritualia, et Sacramenta sanctificantia; et ita promissa excitant hominem ad amorem aeternorum, qui est amor caritatis; praecepta dirigunt sufficienter in via morum, docendo vitare omne peccatum; Sacramenta sanant animam a vulneribus peccatorum. Et sic Legi evangelicae competit iustificare secundum triplicem modum, videlicet formaliter ratione gratiae sacramentalis, et in effectu ratione amoris spiritualis, et in exercitio ratione multiplicis boni operis, ad quod dirigitur homo per consilia et praecepta[^14].

In Lege autem veteri erat aliter haec tria considerare: quoniam Lex vetus dupliciter potest observari et intelligi, videlicet secundum intellectum spiritualem; et sic quodam modo concordat cum Lege evangelica, et qui spiritualiter Legem observabant viri evangelici erant, quia Lex praegnans erat Evangelio[^15]. Alio modo potest observari secundum intellectum litteralem; et sic ab Evangelio distinguitur secundum tria praedicta, quia in Lege erant promissa temporalia et praecepta exterius regulantia et Sacramenta figuralia; et sic ratione promissorum non excitabatur homo ad amorem spiritualem, ratione praeceptorum non dirigebatur ad iustitiam interiorem, ratione Sacramentorum non adiuvabatur, ut posset faciliter Legem ipsam implere: et ideo deerat sibi iustificatio[^16]. Et quia erat ibi ostensio culpae, et non aderat adiutorium gratiae: dabatur per consequens occasio ipsi concupiscentiae, ut traheret ad mortem; et ideo Lex Moysaica secundum litteralem sensum dicitur lex occidens per occasionem, non per causam. Et hoc ipsum dicit textus

<!-- page 889 -->

ad Romanos septimo[^17]: *Peccatum per mandatum, occasione accepta, seduxit me et per illud occidit.* Ibi Glossa: « *Ex prohibitione namque, ubi caritas deficit, desiderium mali crescit, quo aucto, dulcius fit quod prohibetur, et ita peccatum fallit dulcedine falsa; et ita per mandatum occidit, quia reatus praevaricationis accessit. Gladio ergo, quem portabas, te inimicus occidit, armis tuis te interemit* ». Unde sicut, cum quis armatus portat cultellum, ut se defendat, per quem ab inimico occiditur, illa cultelli portatione dicitur occidi non per causam, sed per occasionem; sic intelligendum est in Lege. Et sic patet intellectus praedictae differentiae.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Lex sancta et mandatum sanctum et iustum, id est iustificans; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quia Lex iuncta est gratiae adiutrici; verum est etiam, quantum est *de se* et de principali intentione legislatoris; nihil tamen prohibet *ex accidenti* et *per occasionem* inducere oppositum: sicut cultellus secundum principalem intentionem ferentis est armatura defensionis, et tamen occasionaliter contingit, quod sit instrumentum occisionis ipsius portantis[^18].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum Lex occidat observata, vel non observata; dicendum, quod *non observata.* Et si obiiciat, quod similiter Evangelium non observatum occidit; dicendum, quod non est simile hinc et inde: quia Lex secum portat onus et non habet annexum adiutorium secundum suum *litteralem* sensum. Evangelium vero de se adiutorium habet ipsius gratiae; et ita non praebet mortis occasionem, quia gratia minuit concupiscentiam, quae suo vigore in servitutem peccati captivabat, secundum quod dicit Apostolus ad Romanos septimo[^19]: *Video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae, et captivantem me in servitutem peccati;* et post exclamat: *Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.*

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex non potest dici occidere per occasionem, quia tunc similiter bona opera et virtutes dicerentur occidere; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia bona opera, quantum est *de se,* non efferunt, sed potius humiliant et in gratia servant; Lex vero per se ipsam onerabat, et in hoc, quod manifestabat peccatum et non dabat gratiae adiutorium, occasionem dabat intensionis libidinis et aggravationis contemptus. Unde quod dicatur esse occasio peccati, hoc non solum est ratione *positionis,* sed etiam ratione *defectus.* — Et si tu obiicias, quod qualitercumque occideret, non debebat[^20] Dominus dare Legem, cum quaerat nostram salutem; dicendum, quod Dominus in latione Legis, etsi daret eam carnalibus ad confringendam eorum duritiam, ut quodam modo manuducerentur ad gratiam recognoscendo infirmitatem suam[^21], principaliter tamen dabat eam propter *spiritualiter intelligentes,* qui salvabantur et merebantur in ipsius Legis observatione. Deus enim praeponderat salvationem unius iusti damnationi multorum impiorum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cum Lex Evangelii spectet ad doctrinam, non iustificabat[^22]; dicendum, quod Lex Evangelii non dicitur iustificare, prout legitur et cognoscitur, sed prout in opere servatur et secundum eam vivitur; hoc autem fit per Sacramentorum susceptionem, aeternorum exspectationem et mandatorum impletionem; et secundum hoc assequitur plenam iustificationem. Et ideo ratio illa non valet.

5. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod sicut Lex evangelica observata iustificat, ita Lex Moysaica, sicut dicit Beda; dicendum, quod Beda intelligit non de observantia *litterali,* sed de observantia *spirituali,* secundum quam Lex conformis erat Evangelio. Nos autem dicimus, Legem occidentem esse secundum observantiam litteralem, quae respiciebat ipsam communitatem, sicut praedictum est.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex evangelica attenditur in praeceptis, quae respiciunt opera; dicendum, quod non tantummodo Lex Evangelii claudit in se praecepta, immo claudit in se promissa et Sacramenta, et magis dicitur iustificare ratione Sacramentorum quam ratione praeceptorum. Nihilominus tamen ratione praeceptorum potest dici

<!-- page 890 -->

iustificare quarto modo iustificandi, videlicet quantum ad exercitationem et usum iustitiae, non autem quantum ad iustitiae infusionem. — Et sic patet, quomodo intelligenda est ista differentia, quod Lex Moysaica est occidens, et Lex evangelica est vivificans; patet etiam, qualiter haec dicitur[^23] iustificare, et illa occidere.

---

english:
<!-- page 887 -->

### Question II. *On the difference with respect to the effect, namely that the old Law was killing, the new Law is life-giving.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the difference that is assigned with respect to the effect, namely that the old Law was a killing law, but the new Law is a life-giving law, which the Master sets down in the text[^1]; and this is taken from the second [Letter] to the Corinthians, chapter three, where the Apostle says: *The letter kills, but the spirit gives life;* and from what is said to the Romans, chapter seven, and to the Galatians, chapter two, and in the first [Letter] to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen: *The strength of sin is the Law.* And from many other passages it can be gathered from the words of the Apostle.

**On the contrary,** objection is raised first against the first part, by reason [of it]:

1. For it is said to the Romans, chapter seven[^2]: *The Law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just;* the Gloss: « *Just,* that is, *justifying* »; but nothing holy and just kills: therefore the Law does not kill.

2. Likewise, when "killing Law" is said, it is understood either of the Law observed, or of the Law not observed[^3]. If of the Law observed, it is established that this is false. If of the Law not observed; but likewise the Gospel not observed kills, because he sins who does not observe the evangelical Law, just as he sinned who did not observe the written Law: therefore the evangelical Law is a killing law: therefore with respect to this no difference ought to be assigned.

3. Likewise, if it is a killing Law, then it is so either through cause, or through occasion, or through manifestation. If through cause[^4]; and that which is the cause of spiritual killing is simply evil: therefore the Law is evil: therefore the Manichaean spoke truly, that the old Law was from an evil god. If through occasion[^5]: since, then, a man frequently takes occasion for sinning from the virtues and good works in which he prides himself; then virtue and good action ought to be said to kill, which is altogether absurd. If through manifestation, because it manifests the disease of sin[^6]: therefore, since the Gospel likewise manifests the disease of sin, then the Gospel ought to be called a killing law: therefore with respect to this there is no difference.

Likewise, objection is raised against the second part of the difference, by which it is said that the Gospel is a justifying law.

4. For the Law consists in doctrine[^7]; but justification consists in grace: therefore it seems that justification does not pertain at all to the evangelical Law.

<!-- page 888 -->

5. Likewise, if the Gospel is said to justify, [it does so] either by its instruction, or by its observance, or in some other way. Not by its instruction; for many hear the Gospel and are not justified. *For not the hearers of the Law, but the doers are just before God,* as is said to the Romans, chapter two[^8]. If by its observance; but likewise the old Law justified, according to what is said in Matthew, chapter nineteen: *If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments;* and Bede says that « the justice of the Law, kept in its own time, conferred not only temporal but also eternal goods ».

