title: Dist. 18, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Distinctio XVIII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Distinction XVIII)

source_text:
<!-- page 393 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Meruit a conceptione non modo gloriam impassibilitatis*[^p393-7] *corporis, sed etiam impassibilitatem animae; quia «ubi unum propter alterum, ibi unum tantum»*[^p393-8]; sed immortalitas non est in corpore nisi per animam, sicut nec vita; passibilitas etiam non est in anima nisi per corpus, cum anima sit substantia incorporalis: restat ergo, quod idem est omnino mereri impassibilitatem corporis et impassibilitatem animae. — Praeterea, corpore existente impassibili, necesse est, animam esse impassibilem: ergo non videtur, quod impassibilitas corporis debeat connumerari impassibilitati animae.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: cui per prius inest impassibilitas? Et quod carni, videtur, quia impassibilitas est dos corporis; quod autem animae, videtur, quia gloria[^p393-9] est per influentiam animae in carnem.

*Respondeo:* Dicendum, quod in anima passibili duplex est genus passionum: unum, quod patitur in se per affectiones; aliud, quo compatitur corpori propter corporis laesiones[^p393-10]. Ad hoc autem, quod anima efficiatur perfecte impassibilis, necessarium est, quod ab utraque passione efficiatur perfecte immunis; et ita duplex impassibilitas reperitur in anima: una, quae est proprie ipsius animae; altera, quam communicat cum corpore. Et istas duas intendit Magister in littera connumerare. Et sic patet responsio ad primo quaesitum.

Ad illud vero, quod quaeritur secundo, cui per
<!-- page 394 -->
prius insit impassibilitas[^p394-1]; dicendum, quod per prius inest animae, sicut et passibilitas quantum ad causam primam, utpote in homine primo, in quo per corruptionem animae facta est corruptio corporis; quamvis in aliis anima efficiatur passibilis propter coniunctionem sui cum carne corrupta; e contrario vero est gloria impassibilitatis, quae quidem est a superiori, et magis inest corpori ratione animae quam e converso. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod impassibilitas est dos corporis; dicendum, quod dos corporis est, sed non sic praecise est corporis, quod non sit animae; dicitur tamen magis esse dos corporis, quia anima habet dotes secundum se multo excellentiores[^p394-2].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Meruit etiam sibi donari nomen, quod est super omne nomen.* Hoc enim videtur esse falsum, quia nomen illud, quod est super omne nomen, habuit ab aeterno[^p394-3]. Si tu dicas, quod meruit illius nominis manifestationem in humana natura; hoc videtur esse falsum, quia daemones in Evangelio frequenter dicebant, ipsum esse Filium Dei, sicut colligitur ex multis locis[^p394-4]: ergo iam nomen eius ante passionem erat manifestatum. — Item, in Lege promissus erat Filius Dei, sicut dicit Isaias nono[^p394-5]: *Vocabitur admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus, fortis.* — Item, primae ad Corinthios secundo: *Si cognovissent;* dicit Glossa, quod maiores Iudaei sciverunt, quod esset Christus: ergo videtur, quod nomen eius ante passionem fuerit manifestatum. — Sed contra hoc est quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios secundo[^p394-6]: *Si cognovissent, nunquam Filium Dei crucifixissent;* et Anselmus in libro *Cur Deus homo* dicit, quod tantum scelus, sicut est Filii Dei occisio, nunquam per poenitentiam expiassent, nisi ignorantia excusasset.

*Respondeo:* Dicendum, quod absque dubio Christus per passionem suam meruit sui nominis clarificationem. Clarificatio autem nominis ipsius Christi in hoc consistit, ut communiter homines noverint, illum qui in humana natura apparebat, esse Filium Dei et redemptorem mundi.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod illud iam notum erat; dicendum, quod est notitia certa, et est notitia per quandam coniecturam; et Christus ante passionem cognitus fuit habere nomen, quod est super omne nomen, notitia coniecturali, sed notitia certitudinali non nisi post passionem. Et per hoc dissolvi possunt rationes et auctoritates ad utramque partem[^p394-7]. — Vel aliter. Est notitia universalis, et est notitia particularis; quamvis autem Christus esset notus aliquibus, quod esset vere Christus; tamen non fuit universaliter cognitus usque[^p394-8] post passionem. — Vel aliter. Est notitia nominis duplex, quantum ad vocem et quantum ad imponendi rationem: quantum ad vocem, cum cognoscitur, quod aliquis sic vocetur; et sic multi cognoverunt, Christum vocari Iesum ante passionem; sed rationem, quare sic vocaretur, videlicet quia venerat salvare *populum a peccatis eorum*[^p394-9], non cognoverunt usque post passionem.