6. Likewise, the Law of the Gospel consists in precepts and counsels; but precepts and counsels consist in good works, while justice is not caused in us out of good works, but rather the contrary[^9]: it does not seem, therefore, that the effect of the evangelical Law is in any way justification.

> ### Conclusion.
> The new Law is rightly called life-giving, because it justifies in a threefold manner; but the old Law, observed only according to the literal sense, is called killing through occasion, not through cause.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that a thing is said to justify or to be justifying in many senses: in one sense *effectively;* and thus God alone is said to justify. In another sense *formally;* and thus grace is said to justify, which informs the soul itself, expelling the obliquity of fault and giving the rectitude of justice[^10]. In a third sense a thing is said to be justifying not only in *habit,* but also in *effect;* and thus charity justifies, or *faith, which works through charity*[^11]. In a fourth sense a thing is said to be justifying in the exercise and use of justice itself; and in this manner the commandments of God, in which justice is exercised, are said to justify, when they are observed in the due manner[^12].

These things being presupposed, it must be understood that in the old Law three things were to be considered, and likewise in the new Law: namely, things that move, and these were the promises; things that direct, and these were the precepts; things that help, and these were the Sacraments: because, as Hugh says[^13], « The Sacraments are aids, so that through the precepts one may come to the promises ». — Likewise these three are in the evangelical Law, but differently: because in the new Law, at its first appearance, all these are spiritual, since the promises are eternal, the precepts are spiritual, and the Sacraments sanctifying; and so the promises rouse a man to the love of eternal things, which is the love of charity; the precepts direct him sufficiently in the way of morals, by teaching [him] to avoid every sin; the Sacraments heal the soul from the wounds of sins. And thus it belongs to the evangelical Law to justify according to the threefold manner, namely formally by reason of sacramental grace, and in effect by reason of spiritual love, and in exercise by reason of manifold good work, to which a man is directed through the counsels and precepts[^14].

But in the old Law these three were to be considered otherwise: for the old Law can be observed and understood in two ways, namely according to the spiritual understanding; and thus in a certain manner it agrees with the evangelical Law, and those who observed the Law spiritually were evangelical men, because the Law was pregnant with the Gospel[^15]. In another way it can be observed according to the literal understanding; and thus it is distinguished from the Gospel according to the three aforesaid things, because in the Law there were temporal promises and precepts regulating outwardly and figural Sacraments; and so by reason of the promises a man was not roused to spiritual love, by reason of the precepts he was not directed to interior justice, by reason of the Sacraments he was not helped to be able more easily to fulfill the Law itself: and therefore justification was lacking to him[^16]. And because there was there a manifesting of fault, and the help of grace was not present: occasion was consequently given to concupiscence itself, that it might draw [one] to death; and therefore the Mosaic Law, according to the literal sense, is called a killing law through occasion, not through cause. And this very thing the text says

<!-- page 889 -->

to the Romans, chapter seven[^17]: *Sin, taking occasion through the commandment, seduced me and through it killed [me].* There the Gloss: « *For from the prohibition, where charity is lacking, the desire of evil grows, and when this has grown, what is prohibited becomes sweeter, and so sin deceives with a false sweetness; and so through the commandment it kills, because the guilt of transgression has been added. With the sword, then, which you carried, the enemy killed you, with your own arms he slew you* ». Hence, just as, when an armed man carries a knife to defend himself, by which he is killed by the enemy, by that carrying of the knife he is said to be killed not through cause, but through occasion; so it is to be understood in the Law. And thus the meaning of the aforesaid difference is clear.

1. To that which is objected, that the Law is holy and the commandment holy and just, that is, justifying; it must be said that this is true, because the Law is joined to assisting grace; it is also true, as far as concerns *itself* and the principal intention of the lawgiver; nevertheless nothing prevents [it] from inducing the opposite *accidentally* and *through occasion:* just as the knife, according to the principal intention of the one carrying it, is an armament of defense, and yet it happens occasionally that it is an instrument of killing the very one who carries it[^18].

2. To that which is objected, whether the Law kills [when] observed, or not observed; it must be said, [when] *not observed.* And if one should object that likewise the Gospel not observed kills; it must be said that the case is not alike on both sides: because the Law carries with itself a burden and does not have help annexed according to its *literal* sense. But the Gospel of itself has the help of grace itself; and so it does not afford occasion of death, because grace diminishes concupiscence, which by its force was holding [men] captive in the servitude of sin, according to what the Apostle says to the Romans, chapter seven[^19]: *I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind, and holding me captive in the servitude of sin;* and afterward he exclaims: *Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.*

3. To that which is objected, that the Law cannot be said to kill through occasion, because then likewise good works and virtues would be said to kill; it must be said that the case is not alike: because good works, as far as concerns *themselves,* do not puff up, but rather humble and keep [one] in grace; the Law, however, of itself burdened, and in this, that it manifested sin and did not give the help of grace, it gave occasion for the intensification of lust and the aggravation of contempt. Hence that it is said to be an occasion of sin, this is not only by reason of *positing,* but also by reason of *defect.* — And if you object that, in whatever way it would kill, the Lord ought not[^20] to have given the Law, since He seeks our salvation; it must be said that the Lord, in the giving of the Law, even though He gave it to carnal [men] for breaking down their hardness, that they might in a certain way be led by the hand to grace by recognizing their own weakness[^21], nevertheless principally gave it for the sake of those *understanding spiritually,* who were saved and merited in the observance of the Law itself. For God outweighs the salvation of one just man against the damnation of many wicked.

4. To that which is objected, that since the Law of the Gospel pertains to doctrine, it did not justify[^22]; it must be said that the Law of the Gospel is not said to justify, as it is read and known, but as it is kept in work and lived according to; and this comes about through the reception of the Sacraments, the expectation of eternal things, and the fulfillment of the commandments; and according to this it attains full justification. And therefore that argument has no force.

5. To that which is objected, that just as the evangelical Law observed justifies, so [does] the Mosaic Law, as Bede says; it must be said that Bede understands [it] not of *literal* observance, but of *spiritual* observance, according to which the Law was conformed to the Gospel. But we say that the Law is killing according to literal observance, which regarded the community itself, as has been said.

6. To that which is objected, that the evangelical Law is attended to in precepts, which regard works; it must be said that the Law of the Gospel does not only enclose in itself precepts, but rather encloses in itself promises and Sacraments, and is more said to justify by reason of the Sacraments than by reason of the precepts. Nevertheless it can still be said, by reason of the precepts, to

<!-- page 890 -->

justify in the fourth manner of justifying, namely as to the exercise and use of justice, but not as to the infusion of justice. — And thus it is clear how this difference is to be understood, that the Mosaic Law is killing, and the evangelical Law is life-giving; it is also clear how the latter is said[^23] to justify, and the former to kill.

---

la: Hic c. 2. — Primus textus Scripturae est II. Cor. 3, 6. secundus Rom. 7, 6: *Nunc autem soluti sumus a Lege mortis* etc. Tertius est Gal. 2, 16. seqq.: *Scientes autem, quod non iustificatur homo ex operibus Legis* etc. Quartus est I. Cor. 15, 56: *Virtus vero peccati Lex.* Cfr. Rom. 7, 11: *Nam peccatum, occasione accepta per mandatum, seduxit me, et per illud occidit.* Ibid. 8, 2: *Lex enim spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a Lege peccati et mortis.* — Mox pro *et hoc* edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *et haec.*

en: Here, chapter 2. — The first scriptural text is II Cor. 3:6, the second Rom. 7:6: *But now we are loosed from the law of death,* etc. The third is Gal. 2:16ff.: *But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the Law,* etc. The fourth is I Cor. 15:56: *But the strength of sin is the Law.* Cf. Rom. 7:11: *For sin, taking occasion through the commandment, seduced me, and through it killed [me].* Ibid. 8:2: *For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death.* — Further on, for *et hoc* the editions, with one or two codices, read *et haec.*

la: Vers. 12. — *Glossa,* quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, integre sic sonat: *Sanctum,* in se; *et iustum,* id est iustificans peccatorem; *et bonum,* id est utile, acquirens vitam. Cfr. Haymo, in hunc locum: *Lex sancta, iusta et bona est; quia sanctitatem, iustitiam, bonitatem praedicat et observatores suos sanctos, iustos et bonos facit.*