Et sic clarificatio nominis Christi est manifestatio cognitionis habitae de Christo, qua cognoscitur esse Dei Filius et Christus et Iesus; et quodlibet istorum nomen super omne nomen. Nam *Filius Dei* nominat personam in *una* natura: *Christus* autem et *Iesus* nominant personam in *duabus* naturis; sed *Christus* nominat personam in humana natura relata[^p394-10] ad divinam, quia dicitur *unctus.* *Iesus* autem nominat personam in divina natura relata ad humanam, quia *Iesus* dicitur *Salvator* esse; et ideo in nomine Iesu Christi debet omne genu curvari[^p394-11], sicut in nomine Filii Dei.

<!-- page 395 -->
Et per hoc patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam, quia nomen Filii Dei tripliciter dicitur clarificari secundum triplex eius nomen, sive quantum ad *certificationem,* sive quantum ad *diffusionem,* sive quantum ad *rationis nominandi expressionem,* ita quod *certificatio* respicit notitiam nominis Filii Dei, *diffusio* notitiam nominis Christi, *expressio rationis nominandi* notitiam nominis Iesu. — Patet etiam responsio[^p395-1] ad obiecta, quia Christus secundum haec tria nomina fuit cognitus quodam modo, fuit etiam quodam modo ignoratus. Secundum eum modum, secundum quem ignoratus fuit, meruit, nomen suum per passionem clarificandum esse[^p395-2].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In qua enim forma crucifixus est, in ea forma exaltatus est;* quia exaltatio Christi est ad aequalitatem Patris, sicut dicitur in Psalmo[^p395-3]: *Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis;* sed non est aequalis Patri secundum formam servi, sed secundum formam Divinitatis: ergo secundum eam exaltatus fuit. — Item, ei competit exaltatio, cui omne genu flectitur *caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum*[^p395-4]; sed hoc est divina natura: ergo etc. — Sed contra hoc est, quia eius est exaltari, cuius est humiliari; sed «divina natura non potuit humiliari», sicut dicit Anselmus in libro de Incarnatione Verbi[^p395-5]: ergo nec exaltari. — Praeterea, quod est altissimum quomodo potest exaltari? Si igitur divina natura est huiusmodi, videtur etc.

*Respondeo:* Dicendum, quod sicut nominatio debetur personae ratione alicuius naturae, sic etiam[^p395-6] exaltatio. Sed attendendum, quod *exaltatio* dupliciter habet intelligi circa Christum: aut secundum *rem,* aut secundum *nostram cognitionem.* Exaltatio Christi secundum *rem* est sublimatio Christi de statu praesentis vitae ad dexteram Patris; et haec quidem fuit in ascensione[^p395-7], et haec quidem exaltatio convenit ei secundum humanam naturam, quae fuit elevata in caelum; et sic *exaltari ad dexteram Patris* est sublimari ad potiora bona Patris. — Alio modo est *exaltatio* secundum *nostram cognitionem;* et sic dicitur Christus exaltari in cordibus nostris, quando credimus eum aequalem Patri; et sic *exaltari ad dexteram Patris* est exaltari ad aequalitatem Patris; et hoc modo exaltatio convenit Christo secundum eam naturam, secundum quam habet aequari ipsi Patri[^p395-8].

Et secundum hanc distinctionem patet determinatio controversiae apparentis inter Augustinum et Ambrosium[^p395-9], patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Augustinus enim loquitur de exaltatione *reali,* et sic currunt rationes ad secundam partem; Ambrosius vero de exaltatione secundum *cognitionem nostram,* et sic currunt rationes ad primam partem[^p395-10].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nam alii homines debitores erant, et vix unicuique sua virtus sufficiebat.* Obiicitur enim contra hoc per hoc quod dicit Anselmus in libro *Cur Deus homo*[^p395-11]: «Nullatenus potest homo magis honorem dare Deo, quam cum se tradit morti ad illius honorem». Si ergo servitia, quanto magis debita, tanto minus grata; videtur, quod homines non sunt debitores mortis. — Item, quilibet est debitor omnis eius quod est et quod potest, quia totum a Deo accepit: ergo videtur, quod nullus possit aliquid apud Deum mereri nec moriendo nec aliquid faciendo. — Item, Christus debebat obedire Patri: sed Pater praecipiebat, quod moreretur[^p395-12] pro salute humani generis: ergo videtur, quod Christus esset debitor mortis.