en: Verse 12. — The *Gloss,* which is the *ordinary* one in Strabus and Lyra, runs in full thus: *Holy,* in itself; *and just,* that is, justifying the sinner; *and good,* that is, useful, acquiring life. Cf. Haymo, on this passage: *The Law is holy, just, and good; because it proclaims holiness, justice, goodness, and makes its observers holy, just, and good.*

la: Codd. K L *Lege observata... non observata.*

en: Codices K L: *of the Law observed... not observed.*

la: Petr. Lombard. super illud Rom. 7, 6: *Nunc autem soluti sumus a Lege mortis,* refert hanc Glossam: *Nunc autem, cum sumus Christi, soluti sumus, remissis peccatis, a Lege quae est causa mortis, id est peccati. Aucta est enim concupiscentia* [secundum August., 83 Qq. q. 66. n. 2.], *cum Lex prohiberet, ubi non erat fides* etc. — De opinione Manichaeorum cfr. supra pag. 867, nota 11. — Pro *et quod* cod. K *sed quod.*

en: Peter Lombard, on Rom. 7:6, *But now we are loosed from the law of death,* cites this Gloss: *But now, since we are Christ's, we are loosed, our sins remitted, from the law which is the cause of death, that is, of sin. For concupiscence was increased* [according to Augustine, 83 Questions, q. 66, n. 2], *when the Law prohibited, where there was no faith,* etc. — On the opinion of the Manichaeans, cf. above, p. 867, note 11. — For *et quod,* codex K reads *sed quod.*

la: Rom. 7, 11: *Nam peccatum, occasione accepta per mandatum* etc. Cfr. ibid. v. 8.

en: Rom. 7:11: *For sin, taking occasion through the commandment,* etc. Cf. ibid., v. 8.

la: Rom. 7, 7: *Sed peccatum non cognovi nisi per Legem* etc. Cfr. ibid. 3, 20, et August., *de Spiritu et lit.* c. 3. n. 8. — Inferius pro *debet dici* cod. A *dicitur.*

en: Rom. 7:7: *But I did not know sin except through the Law,* etc. Cf. ibid. 3:20, and Augustine, *On the Spirit and the Letter,* c. 3, n. 8. — Below, for *debet dici,* codex A reads *dicitur.*

la: Rom. 15, 4: *Quaecumque enim scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt.* — Superius pro *iustificans* codd. A N *obficans,* cod. F *iustificans vel vivificans.*

en: Rom. 15:4: *For whatever things have been written, have been written for our instruction.* — Above, for *iustificans,* codices A N read *obficans,* codex F *iustificans or vivificans.*

la: Vers. 13. — Seq. textus est Matth. 19, 17. — Verba Bedae, in Marc. 10, 18, sunt: *Notandum sane, quod iustitia... non solum bona terrae, verum etiam suis cultoribus vitam conferebat aeternam.*

en: Verse 13. — The following text is Matt. 19:17. — The words of Bede, on Mark 10:18, are: *It must indeed be noted that the justice [of the Law]... conferred not only the goods of the earth, but even eternal life upon its cultivators.*

la: Cfr. Rom. 3, 24. seqq. et 4, 2. seqq. Petr. Lombard., in Rom. 3, 27. seq.: *Non enim ex ipsis* [operibus] *est iustitia, sed ipsa sunt ex iustitia; ideoque non iustitiam operum, sed opera iustitiae dicimus.* Vide etiam supra pag. 388, nota 2. — In fine arg. pro *iustificatio* cod. Z *iustificare.*

en: Cf. Rom. 3:24ff. and 4:2ff. Peter Lombard, on Rom. 3:27f.: *For justice is not from those* [works], *but they are from justice; and so we speak not of the justice of works, but of the works of justice.* See also above, p. 388, note 2. — At the end of the argument, for *iustificatio,* codex Z reads *iustificare.*

la: Hunc duplicem modum iustificationis insinuat August., *Epist.* 185. (alias 50.) c. 9. n. 37: *Iustus enim et iustificans non est nisi Deus.* Et ibid. n. 40: *Dominus itaque Christus et iustus est et iustificans; nos autem iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2.

en: This twofold manner of justification Augustine suggests, *Letter* 185 (otherwise 50), c. 9, n. 37: *For none is just and justifying except God.* And ibid., n. 40: *And so the Lord Christ both is just and is justifying; but we are justified freely by His grace.* Cf. II Sent., d. 26, q. 2.

la: Gal. 5, 6. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 3. seq.

en: Gal. 5:6. See above the text of the Master, d. XXIII, c. 3f.

la: August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 118. serm. 6. n. 1: *Iustificationes enim sunt non dicta, sed facta iustitiae, opera scilicet iustorum, quae imperat Deus. Ideo autem Dei dicuntur, quamvis a nobis fiant, quia, nisi ipso donante, non fiunt.* — Superius pro *exercitatione* (cfr. Ps. 118, 23: *Servus autem tuus exercebatur in iustificationibus tuis*) cod. A *exsecutione.* Inferius pro *erant consideranda* edd. *sunt consideranda.*

en: Augustine, *Expositions of the Psalms,* Ps. 118, sermon 6, n. 1: *For the justifications are not the sayings, but the doings of justice, namely the works of the just, which God commands. And they are called God's, although they are done by us, because, unless He gives [it], they are not done.* — Above, for *exercitatione* (cf. Ps. 118:23: *But your servant was exercised in your justifications*), codex A reads *exsecutione.* Below, for *erant consideranda,* the editions read *sunt consideranda.*

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 4.

en: *On the Sacraments,* Book I, part XII, c. 4.

la: August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 129, 1. n. 3: *Illa* [Lex vetus] *timoris fuit, est alia lex caritatis. Lex caritatis dat veniam peccatis, delet praeterita, admonet de futuris, in via non deserit comitem, comes fit ei quem ducit in via.* — Aliquanto superius pro *sanant animam* cod. aa *sanant hominem.*

en: Augustine, *Expositions of the Psalms,* Ps. 129, [sermon] 1, n. 3: *That [old Law] was of fear, there is another law of charity. The law of charity gives pardon for sins, blots out the past, admonishes concerning the future, does not desert its companion on the way, becomes a companion to him whom it leads on the way.* — Somewhat above, for *sanant animam,* codex aa reads *sanant hominem* ["heal the man"].

la: August., *Serm.* 25. (alias 19. de Diversis) c. 2. n. 2: *Spiritualiter intellecta* [Lex vetus], *Evangelium est.* Et *Serm.* 130. n. 1: *Lex vetus hordeum est ad evangelicum triticum. Magna in illis libris de Christo mysteria continentur. Unde ait ipse: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit* (Ioan. 5, 46.). *Sed quomodo in hordeo medulla sub palea latet, sic in velamento mysteriorum Legis latet Christus.* Cfr. XV. contra Faustum, c. 2.

en: Augustine, *Sermon* 25 (otherwise 19, *On Various Matters*), c. 2, n. 2: *Understood spiritually, [the old Law] is the Gospel.* And *Sermon* 130, n. 1: *The old Law is the barley for the evangelical wheat. Great mysteries concerning Christ are contained in those books. Hence He Himself says: If you believed Moses, you would also believe me; for he wrote of me* (John 5:46). *But just as in barley the pith lies hidden beneath the husk, so in the veil of the mysteries of the Law Christ lies hidden.* Cf. *Against Faustus* XV, c. 2.

la: Cfr. August., *de Spiritu et lit.* c. 4. n. 6. seqq., et Isidor., II. *Differentiar.* c. 33. n. 123. seqq. — Pro *faciliter* cod. Z *facilius.*