*Respondeo:* Dicendum, quod est debitum ex *caritate,* et est debitum ex *necessitate.* Debitum ex *caritate* non tollit perfectionem meriti; debitum vero ex *necessitate* quodam modo diminuit. Quoniam ergo omnes alii debitores erant morti[^p395-13] debito *necessitatis,* quae quidem provenit ex reatu et obligatione culpae; ideo dicit Magister, quod nullus po-
<!-- page 396 -->
terat Deum *placare,* quamvis voluntarie perferendo mortem posset Deo *placere.* Christus autem, quia sine debito mortis pertulit mortem, et placere potuit et placare: *placere,* quia ex bona voluntate; *placare* vero, quia praeter necessitatem.

Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur de Anselmo, dicendum, quod, sicut patet ex ipsa serie textus, Anselmus loquitur ibi de Christo; attamen, esto quod illud de aliis intelligeretur, non sequitur propter hoc, quod homo non sit debitor mortis, quia potest homo facere per bonam voluntatem de necessitate virtutem. — Praeterea, aliquis est moriendi modus, ad quem non sumus necessario obligati.

Et per hoc patet sequens, quia *debitum* non tollit meritum *simpliciter,* sed meritum illius *perfectae* placationis, qua Deus reconciliatus est toti humano generi[^p396-1].

Ad illud quod obiicitur de obedientia, iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt[^p396-2].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius: *Salvari non possemus, nisi unigenitus Dei Filius moreretur pro nobis debitoribus mortis.* Contra: nullus debitor mortis est dignus vita: ergo si Abraham fuit debitor mortis, non ergo fuit dignus vita. — Item quaeritur: de qua morte intelligi-
<!-- page 396 R -->
tur? aut de morte *corporali,* aut de morte *spirituali.* Si de morte *spirituali,* falsum[^p396-3] est, quia viri iusti non sunt digni morte spirituali; si de morte *corporali:* aut *naturali,* aut *violenta.* De *violenta* non est verum, quia non omnes debitores sumus talis mortis. Si de *naturali,* tunc videtur, quod nihil faciat ad propositum, quia mors illa naturalis non impedit meritum, nec aliquis ab illa liberatur per Christum; omnes enim moriuntur.

*Respondeo:* Dicendum, quod *mors* dicitur multipliciter. Est enim mors separatio animae a corpore; et est mors separatio animae a Deo propter peccatum; et est mors separatio animae a visione Dei *in perpetuum;* et est mors separatio animae a visione Dei *ad tempus*[^p396-4]. Cum ergo dicit Ambrosius, quod «Christus mortuus est pro debitoribus mortis»; accipitur mors primo et quarto modo. Omnes enim sumus debitores mortis primo modo; et omnes debitores erant mortis quarto modo; et nos ipsi debitores essemus, nisi pretium solutum esset.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad ea quae obiiciuntur, quia debitum talis mortis non opponitur dignitati vitae aeternae. Patet etiam, cuius mortis sumus debitores. Et si obiicit, quod mors naturalis non tollit perfectionem meriti; dicendum, sicut prius[^p396-5] dictum fuit, quod non tollit perfectionem cuiuscumque meriti, sed meriti *perfectae* satisfactionis pro salute generis humani.

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *He merited from his conception not only the glory of the impassibility*[^p393-7] *of the body, but also the impassibility of the soul; since «where one [is granted] on account of another, there is but one [thing]»*[^p393-8]; but immortality is not in the body except through the soul, just as neither is life; passibility also is not in the soul except through the body, since the soul is an incorporeal substance: it remains, therefore, that it is altogether the same thing to merit the impassibility of the body and the impassibility of the soul. — Moreover, the body being impassible, it is necessary that the soul be impassible: therefore it does not seem that the impassibility of the body ought to be reckoned together with the impassibility of the soul.

In keeping with this it is asked: in which does impassibility inhere first? And that it is in the flesh seems [the case], since impassibility is an endowment of the body; but that it is in the soul seems [the case], since the glory[^p393-9] is through the influence of the soul into the flesh.