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Spirit and the Letter,* c. 4, n. 6ff., and Isidore, *Differences,* Book II, c. 33, n. 123ff. — For *faciliter,* codex Z reads *facilius.*

la: Vers. 11. — *Glossa,* quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, delibata est, ultima propositione excepta, ex August., I. *de Diversis Quaest. ad Simplic.* q. 1. n. 5. Cfr. 83 Qq. q. 66. n. 5, et *Expos. proposit. ex Epist. ad Rom.* n. 39. — Pro *accessit* codd. G K Y *accrescit.*

en: Verse 11. — The *Gloss,* which is the *ordinary* one in Strabus and Lyra, is excerpted, except for the last proposition, from Augustine, *On Various Questions to Simplician,* Book I, q. 1, n. 5. Cf. 83 Questions, q. 66, n. 5, and *Exposition of Propositions from the Letter to the Romans,* n. 39. — For *accessit,* codices G K Y read *accrescit.*

la: Hieron., *Epist.* 121. (alias 151.) c. 8: *Quomodo medicina non est causa mortis, si ostendat venena mortifera, licet his mali homines abutantur ad mortem, et vel se interficiant, vel insidientur inimicis; sic Lex data est, ut peccatorum venena monstret... Quodsi subintrante Lege... vitio nostro et incontinentia feramur contra scita legalia, videtur Lex causa esse peccati, quae, dum prohibet concupiscentiam, quodam modo eam inflammare cognoscitur* etc. Cfr. August., XV. contra Faustum, c. 8, et XIX. c. 7. — Circa initium solut. pro *quia Lex* codd. H Z bb planius *quando Lex.*

en: Jerome, *Letter* 121 (otherwise 151), c. 8: *Just as medicine is not the cause of death if it points out deadly poisons, although evil men misuse them to death, and either kill themselves or lie in wait for enemies; so the Law was given, that it might show the poisons of sins... But if, the Law having entered in... we are carried by our own vice and incontinence against the legal decrees, the Law seems to be the cause of sin, which, while it prohibits concupiscence, is in a certain manner known to inflame it,* etc. Cf. Augustine, *Against Faustus* XV, c. 8, and XIX, c. 7. — Near the beginning of the solution, for *quia Lex,* codices H Z bb read more plainly *quando Lex.*

la: Vers. 23, ubi Vulgata *in lege peccati* pro *in servitutem peccati.* — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 24. seq. — Isidor., II. *Differ.* c. 33. n. 123: *Inter Legem et Evangelium hoc interest, quod in Lege littera est, in Evangelio gratia.* Et ibid. n. 128: *Nam praecepta legalia, quae illi populo data sunt, comparatione meliorum etiam non bona dicuntur, quia quae praecipiunt non perficiunt; gratia vero Evangelii quod exterius imperat interius ut perficiatur iuvat.* Ezechielis etiam testimonio (20, 25.) dicitur: *Dedi eis praecepta non bona.*

en: Verse 23, where the Vulgate has *in the law of sin* for *in the servitude of sin.* — The following text is ibid., v. 24f. — Isidore, *Differences* II, c. 33, n. 123: *Between the Law and the Gospel this difference exists, that in the Law there is the letter, in the Gospel grace.* And ibid., n. 128: *For the legal precepts, which were given to that people, are by comparison with better ones even called not good, because what they command they do not bring to completion; but the grace of the Gospel helps that what it commands outwardly may be perfected inwardly.* By the testimony of Ezekiel also (20:25) it is said: *I gave them precepts that were not good.*

la: Edd. *debet.* Inferius pro *servant* cod. A *conservant.*

en: The editions [read] *debet.* Below, for *servant,* codex A reads *conservant.*

la: Quam rationem insinuat August., *Epist.* 145. (alias 144.) n. 3; *Epist.* 196. (alias 200.) c. 2. n. 5. seq., et *de Spiritu et lit.* c. 9. n. 15. — Superius pro *confringendam* edd. cum pluribus codd. *constringendam,* cod. V *conscindendam.* Subinde pro *duritiam,* ut edd. A *malitiam duritiae* et. Inferius pro qui *salvabantur et merebantur* cod. U *qui salvarentur et mererentur.* In fine solut. pro *impiorum* cod. K *peccatorum.*

en: This reasoning Augustine suggests, *Letter* 145 (otherwise 144), n. 3; *Letter* 196 (otherwise 200), c. 2, n. 5f., and *On the Spirit and the Letter,* c. 9, n. 15. — Above, for *confringendam,* the editions with several codices [read] *constringendam,* codex V *conscindendam.* Then, for *duritiam,* as the editions A [read] *malitiam duritiae,* etc. Below, for *qui salvabantur et merebantur,* codex U [reads] *qui salvarentur et mererentur.* At the end of the solution, for *impiorum,* codex K [reads] *peccatorum.*

la: Edd. *quod ideo non iustificet.* Inferius pro *servatur* cod. A *observatur.*

en: The editions [read] *quod ideo non iustificet* ["that therefore it does not justify"]. Below, for *servatur,* codex A reads *observatur.*

la: Cod. U *dicatur.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Codex U [reads] *dicatur.* — See the scholion to the preceding question. [I.e. the article-master scholion of QUAESTIO I, whose §III prospectively surveys this question *penes effectum* — the killing Law «*non quidem effective, sed occasionaliter ex sua imperfectione*».]

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 61526–61718. Fresh literal English. Pages 887–890 (PDF 909–912; offset pdf = printed + 22). FOURTH chunk of d.40, the LAST distinction of Vol III (Book III); ARTICULUS UNICUS, QUAESTIO II.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** Body opener *Secundo quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes effectum, videlicet quod Lex vetus erat lex occidens, Lex vero nova est lex vivificans* = the TRACTATIO's SECOND question (*penes effectum* / the effect — killing Law vs life-giving Law). Bound forward at QUAESTIO III (raw 61719, *De differentia… quantum ad onus annexum*).

**Page span / column reading.** QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.887 (its header and body opener sit below the q1 SCHOLION §II–§IV note-band that occupies the upper portion of p.887), and runs p.887 → 888 → 889 → 890. On p.890 q2 occupies only the top three lines of each column, ending at *…patet etiam, qualiter haec dicitur iustificare, et illa occidere* (footnote n.1); QUAESTIO III's header follows immediately below.

**Apparatus — per-page restart, renumbered CONTINUOUS [^1]–[^23] (single sequence, no [^Nb] suffixes):**
- **p.887 nn.1–7 → [^1]–[^7]** (n.1 = the Magister/II Cor./Rom./Gal./I Cor. opener; nn.2–6 = videtur args 1–3 + the Manichaean/occasionem/ostensionem markers; n.7 = arg.4 *in doctrina* Rom.15,4)
- **p.888 nn.1–9 → [^8]–[^16]** (n.1=[^8] arg.5 Rom.2; n.2=[^9] arg.6 Rom.3; nn.3–5=[^10]–[^12] Respondeo four-modes; nn.6–9=[^13]–[^16] Hugo/three-things, Aug. Ps.129/Serm.25/130, *de Spiritu et lit.*/Isidore)
- **p.889 nn.1–6 → [^17]–[^22]** (n.1=[^17] textus Rom.7,11 Glossa; n.2=[^18] Ad-1 Hieron.; n.3=[^19] Ad-2 Rom.7,23/Isidore; n.4=[^20] Ad-3 *debet*; n.5=[^21] Ad-3 tail Aug. *Epist.*145/196; n.6=[^22] Ad-4 *quod ideo non iustificet*)
- **p.890 n.1 → [^23]** *Cod. U dicatur — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (q2's closing footnote; the rest of p.890's footers, nn.2–7, are QUAESTIO III's = EXCLUDED).

**Marker pairing — 23/23** (build-verified): [^1]–[^23], each present once in the Latin body, once in the English body, once in the apparatus. Continuous single sequence.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **PICKED UP ← d40-a1-q1: NOTHING.** a1-q1's band closed at p.886 n.8 (its [^23], *Rom.5,20*). The p.887 upper note-band holds a1-q1's SCHOLION §II–§IV (prose carried over the QUAESTIO II body), NOT q2 footnotes. QUAESTIO II walks its own fresh per-page band from p.887 n.1.
- **d40-a1-q2 → d40-a1-q3: NOTHING forwarded.** q2's band closes at p.890 n.1 ([^23]). QUAESTIO III opens lower on p.890 with a fresh per-page band (p.890 nn.2–7 are q3's: *Vers.30* Acta/Matth.11, etc.).

**`has_scholion: false` — grep-VERIFIED** no SCHOLI/SOHOLI/SCHOLIOK in raw 61526–61718. The article-master scholion belonged to QUAESTIO I; its §III prospectively surveyed THIS question (*penes effectum* / the killing Law, *occidens «non quidem effective, sed occasionaliter ex sua imperfectione»*) → q2 redirects to a1-q1 scholion §III via [^23].

**[?] flags:** NONE — pp.887–890 legible at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 890 -->

### Quaestio III. *De differentia utriusque Legis quantum ad onus annexum, videlicet quod Lex sit lex gravitatis, Evangelium vero lex suavitatis.*

Tertio quaeritur de differentia Legis et Evangelii quantum ad onus annexum. Dicitur enim Lex Moysaica esse lex gravitatis, et Lex evangelica dicitur esse lex suavitatis. Et ista differentia trahitur ex undecimo[^1] Matthaei: *Iugum enim meum suave est, et onus meum leve;* et decimo quinto Actuum dicit beatus Petrus: *Hoc est onus, quod neque nos neque patres nostri portare potuimus.* Contra istam differentiam opponitur sic:

1. In prima Canonica Ioannis[^2] dicitur: *Mandata eius gravia non sunt:* ergo si Lex vetus continet mandata Dei, videtur, quod non sit onerosa nec gravis.