*I respond:* It must be said that in the passible soul there is a twofold kind of passion: one, which it suffers in itself through the affections; another, by which it suffers along with the body on account of injuries to the body[^p393-10]. But for the soul to be made perfectly impassible, it is necessary that it be made perfectly immune from each passion; and so a twofold impassibility is found in the soul: one, which is properly of the soul itself; the other, which it shares with the body. And the Master intends to reckon these two together in the text. And thus the response to the first thing asked is evident.

But as to that which is asked in the second place, in which impassibility inheres
first[^p394-1]; it must be said that it inheres first in the soul, just as passibility also does as regards the first cause, as for instance in the first man, in whom through the corruption of the soul the corruption of the body came about; although in others the soul is made passible on account of its conjunction with the corrupted flesh; whereas, on the contrary, the glory of impassibility is from above, and inheres rather in the body by reason of the soul than the reverse. — As to what he therefore objects, that impassibility is an endowment of the body; it must be said that it is an endowment of the body, but it is not so precisely of the body that it is not of the soul; yet it is said to be rather an endowment of the body, because the soul has endowments in itself far more excellent[^p394-2].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *He merited also that there be given to him a name which is above every name.* For this seems to be false, since that name which is above every name he had from eternity[^p394-3]. If you say that he merited the manifestation of that name in human nature; this seems to be false, since the demons in the Gospel frequently said that he was the Son of God, as is gathered from many places[^p394-4]: therefore his name was already manifested before the passion. — Likewise, in the Law the Son of God had been promised, as Isaiah says in the ninth [chapter][^p394-5]: *He shall be called wonderful, counsellor, God, mighty.* — Likewise, in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the second [chapter]: *If they had known;* the Gloss says that the chief among the Jews knew that he was the Christ: therefore it seems that his name was manifested before the passion. — But against this is what is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the second [chapter][^p394-6]: *If they had known, they would never have crucified the Son of God;* and Anselm in the book *Why God [Became] Man* says that so great a crime as the killing of the Son of God they would never have expiated by penance, had ignorance not excused them.

*I respond:* It must be said that without doubt Christ by his passion merited the glorification of his name. But the glorification of the name of Christ himself consists in this, that men commonly come to know that he who appeared in human nature is the Son of God and the redeemer of the world.

But as to that which is objected, that it was already known; it must be said that there is a *certain* knowledge, and there is a knowledge through a kind of *conjecture;* and Christ before the passion was known to have a name which is above every name by conjectural knowledge, but by certain knowledge not until after the passion. And by this the reasons and authorities on either side can be resolved[^p394-7]. — Or otherwise: there is a *universal* knowledge, and there is a *particular* knowledge; for although Christ was known to some to be truly the Christ, yet he was not universally known until[^p394-8] after the passion. — Or otherwise: the knowledge of the name is twofold, as to the word and as to the ground of its imposition: as to the word, when it is known that someone is so called; and thus many knew that Christ was called Jesus before the passion; but the ground for which he was so called, namely because he had come to save *the people from their sins*[^p394-9], they did not know until after the passion.

And thus the glorification of the name of Christ is the manifestation of the knowledge possessed concerning Christ, by which he is known to be Son of God and Christ and Jesus; and any of these is a name above every name. For *Son of God* names the person in *one* nature: but *Christ* and *Jesus* name the person in *two* natures; yet *Christ* names the person in the human nature related[^p394-10] to the divine, since he is called *anointed.* But *Jesus* names the person in the divine nature related to the human, since *Jesus* is said to be *Saviour;* and therefore at the name of Jesus Christ every knee must bow[^p394-11], just as at the name of the Son of God.

And by this the response to the question proposed is evident, since the name of the Son of God is said to be glorified in a threefold way according to his threefold name, whether as to *certification,* or as to *diffusion,* or as to *the expression of the ground of naming,* so that *certification* regards the knowledge of the name of the Son of God, *diffusion* the knowledge of the name of Christ, *the expression of the ground of naming* the knowledge of the name of Jesus. — Evident also is the response[^p395-1] to the objections, since Christ according to these three names was known in a certain way, and was also in a certain way unknown. According to that manner in which he was unknown, he merited that his name be glorified through the passion[^p395-2].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *For in the form in which he was crucified, in that form he was exalted;* since the exaltation of Christ is to equality with the Father, as it is said in the Psalm[^p395-3]: *The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand;* but he is not equal to the Father according to the form of a servant, but according to the form of the Godhead: therefore according to it he was exalted. — Likewise, exaltation belongs to him to whom every knee is bent, *of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth*[^p395-4]; but this is the divine nature: therefore etc. — But against this is the fact that his it is to be exalted whose it is to be humbled; but «the divine nature could not be humbled», as Anselm says in the book *On the Incarnation of the Word*[^p395-5]: therefore neither [could it] be exalted. — Moreover, that which is highest, how can it be exalted? If therefore the divine nature is of this kind, it seems etc.

*I respond:* It must be said that just as naming is owed to the person by reason of some nature, so also[^p395-6] is exaltation. But it must be noted that *exaltation* has to be understood in a twofold way concerning Christ: either according to the *thing,* or according to *our knowledge.* The exaltation of Christ according to the *thing* is the elevation of Christ from the state of the present life to the right hand of the Father; and this indeed took place at the ascension[^p395-7], and this exaltation belongs to him according to the human nature, which was lifted up into heaven; and thus *to be exalted to the right hand of the Father* is to be elevated to the higher goods of the Father. — In another way there is *exaltation* according to *our knowledge;* and thus Christ is said to be exalted in our hearts, when we believe him to be equal to the Father; and thus *to be exalted to the right hand of the Father* is to be exalted to equality with the Father; and in this way exaltation belongs to Christ according to that nature according to which he can be made equal to the Father himself[^p395-8].

And according to this distinction the determination of the controversy apparently existing between Augustine and Ambrose[^p395-9] is evident, and the response to the objections is also evident. For Augustine speaks of *real* exaltation, and so the reasons run to the second side; but Ambrose [speaks] of exaltation according to *our knowledge,* and so the reasons run to the first side[^p395-10].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *For other men were debtors, and his own virtue scarcely sufficed for each one.* For it is objected against this by what Anselm says in the book *Why God [Became] Man*[^p395-11]: «In no way can a man give greater honour to God than when he hands himself over to death for his honour». If therefore services, the more they are owed, the less are they pleasing; it seems that men are not debtors of death. — Likewise, everyone is a debtor of all that he is and that he can do, since he received the whole from God: therefore it seems that no one can merit anything before God, neither by dying nor by doing anything. — Likewise, Christ was bound to obey the Father: but the Father commanded that he die[^p395-12] for the salvation of the human race: therefore it seems that Christ was a debtor of death.

*I respond:* It must be said that there is a debt from *charity,* and there is a debt from *necessity.* A debt from *charity* does not take away the perfection of merit; but a debt from *necessity* in a certain way diminishes it. Since therefore all other men were debtors to death[^p395-13] by the debt of *necessity,* which indeed arises from the guilt and obligation of fault; therefore the Master says that no one
could *propitiate* God, although by voluntarily enduring death he could be *pleasing* to God. But Christ, because he endured death without the debt of death, could both be pleasing and propitiate: be *pleasing,* because [it was] from a good will; *propitiate,* because [it was] beyond necessity.

But as to that which is objected first about Anselm, it must be said that, as is evident from the very tenor of the text, Anselm there speaks of Christ; nevertheless, granted that it were understood of others, it does not follow on that account that man is not a debtor of death, since a man can make of necessity a virtue through a good will. — Moreover, there is a manner of dying to which we are not necessarily obligated.

And by this the following [point] is evident, that a *debt* does not take away merit *simply,* but the merit of that *perfect* propitiation by which God was reconciled to the whole human race[^p396-1].

To that which is objected about obedience, the response is already evident through the things that have been said[^p396-2].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which Ambrose says: *We could not be saved unless the only-begotten Son of God should die for us, the debtors of death.* On the contrary: no debtor of death is worthy of life: therefore if Abraham was a debtor of death, he was therefore not worthy of life. — Likewise it is asked: of what death is it understood?
either of *corporal* death, or of *spiritual* death. If of *spiritual* death, it is false[^p396-3], since just men are not worthy of spiritual death; if of *corporal* death: either *natural,* or *violent.* Of *violent* death it is not true, since not all of us are debtors of such a death. If of *natural* death, then it seems that it contributes nothing to the point, since that natural death does not impede merit, nor is anyone delivered from it through Christ; for all die.

*I respond:* It must be said that *death* is said in many ways. For there is death [as] the separation of the soul from the body; and there is death [as] the separation of the soul from God on account of sin; and there is death [as] the separation of the soul from the vision of God *forever;* and there is death [as] the separation of the soul from the vision of God *for a time*[^p396-4]. When therefore Ambrose says that «Christ died for the debtors of death»; death is taken in the first and fourth way. For we are all debtors of death in the first way; and all were debtors of death in the fourth way; and we ourselves would be debtors, had the price not been paid.