2. Item, ad Romanos decimo tertio[^3]: *Qui diligit proximum Legem implevit;* sed hoc est valde facile, cum sit omnino in cordis nostri potestate: ergo facile fuit observare Legem: ergo Lex illa debet dici lex facilitatis, non gravitatis.

3. Item, si Lex Moysaica dicitur esse lex gravitatis, aut hoc dicitur respectu hominis *virtuosi,* aut respectu *peccatoris* et iniusti. Si respectu *virtuosi;* contra: qui virtuosus est caritatem habet et amat, et omnia facilia sunt amanti[^4]. Si respectu *peccatoris;* sed respectu talis Lex Evangelii non tantummodo est gravis, immo omnino importabilis: ergo non videtur, quod penes gravitatem debeat differentia Legis novae et veteris assignari.

Item, obiicitur contra *secundam* partem differentiae:

4. Quia « ars et virtus circa difficilia[^5] »: ergo ubi maior est virtus, ibi maior debet esse difficultas; sed perfectioris virtutis sunt homines in Lege nova quam in veteri: ergo videtur, quod Lex nova debeat esse maioris gravitatis et difficultatis.

5. Item, difficilius est cohibere manum et animum quam manum tantum; sed Evangelium cohibet manum et animum, Lex vero manum tantum[^6]: ergo maioris difficultatis est Lex evangelica quam Lex Moysaica.

6. Item, quod apponit ad alterum est illo difficilius; sed Lex Evangelii se habet ex additione ad Legem veterem, sicut patet ex quinto[^7] Matthaei: ergo maior est gravitas et difficultas in Lege Evangelii quam in Lege veteri: ergo nulla est praedicta differentia.

> ### Conclusio.
> Licet Lex evangelica quoad arduitatem praeceptorum sit gravior Lege veteri, iure tamen dicitur lex suavitatis, haec vero lex gravitatis.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod de his duabus Legibus est loqui tripliciter: aut ratione praeceptorum obligantium, aut ratione affectionum moventium, aut ratione Sacramentorum adiuvantium. Si ratione praeceptorum obligantium; sic se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. Nam quantum ad *numerum* Lex[^8] erat gravior propter multitudinem iudicialium et caerimonialium; quantum vero ad *perfectionem* et *arduitatem* gravius et difficilius est Evangelium, sicut difficilius est vivere secundum exigentiam perfectionis quam secundum sufficientiam iuris communis[^9]. Et sic

<!-- page 891 -->

quodam modo ratione oneris praeceptorum excedit Lex, in difficultate quodam modo Evangelium. — Alio modo est comparare istas duas Leges ad invicem ratione *affectionum moventium;* et sic levius est Evangelium, quia, cum in observantia Legis evangelicae moveat *amor* — qui alleviat onus et non sentit laborem, sicut dicit Bernardus[^10], sed potius delectationem in eo quod facit — ratione affectionis moventis Lex evangelica est facilis et suavis. Sed econtra, affectio movens ad observantiam Legis Moysaicae *timor* erat; et illi timori iuncta erat gravis punitio, quod significatum est Exodi decimo septimo[^11], ubi dicitur, quod *manus Moysi erant graves.* Et quia *timor* de se *poenam habet* et exterius iunctus erat poenae; hinc est, quod quantum ad hoc Lex Moysaica multo gravior erat quam evangelica. — Tertio modo est istas Leges comparare ad invicem ratione *Sacramentorum adiuvantium;* et sic multo levior est Lex evangelica quam Moysaica, quia Sacramenta illius Legis multum habebant ponderis et parum habebant de efficacia virtutis; econtra est in Sacramentis novae Legis, quia parvam habent difficultatem et multam habent utilitatem[^12]. Hinc est, quod secundum hanc comparationem Lex nova non tantummodo dicitur *levior* Lege Moysaica, immo dicitur *iugum levitatis,* et illa dicitur *onus gravitatis.* — Unde concedendum est, praedictam differentiam esse recte assignatam.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de auctoritate Ioannis, dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de ipsis mandatis: aut per comparationem ad naturam *sanam,* aut per comparationem ad *infirmam.* Si per comparationem ad naturam *sanam;* sic dicit, mandata eius non esse gravia, quia sunt naturae consona. Si autem per comparationem ad naturam *infirmam,* quae habet difficultatem ad bonum et pronitatem ad malum; sic mandata eius et gravia sunt et difficilia; et quantum ad hanc viam, videlicet per comparationem ad naturam *infirmam* et *lapsam,* assignatur praedicta differentia[^13].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui diligit proximum Legem implevit; dicendum, quod *Lex* arctatur ibi ad mandata *Decalogi,* quae spectant ad secundam tabulam, secundum quod ipse Apostolus explanat[^14]. Unde in hoc non clauduntur *caerimonialia* et *iudicialia,* maxime illa quae ad proximum non ordinant; et illa quidem observare est satis difficile: et ideo non sequitur, quodsi facile sit proximum diligere, quod propter hoc facile sit observare totam Legem. — *Praeterea,* alius defectus est ibi: quia, licet facile sit diligere proximum ei qui ducitur *amore;* ei tamen qui regitur *servili timore,* valde est difficile, quod diligat proximum sicut se et in nullo proximum laedat, tunc potissime, quando ab eo laeditur et gravatur[^15].

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum dicatur Lex gravis homini virtuoso, vel non virtuoso; dicendum, quod intelligitur de homine *virtuoso,* cui etiam difficilia sunt opera et praecepta illa caerimonialia, sicut *baptismata calicum et urceorum*[^16], et vitatio immunditiarum carnalium, in quibus potius consistit iustitiae *significatio* quam *exercitatio.* Unde quod dicitur, quod virtus reddit opus facile; hoc est verum quantum ad *proprium actum.* — Aliter potest dici, quod dupliciter est loqui de homine virtuoso: aut quantum ad *profectum in bono,* aut quantum ad *statum perfectionis.* Licet autem quantum ad *statum perfectionis* efficiantur sibi omnia facilia, tamen quantum ad *profectum* multa sunt ipsi homini habenti virtutem difficilia, et hoc ratione defectus ipsius naturae corruptae, cui difficile est cooperari virtuti et gratiae, nisi fulciatur magno iuvamine.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ars et virtus est circa difficile; dicendum, quod hoc est verum de difficili, secundum quod sonat in *perfectionem arduitatis,* non autem, secundum quod sonat in *onus gravitatis et laboris.* Et ideo non sequitur, quod Evangelium sit difficilius, quamvis sit in eo perfectius virtutis exercitium. — *Praeterea,* quod[^17] dicitur virtus esse circa difficile, hoc est circa difficile ipsi

<!-- page 892 -->

naturae privatae virtute, non autem respectu ipsius naturae informatae et elevatae per gratiam et virtutem, per quem quidem modum in Lege Evangelii elevatur.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod difficilius est cohibere manum et animum quam manum tantum; dicendum, quod verum est, quantum est de genere operis et respectu hominis non habentis caritatem; sed in Lege nova his qui volunt eam servare et custodire, datur gratia et caritas, quae ita reddit facilem ad refrenandum animum, sicut timor reddebat ad refrenandum manum[^18].

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex Evangelii se habet per additionem ad Legem veterem; dicendum, quod additiones illae, quae sunt in Lege nova faciunt ad caritatis cumulum; et quia, secundum quod caritas augetur, secundum hoc alleviatur pondus: hinc est, quod additiones illae potius alleviant quam gravant. Non enim omnia addita aggravant, sed quaedam alleviant, sicut *pennae* in avibus[^19] et *rotae* in curribus et *vela* in navibus, quia sine istis multo graviores sunt. Per hunc modum intelligendum est in additione facta in Evangelio, quae quidem facit ad caritatis profectum, cuius est nos sursum levare ad modum *pennae,* ad bona opera continue ordinare et movere ad modum *rotae,* per aquas tentationum et tribulationum traducere ad modum *veli;* et ille solus, qui hanc caritatem habet, spectat ad Legem Evangelii, quam multo melius et utilius est desiderare, quam habere omne donum scientiae et prophetiae; quia *qui addit scientiam addit onus et dolorem*[^20]; qui vero caritatem addit et multiplicat sibi meritum et consolationem[^21].