And by this the response to the things that are objected is evident, since the debt of such a death is not opposed to the dignity of eternal life. Evident also is of what death we are debtors. And if one objects that natural death does not take away the perfection of merit; it must be said, as was said before[^p396-5], that it does not take away the perfection of any merit whatever, but [only] the merit of *perfect* satisfaction for the salvation of the human race.

---

la: Magister hic in lit. addit *et immortalitatis,* ad quod in sequentibus respicitur.

en: The Master here in the text adds *and of immortality,* to which reference is made in what follows.

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Mox pro *per animam* codd. A K *propter animam.*

en: Aristotle, *Topics* III, c. 2. Cf. tome II, p. 639, note 2. — Presently, for *per animam* (through the soul) codices A K [read] *propter animam* (on account of the soul).

la: Cod. O supplet *corporis;* cfr. IV. Sent. d. 19. p. II. a. princip. I. a. I. q. 2. — Paulo superius pro *inest impassibilitas* cod. T *inest passibilitas.*

en: Codex O supplies *of the body* (*corporis*); cf. *Sent.* IV, d. 19, p. II, principal a. I, a. I, q. 2. — A little above, for *impassibility inheres* (*inest impassibilitas*) codex T [reads] *passibility inheres* (*inest passibilitas*).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 354, nota I. — Paulo superius pro *unum, quod patitur* codd. H K N bb *unum, quo patitur.* Inferius pro *una, quae est proprie* cod. A *una, quae est propria,* codd. G I L T aa *una, quae est improprie.* Subinde pro *altera, quam* cod. A *altera, in qua,* cod. K *altera, cum qua.*

en: Cf. above p. 354, note 1. — A little above, for *one, which suffers* (*unum, quod patitur*) codices H K N bb [read] *one, by which it suffers* (*unum, quo patitur*). Below, for *one, which is properly* (*una, quae est proprie*) codex A [reads] *one, which is proper* (*una, quae est propria*), codices G I L T aa [read] *one, which is improperly* (*una, quae est improprie*). Thereupon for *the other, which* (*altera, quam*) codex A [reads] *the other, in which* (*altera, in qua*), codex K [reads] *the other, with which* (*altera, cum qua*).

la: Ita cod. X, quae lectio respondet ipsi obiectioni nec non subnexis; alii codd. et edd. *passibilitas.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. et 3. atque Alex. Hal., loco infra cit. — Paulo inferius pro *corruptio corporis* cod. O *corruptio carnis.*

en: Thus codex X, which reading corresponds to the objection itself as well as to what is appended; the other codices and the editions [read] *passibility.* Cf. *Sent.* II, d. 19, a. 2 and 3, and Alexander of Hales, at the place cited below. — A little below, for *corruption of the body* (*corruptio corporis*) codex O [reads] *corruption of the flesh* (*corruptio carnis*).

la: Scil. visionem, dilectionem et comprehensionem (sive tentionem vel fruitionem), quae respondent tribus partibus animae: rationali, concupiscibili et irascibili, nec non tribus virtutibus theologicis. Cfr. infra d. 26. a. I. q. 3. in corp., et IV. Sent. d. 49. p. I. q. 5. in corp. — De solut. dubii cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 17. m. 4. a. I. § 2; B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. I. quaestiunc. 5; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Namely, vision, love, and comprehension (or holding or enjoyment), which correspond to the three parts of the soul: the rational, the concupiscible, and the irascible, as also to the three theological virtues. Cf. below d. 26, a. I, q. 3, in the body, and *Sent.* IV, d. 49, p. I, q. 5, in the body. — On the solution of the doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 17, m. 4, a. I, § 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas, here a. 4, sub-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. I, sub-question 5; Richard of Middleton, here near the text.

la: Ut dicit Ambrosius, qui a Magistro hic in lit. c. 3. allegatur.

en: As Ambrose says, who is cited by the Master here in the text, c. 3.

la: Matth. 8, 29; Marc. 5, 7; Luc. 8, 28. — Mox pro *manifestatum* codd. G H L T V aa bb *manifestum.* Eandem lectionem variantem paulo inferius exhibent codd. F G H.

en: Matthew 8, 29; Mark 5, 7; Luke 8, 28. — Presently, for *manifested* (*manifestatum*) codices G H L T V aa bb [read] *manifest* (*manifestum*). The same variant reading is exhibited a little below by codices F G H.