---

english:
<!-- page 890 -->

### Question III. *On the difference of the two Laws with respect to the burden annexed, namely that the Law is a law of gravity, but the Gospel a law of sweetness.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the difference of the Law and the Gospel with respect to the burden annexed. For the Mosaic Law is said to be a law of gravity, and the evangelical Law is said to be a law of sweetness. And this difference is drawn from Matthew, chapter eleven[^1]: *For my yoke is sweet, and my burden light;* and in Acts, chapter fifteen, blessed Peter says: *This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.* Against this difference it is objected thus:

1. In the first Canonical [Letter] of John[^2] it is said: *His commandments are not heavy:* therefore if the old Law contains the commandments of God, it seems that it is not burdensome nor heavy.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, chapter thirteen[^3]: *He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law;* but this is very easy, since it is altogether within the power of our heart: therefore it was easy to observe the Law: therefore that Law ought to be called a law of facility, not of gravity.

3. Likewise, if the Mosaic Law is said to be a law of gravity, either this is said with respect to the *virtuous* man, or with respect to the *sinner* and the unjust. If with respect to the *virtuous;* on the contrary: he who is virtuous has charity and loves, and all things are easy to one who loves[^4]. If with respect to the *sinner;* but with respect to such a one the Law of the Gospel is not only heavy, but rather altogether unbearable: therefore it does not seem that the difference of the new Law and the old ought to be assigned with respect to gravity.

Likewise, objection is raised against the *second* part of the difference:

4. Because « art and virtue [are] about difficult things[^5] »: therefore where there is greater virtue, there ought to be greater difficulty; but men of more perfect virtue are in the new Law than in the old: therefore it seems that the new Law ought to be of greater gravity and difficulty.

5. Likewise, it is more difficult to restrain the hand and the mind than the hand alone; but the Gospel restrains the hand and the mind, the Law only the hand[^6]: therefore the evangelical Law is of greater difficulty than the Mosaic Law.

6. Likewise, that which adds to another is more difficult than it; but the Law of the Gospel stands by addition to the old Law, as is clear from Matthew, chapter five[^7]: therefore there is greater gravity and difficulty in the Law of the Gospel than in the old Law: therefore the aforesaid difference is null.

> ### Conclusion.
> Although the evangelical Law is, as to the arduousness of its precepts, heavier than the old Law, nevertheless it is rightly called a law of sweetness, and the latter a law of gravity.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that these two Laws can be spoken of in a threefold manner: either by reason of the obligating precepts, or by reason of the moving affections, or by reason of the helping Sacraments. If by reason of the obligating precepts; thus they stand to each other as the exceeding and the exceeded. For as to *number* the Law[^8] was heavier on account of the multitude of judicial and ceremonial [precepts]; but as to *perfection* and *arduousness* the Gospel is heavier and more difficult, just as it is more difficult to live according to the requirement of perfection than according to the sufficiency of the common law[^9]. And thus

<!-- page 891 -->

in a certain manner, by reason of the burden of the precepts, the Law exceeds [the Gospel], [and] in difficulty in a certain manner the Gospel [exceeds the Law]. — In another way these two Laws are to be compared with each other by reason of the *moving affections;* and thus the Gospel is lighter, because, since in the observance of the evangelical Law *love* moves [one] — which lightens the burden and does not feel the labor, as Bernard says[^10], but rather [finds] delight in what it does — by reason of the moving affection the evangelical Law is easy and sweet. But on the contrary, the affection moving to the observance of the Mosaic Law was *fear;* and to that fear was joined a grave punishment, which was signified in Exodus, chapter seventeen[^11], where it is said that *the hands of Moses were heavy.* And because *fear* of itself *has punishment* and was outwardly joined to punishment; hence it is that as to this the Mosaic Law was much heavier than the evangelical. — In a third way these Laws are to be compared with each other by reason of the *helping Sacraments;* and thus the evangelical Law is much lighter than the Mosaic, because the Sacraments of that [old] Law had much weight and had little of the efficacy of virtue; the contrary is the case in the Sacraments of the new Law, because they have little difficulty and have much usefulness[^12]. Hence it is that, according to this comparison, the new Law is not only said to be *lighter* than the Mosaic Law, but rather is called the *yoke of lightness,* and that [old one] is called the *burden of gravity.* — Hence it must be granted that the aforesaid difference is rightly assigned.

1. To that which is first objected to the contrary from the authority of John, it must be said that the commandments themselves can be spoken of in two ways: either by comparison to *sound* nature, or by comparison to *infirm* [nature]. If by comparison to *sound* nature; thus he says that His commandments are not heavy, because they are consonant with nature. But if by comparison to *infirm* nature, which has difficulty toward the good and a proneness toward evil; thus His commandments are both heavy and difficult; and as to this way, namely by comparison to *infirm* and *fallen* nature, the aforesaid difference is assigned[^13].

2. To that which is objected, that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law; it must be said that *Law* is there restricted to the commandments of the *Decalogue* which pertain to the second tablet, according as the Apostle himself explains[^14]. Hence in this are not included the *ceremonial* and *judicial* [precepts], especially those which do not order [one] toward the neighbor; and those indeed are quite difficult to observe: and therefore it does not follow that if it is easy to love the neighbor, that on this account it is easy to observe the whole Law. — *Moreover,* there is another defect there: because, although it is easy to love the neighbor for him who is led by *love;* yet for him who is governed by *servile fear,* it is very difficult to love the neighbor as himself and to injure the neighbor in nothing, then most of all, when he is injured and burdened by him[^15].

3. To that which is asked, whether the Law be called heavy for the virtuous man, or for the non-virtuous; it must be said that it is understood of the *virtuous* man, for whom those ceremonial works and precepts also are difficult, such as *the baptisms of cups and pitchers*[^16], and the avoidance of carnal uncleannesses, in which there consists rather the *signification* of justice than its *exercise.* Hence, as to what is said, that virtue renders the work easy; this is true as to the *proper act.* — Otherwise it can be said that the virtuous man can be spoken of in two ways: either as to *advance in the good,* or as to *the state of perfection.* But although as to the *state of perfection* all things are made easy for him, nevertheless as to *advance* many things are difficult for the man himself who has virtue, and this by reason of the defect of corrupt nature itself, for which it is difficult to cooperate with virtue and grace, unless it be supported by a great help.

4. To that which is objected, that art and virtue are about the difficult; it must be said that this is true of the difficult, according as it sounds toward the *perfection of arduousness,* but not according as it sounds toward the *burden of gravity and labor.* And therefore it does not follow that the Gospel is more difficult, although there is in it a more perfect exercise of virtue. — *Moreover,* as to what is said[^17], that virtue is about the difficult, this is about the difficult to

<!-- page 892 -->

the private virtue of nature, but not with respect to nature itself when informed and elevated through grace and virtue, in which manner indeed it is elevated in the Law of the Gospel.

5. To that which is objected, that it is more difficult to restrain the hand and the mind than the hand alone; it must be said that it is true, as far as concerns the kind of work and with respect to a man not having charity; but in the new Law, to those who wish to keep and guard it, grace and charity are given, which render [one] as easy to restraining the mind, as fear rendered [one] to restraining the hand[^18].

6. To that which is objected, that the Law of the Gospel stands by addition to the old Law; it must be said that those additions which are in the new Law make for the increase of charity; and because, according as charity is increased, according to this the weight is lightened: hence it is that those additions rather lighten than weigh down. For not all things added weigh down, but certain ones lighten, like *feathers* in birds[^19] and *wheels* in chariots and *sails* in ships, because without these [the latter] are much heavier. In this manner it is to be understood concerning the addition made in the Gospel, which indeed makes for the advance of charity, whose [office] is to lift us upward in the manner of a *feather,* to order [us] continually to good works and to move [us] in the manner of a *wheel,* to carry [us] through the waters of temptations and tribulations in the manner of a *sail;* and he alone who has this charity belongs to the Law of the Gospel, which it is much better and more useful to desire than to have every gift of knowledge and prophecy; because *he who adds knowledge adds burden and sorrow*[^20]; but he who adds charity multiplies for himself merit and consolation[^21].