la: Vers. 8. — Seq. Script. locus est I. Cor. 2, 8. Glossa, quae est ordinaria, apud Strabum et Lyranum sic sonat: « Si enim cognovissent vel minores, illum esse Messiam in Lege promissum, vel maiores, Deum esse vel Filium Dei, nunquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent ». Quibus verbis Petrus Lombard., in hunc loc., praemittit haec: *Vel de Iudaeis potest accipi, quorum quidam cognoverunt Christum, alii vero non cognoverunt... Maiores vero, ut principes sacerdotum, scribae et pharisaei, cognoverunt, ipsum esse qui in Lege promissus erat, sed Deum esse vel Filium Dei nescierunt. Et ideo de utrisque sic potest accipi.* Cfr. Quaest. ex novo Testam. (inter opera August.) p. I. q. 66, nec non II. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3.

en: Verse 8. — The following Scripture place is 1 Cor. 2, 8. The Gloss, which is the ordinary one, in Strabo and Lyra reads thus: «For if either the lesser had known him to be the Messiah promised in the Law, or the greater [had known him] to be God or the Son of God, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory». To which words Peter Lombard, on this place, prefixes these: *Or it can be taken of the Jews, some of whom knew Christ, but others did not know [him]... But the greater, such as the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, knew that he was the one who had been promised in the Law, but did not know that he was God or the Son of God. And so it can be taken of both.* Cf. *Questions on the New Testament* (among the works of Augustine) p. I, q. 66, as also *Sent.* II, d. 40, dub. 3.

la: Vers. 8. — Anselmi sententia habetur loc. cit. lib. II c. 15.

en: Verse 8. — Anselm's statement is found at the place cited, book II, c. 15.

la: Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum ad Matth. 8, 29. observat (secundum Hilar. Comment. in Matth. c. 3.): *Magis suspicati quam nosse credendi sunt* [scil. daemones scivisse, Iesum esse Filium Dei].

en: The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra on Matthew 8, 29 observes (following Hilary, *Commentary on Matthew* c. 3): *They are to be believed to have suspected rather than to have known* [namely, that the demons knew Jesus to be the Son of God].

la: Codd. A K N bb *nisi.*

en: Codices A K N bb [read] *unless* (*nisi*).

en: Matthew 1, 21.

la: Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *relatam.* Subinde post *quia* edd. repetunt *Christus.* Paulo inferius ante *ad humanam* [naturam] auctoritate codd. A K bb substituimus *relata,* pro *relatam,* quod est in edd. et aliis codd. Nostra lectio comprobatur his verbis Alexandri Hal. (S. p. III. q. 17. m. 4. a. I. § 3.): *Potest signari persona Christi dupliciter: vel ratione divinae naturae in comparatione ad humanam, secundum quam dicitur Iesus, id est salvator, Verbo enim in humana natura convenit salvare; vel ratione humanae naturae in comparatione ad divinam; et hoc modo nominatur Christus, quod dicitur ratione humanae naturae per unionem ad divinam.*

en: The Vatican [edition] with one or two codices [reads] *related* (*relatam,* fem. acc.). Thereupon, after *since* (*quia*) the editions repeat *Christ.* A little below, before *to the human* [nature], on the authority of codices A K bb we have substituted *relata,* for *relatam,* which is in the editions and other codices. Our reading is confirmed by these words of Alexander of Hales (*Summa* p. III, q. 17, m. 4, a. I, § 3): *The person of Christ can be designated in two ways: either by reason of the divine nature in comparison to the human, according to which he is called Jesus, that is, saviour, for it belongs to the Word to save in the human nature; or by reason of the human nature in comparison to the divine; and in this way he is named Christ, since he is so called by reason of the human nature through union with the divine.*

la: Respicitur Phil. 2, 10. — August., XIII. de Trin. c. 10. n. 14: *Qui est Hebraice Iesus, Graece σωτήρ, nostra autem locutione Salvator.*

en: Reference is to Phil. 2, 10. — Augustine, *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 10, n. 14: *He who in Hebrew is Jesus, in Greek σωτήρ, but in our speech Saviour.*

la: Cod. V *solutio.*

en: Codex V [reads] *solution* (*solutio*).