---

la: Vers. 30. — Seq. textus est Act. 15, 10: *Nunc ergo quid tentatis Deum, imponere iugum super cervices discipulorum, quod neque* etc.

en: Verse 30. — The following text is Acts 15:10: *Now therefore why do you tempt God, to impose a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither* etc.

en: Chapter 5, [verse] 3.

la: Vers. 8. — Paulo inferius pro *cordis nostri* non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *cordis sui,* cod. Z tantum *cordis.*

en: Verse 8. — A little below, for *cordis nostri* ["of our heart"] not a few codices with editions 1 and 2 [read] *cordis sui* ["of his heart"], codex Z only *cordis* ["of the heart"].

la: Bernard., *Serm.* 1. in Dom. Palmarum, n. 2: *Amanti nil difficile est.* August. in Ioan. Evang. tr. 48. n. 1: *Nostis enim, quoniam qui amat non laborat. Omnis enim labor non amantibus gravis est.* Serm. 70. (alias 9. de verbis Domini) c. 3. n. 3: *Omnia enim saeva et immania prorsus facilia et prope nulla efficit amor.*

en: Bernard, *Sermon* 1 on Palm Sunday, n. 2: *To one who loves nothing is difficult.* Augustine, *on the Gospel of John,* tractate 48, n. 1: *For you know that he who loves does not labor. For every labor is heavy to those who do not love.* *Sermon* 70 (otherwise 9, *On the Words of the Lord*), c. 3, n. 3: *For love makes all things, [however] fierce and monstrous, altogether easy and well-nigh nothing.*

la: Secundum Aristot., cfr. supra pag. 488, nota 1.

en: According to Aristotle; cf. above, p. 488, note 1.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. Vide etiam Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. IV. tr. 1. c. 2, ubi hunc loquendi modum tribuit Augustino. Alex. Hal., S. p. III: q. 56. m. 6. a. 2. § 4, allegat Glossam super illud Phil. 3, 9: *Iustitia, quae ex fide est:* « *Iustitia non vera, quae ex Lege est, quae manus comprimit, non animum, quae timore, non amore servire facit.* » B. Albert., hic a. 3, affert Glossam super Exod. 20, 17. Sed Strabus et Lyranus neque hanc neque illam Glossam exhibent. Invenitur autem hic loquendi modus tum in Comment. super Psalmos, qui est inter opera Bedae, tum apud Haym. in Ps. 18, 8.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. See also William of Auxerre, *Summa,* part IV, tract 1, c. 2, where he attributes this manner of speaking to Augustine. Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part III, q. 56, m. 6, a. 2, § 4, adduces the Gloss on Phil. 3:9, *the justice which is from faith:* « *Not the true justice, which is from the Law, which compresses the hand, not the mind, which makes [one] serve through fear, not through love.* » Blessed Albert, here in a. 3, brings forward the Gloss on Exod. 20:17. But Strabus and Lyra exhibit neither this nor that Gloss. This manner of speaking is found, however, both in the *Commentary on the Psalms,* which is among the works of Bede, and in Haymo on Ps. 18:8.

la: Vers. 21. seqq. — Cfr. supra pag. 821, nota 4.

en: Verse 21ff. — Cf. above, p. 821, note 4.

la: Codd. K Z addunt *vetus,* et post *gravior* cod. A adiicit *videlicet.*

en: Codices K Z add *vetus* ["old"], and after *gravior* codex A adds *videlicet* ["namely"].

la: Matth. 7, 14: *Quam angusta porta et arcta via est, quae ducit ad vitam, et pauci sunt, qui inveniunt eam.* — De perfectione sufficientiae etc. cfr. supra d. 30. q. 3. in corp. — Cod. Z pro *secundum sufficientiam,* substituit *secundum exigentiam.*

en: Matt. 7:14: *How narrow is the gate and strait the way that leads to life, and few there are who find it.* — On the perfection of sufficiency, etc., cf. above, d. 30, q. 3, in the body. — Codex Z, for *secundum sufficientiam,* substitutes *secundum exigentiam.*

la: Serm. in Cantic. serm. 85. n. 8: *Ubi autem amor est, labor non est, sed sapor.* Cfr. de Natura et dignitate amoris (inter opera Bernardi), c. 5. n. 12. et infra pag. 892, nota 2. — De hac differentia Legis et Evangelii vide supra q. 1. — Superius pro *in observantia* codd. H U Z (N aa a secunda manu) *ad observantiam,* nonnulli codd. *observantia,* edd. 1, 2 *observatio,* quae etiam subinde cum Vat. substituunt *moveatur* pro *moveat.*

en: *Sermon on the Canticle,* sermon 85, n. 8: *But where there is love, there is no labor, but savor.* Cf. *On the Nature and Dignity of Love* (among the works of Bernard), c. 5, n. 12, and below, p. 892, note 2. — On this difference of the Law and the Gospel, see above, q. 1. — Above, for *in observantia,* codices H U Z (N aa by a second hand) [read] *ad observantiam,* some codices *observantia,* editions 1, 2 *observatio,* which also subsequently, with the Vatican [edition], substitute *moveatur* for *moveat.*

la: Vers. 12. Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 33. n. 8, haec verba exponens dicit: *Moyses quippe sedit in lapide, cum Lex requievit in Ecclesia. Sed haec eadem Lex manus graves habuit, quia peccantes quosque non misericorditer pertulit, sed severa districtione percussit.* — Seq. locus Scripturae est I. Ioan. 3, 18.

en: Verse 12. Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospel,* Book II, homily 33, n. 8, expounding these words, says: *Moses indeed sat upon a stone, when the Law came to rest in the Church. But this same Law had heavy hands, because it did not bear with all who sinned mercifully, but struck [them] with severe strictness.* — The following scriptural passage is I John 3:18.

la: August., XIX. contra Faustum, c. 13, de Sacramentis novae Legis dicit, quod sint « *virtute maiora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora, tanquam iustitia fidei revelata* » etc. Cfr. infra dub. 3, et IV. Sent. d. 1. p. 1. q. 1. seq. — Superius post *levior est* in cod. A addatur *adhuc.* Idem cod. A circa finem corp. *iugum suavitatis et levitatis* pro *iugum levitatis.*

en: Augustine, *Against Faustus* XIX, c. 13, says of the Sacraments of the new Law that they are « *greater in virtue, better in usefulness, easier in act, fewer in number, as the justice of faith revealed* » etc. Cf. below, dubium 3, and IV Sent., d. 1, p. 1, q. 1f. — Above, after *levior est,* in codex A let *adhuc* be added. The same codex A, near the end of the body, [reads] *iugum suavitatis et levitatis* for *iugum levitatis.*

la: Bernard., de Praecepto et dispens. c. 10. n. 23: *Non potest portare caro infirma quod solus spiritus promptus experitur, iugum esse suave et onus leve. Christi quippe iugum et onus est et omnino importabile, nisi Christi aeque spiritui... Mandatum quidem sanctum et iustum, sed tu te noris esse carnalem, venumdatum sub peccato* (Rom. 7, 12. 14.). Cfr. Epist. 462. (alias 385.) n. 4, et August., Serm. 70. (alias 9. de Verbis Domini) c. 2. n. 2.

en: Bernard, *On Precept and Dispensation,* c. 10, n. 23: *The infirm flesh cannot bear what the ready spirit alone experiences, [namely] that the yoke is sweet and the burden light. For the yoke and burden of Christ is also altogether unbearable, unless [it be] to a spirit equally Christ's... The commandment indeed [is] holy and just, but know yourself to be carnal, sold under sin* (Rom. 7:12, 14). Cf. *Letter* 462 (otherwise 385), n. 4, and Augustine, *Sermon* 70 (otherwise 9, *On the Words of the Lord*), c. 2, n. 2.

la: Vide supra pag. 827, nota 6. — Paulo inferius post *in hoc* cod. K supplet *verbo.*

en: See above, p. 827, note 6. — A little below, after *in hoc,* codex K supplies *verbo* ["by the word"].

la: Marc. 7, 8. — De lege immunditiae cfr. Levit. 5, 2 seq., et c. 11. seqq. Explicationem vide apud Alex. Hal., S. p. III.

en: Mark 7:8. — On the law of uncleanness, cf. Lev. 5:2f., and c. 11ff. For the explanation, see Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part III.

la: Codd. A G *cum.* Paulo inferius pro *circa difficile ipsi naturae* cod. U *respectu ipsius naturae.*

en: Codices A G [read] *cum.* A little below, for *circa difficile ipsi naturae,* codex U [reads] *respectu ipsius naturae.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 3. — Pro *refrenandum animum* cod. U *retrahendum manum et animum.* In initio solut. pro *cohibere* multi codd. *prohibere.*

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 28, a. 1, q. 3. — For *refrenandum animum,* codex U [reads] *retrahendum manum et animum.* At the beginning of the solution, for *cohibere,* many codices [read] *prohibere.*

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 59. n. 8: *Iugum enim meum lene est et sarcina mea levis est. Alia sarcina premit et aggravat te, Christi autem sarcina sublevat te; alia sarcina pondus habet, Christi sarcina pennas habet. Nam et avi, si pennas detrahas, quasi onus tollis, et quo magis onus abstulisti, eo magis in terra remanebit. Quam exonerare voluisti, iacet; non volat, quia tulisti onus; redeat onus, et volat. Talis est Christi sarcina* etc. Idem docet Bernard., Epist. 72. n. 2, ubi etiam exemplum de quadriga affert: *Quid et de quadriga dicam? Haec nimirum, admota iumento, sarcinam, quae ab ipso moveri non poterat, auget quidem, sed portabiliorem facit. Onus oneri additur, et minus onerat. Sic et oneri gravissimo Legis accedens quadriga Evangelii et auxit perfectionem et difficultatem minuit* etc. Cfr. Epist. 385. (alias 341.) n. 3, et de Natura et dignitate amoris (inter opera Bernardi), c. 5. n. 12. — Paulo superius verbis *additiones illae* cod. A addit *quae sunt in Lege.*

en: Augustine, *Expositions of the Psalms,* Ps. 59, n. 8: *For my yoke is gentle and my burden light. Another burden presses and weighs you down, but the burden of Christ lifts you up; another burden has weight, the burden of Christ has feathers. For even in a bird, if you take away the feathers, you take away as it were a burden, and the more you have taken away the burden, the more it remains on the ground. The [bird] you wished to unburden lies still; it does not fly, because you have taken away its burden; let the burden return, and it flies. Such is the burden of Christ,* etc. The same Bernard teaches, *Letter* 72, n. 2, where he also brings forward the example of the four-horse team: *And what shall I say of the four-horse team? This indeed, [when] yoked to the beast, increases the load which could not be moved by [the beast] itself, yet makes it more bearable. Burden is added to burden, and it burdens less. So too the four-horse team of the Gospel, joining the most grave burden of the Law, both increased perfection and diminished difficulty,* etc. Cf. *Letter* 385 (otherwise 341), n. 3, and *On the Nature and Dignity of Love* (among the works of Bernard), c. 5, n. 12. — A little above, to the words *additiones illae* codex A adds *quae sunt in Lege.*

la: Eccle. 1, 18, ubi Vulgata, quam Vat. cum codd. 1, 2 sequitur: *Qui addit scientiam addit et laborem.* — Inferius pro *meritum* cod. U *virtutem.* In fine edd. 1, 2 addunt ex Eccle. 1, 8: *Cunctae namque res difficiles, non potest eas homo explicare sermone.*

en: Eccles. 1:18, where the Vulgate, which the Vatican [edition] with codices 1, 2 follows: *He who adds knowledge adds also labor.* — Below, for *meritum,* codex U [reads] *virtutem.* At the end, editions 1, 2 add from Eccles. 1:8: *For all things are difficult; man cannot explain them by speech.*

la: Edd. hic subiungunt conclusionem, quam nos cum codd. ultimo dubio annectimus, quae incipit a verbis: *Sufficit enim scire* etc. — Vide scholion ad 1. quaestionem.

en: Here the editions append a conclusion, which we, with the codices, attach to the last dubium, [and] which begins with the words: *For it suffices to know,* etc. — See the scholion to the first question. [I.e. the article-master scholion of QUAESTIO I, whose §IV prospectively surveys this question *penes exercitium sive onus annexum* — the *lex gravitatis* / *lex suavitatis* difference; the scholion is not repeated here.]

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 61719–61871. Fresh literal English. Pages 890–892 (PDF 912–914; offset pdf = printed + 22). FIFTH and LAST quaestio chunk of d.40, the LAST distinction of Vol III (Book III); ARTICULUS UNICUS, QUAESTIO III. Only the dubia remain after this quaestio.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** Body opener *Tertio quaeritur de differentia Legis et Evangelii quantum ad onus annexum. Dicitur enim Lex Moysaica esse lex gravitatis, et Lex evangelica dicitur esse lex suavitatis* = the TRACTATIO's THIRD question (*penes exercitium sive onus annexum* / the burden annexed — law of gravity vs law of sweetness; *Iugum suave* Matth. 11, *Hoc est onus* Act. 15). Bound forward at DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI (raw 61872; foot of p.892, after *…multiplicat sibi meritum et consolationem*).

**Page span / column reading.** QUAESTIO III opens at the TOP of p.890 (immediately beneath q2's close *…iustificare, et illa occidere*, footnote n.1), and runs p.890 → 891 → 892. Running heads grep- and PDF-confirmed: `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III.` (p.891), `892 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (p.892). On p.892 q3 occupies the body until *…multiplicat sibi meritum et consolationem* (footnote n.4), where DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI begins.

**Apparatus — per-page restart, renumbered CONTINUOUS [^1]–[^21] (single sequence, NO [^Nb]/[^Nc] suffixes):**
- **p.890 nn.2–10 → [^1]–[^9]** (n.2=[^1] *Vers.30* Matth.11 + Act.15 opener; n.3=[^2] 1 John 5,3; n.4=[^3] Rom.13,8 + *cordis nostri/sui* variants; n.5=[^4] arg.3 Bernard/Augustine *amanti*; n.6=[^5] arg.4 Aristot.; n.7=[^6] arg.5 *lit. Magistri* + Guliel./Alex.Hal./Albert Glossa; n.8=[^7] arg.6 *Vers.21* Matth.5; n.9=[^8] Respondeo *Codd. K Z addunt vetus*; n.10=[^9] *Matth.7,14* + d.30 q.3 cross-ref)
- **p.891 nn.1–8 → [^10]–[^17]** (n.1=[^10] Bernard *Serm. in Cantic.* + *vide supra q.1* + *in observantia* variants; n.2=[^11] *Vers.12* Gregor. Homil.33 + 1 John 3,18; n.3=[^12] Aug. XIX contra Faustum c.13 *Sacramenta novae Legis* + *adhuc/iugum suavitatis* variants; n.4=[^13] Ad-1 Bernard *de Praecepto* + Rom.7,12.14; n.5=[^14] Ad-2 *Vide supra pag.827 nota 6* + *in hoc/verbo*; n.6=[^15] Ad-2 tail II Sent. d.28; n.7=[^16] Ad-3 Marc.7,8 + Levit. lege immunditiae; n.8=[^17] Ad-4 *Codd. A G cum* + *circa difficile/respectu* variant)
- **p.892 nn.1–4 → [^18]–[^21]** (n.1=[^18] Ad-5 II Sent. d.28 + *refrenandum/retrahendum* + *cohibere/prohibere*; n.2=[^19] Ad-6 Aug. *Enarrat. in Ps.59* *Christi sarcina pennas habet* + Bernard *Epist.72* quadriga; n.3=[^20] Eccle.1,18 *Qui addit scientiam* + *meritum/virtutem* + Eccle.1,8 add; n.4=[^21] *Edd. hic subiungunt conclusionem… Vide scholion ad 1. quaestionem* — the redirect entry).

The rest of p.892's footers (nn.5–9: *Cfr. supra pag.815*, *Minor insinuatur Gen.8,21*, *Vide supra d.37*, *Vide supra d.38*, *Vers.30 August. Serm.154*) are DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI footers and are EXCLUDED.

**Marker pairing — 21/21** (build-verified): [^1]–[^21], each present once in the Latin body, once in the English body, once in the apparatus. Continuous single sequence, no suffixes.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **PICKED UP ← d40-a1-q2: p.890 nn.2–7 (and onward through n.10).** a1-q2's band closed at p.890 n.1 (its [^23], *Cod. U dicatur — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). QUAESTIO III picks up p.890 nn.2–10 as its first per-page footer block (→ [^1]–[^9]).
- **d40-a1-q3 → DUBIA: NOTHING forwarded.** q3's band closes at p.892 n.4 ([^21]). The dubia open lower on p.892 with their own per-page footer block (p.892 nn.5–9 are the dubia's).

**`has_scholion: false` — grep-VERIFIED** no SCHOLI/SOHOLI in raw 61719–61871. The article-master scholion belonged to QUAESTIO I; its §IV prospectively surveyed THIS question (*penes exercitium sive onus annexum* / the *lex gravitatis* vs *lex suavitatis* difference) → q3 redirects to a1-q1 scholion §IV via [^21] (*Vide scholion ad 1. quaestionem*).

**[?] flags:** NONE — pp.890–892 legible at 450 dpi.

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