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 17. m. 4. a. I. § 3; B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 4. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. 3.

en: Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 17, m. 4, a. I, § 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, here q. I, a. 4, sub-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. I, sub-questions 2, 3.

la: Psalm. 109, 1. Apud Petr. Lombard. habetur in hunc loc. Glossa haec: *Sede a dextris meis* i. e. conregna coaequalis mihi, ut per dextram accipiatur aequalitas, quam habet Christus cum Patre.

en: Psalm 109, 1. In Peter Lombard this Gloss is found on this place: *Sit at my right hand,* i.e. reign as co-equal with me, so that by «the right hand» is understood the equality which Christ has with the Father.

la: Phil. 2, 10. — Subinde multi codd. *sed haec* pro *sed hoc.*

en: Phil. 2, 10. — Thereupon many codices [read] *but these* (*sed haec*) for *but this* (*sed hoc*).

la: Sive de Fide Trin., ex cuius libri c. 4. et 5. elici posset. Lector melius delegaretur ad I. Cur Deus homo, c. 8: *Divinam enim naturam absque dubio asserimus impassibilem, nec ullatenus posse a sua celsitudine humiliari* etc. — Pro *non potuit* edd. *non potest.*

en: Or [from his work] *On the Faith of the Trinity,* from c. 4 and 5 of which book it could be drawn. The reader would better be referred to *Why God [Became] Man* I, c. 8: *For without doubt we assert the divine nature to be impassible, and in no way able to be humbled from its loftiness,* etc. — For *could not* (*non potuit*) the editions [read] *cannot* (*non potest*).

la: Codd. F G H I N U *sic est.*

en: Codices F G H I N U [read] *it is so* (*sic est*).

la: Marc. 16, 19: *Et Dominus quidem Iesus... assumtus est in caelum et sedet a dextris Dei.* — Glossa *ordinaria* (apud Strabum et Lyranum) in Ps. 109, 1: *Sede a dextris meis* i. e. in potioribus meis bonis et occultis». Haymo in hunc locum: *Sede a dextris meis* i. e. expleta militia tua et peracta obedientia, quiesce in potioribus bonis meis». August., Enarrat. in Ps. 137. n. 14; de Fide et Symbolo, c. 7. n. 14; de Agone christian. c. 26. n. 28; contra Serm. Arian. c. 12. n. 9. illud sedere ad dextram Patris idem esse interpretatur ac summa felicitate frui et beatitudine nec non iudiciaria potestate. Cfr. Athanas. de Incarnat. Verbi, n. 3. seqq., et Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 9.

en: Mark 16, 19: *And the Lord Jesus indeed... was taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God.* — The *ordinary* Gloss (in Strabo and Lyra) on Ps. 109, 1: *Sit at my right hand,* i.e. in my higher and hidden goods». Haymo on this place: *Sit at my right hand,* i.e. your warfare being fulfilled and your obedience accomplished, rest in my higher goods». Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm* 137, n. 14; *On Faith and the Creed,* c. 7, n. 14; *On the Christian Combat,* c. 26, n. 28; *Against an Arian Sermon,* c. 12, n. 9, interprets that sitting at the right hand of the Father to be the same as enjoying the highest felicity and beatitude as well as judicial power. Cf. Athanasius, *On the Incarnation of the Word,* n. 3 ff., and Anselm, *Why God [Became] Man* I, c. 9.

la: De hac secunda exaltatione cfr. August., Serm. 380. (alias 6. ex Vignerian.) n. 6, et in Ioan. Evang. tr. 14. n. 5.

en: On this second exaltation cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 380 (otherwise 6, from Vigner), n. 6, and *On John's Gospel,* tractate 14, n. 5.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Paulo inferius pro *reali* cod. Z *secundum rem.*

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3. — A little below, for *real* (*reali*) codex Z [reads] *according to the thing* (*secundum rem*).

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 24; B. Albert., hic a. 10; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 24; Blessed Albert, here a. 10; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here near the text.

la: Libr. II. c. 11. — Secunda ratio insinuatur ibid. l. c. 20; tertia ibid. l. c. 8. in fine.

en: Book II, c. 11. — The second reason is suggested in the same place, [book II,] c. 20; the third in the same place, c. 8, at the end.

la: Edd. *debebat mori.*

en: The editions [read] *was bound to die* (*debebat mori*).

la: Edd. *mortis.*

en: The editions [read] *of death* (*mortis*).

la: Cfr. infra d. 20. q. 3. seq. et Anselm. locc. citt.

en: Cf. below d. 20, q. 3 and following, and Anselm at the places cited.

la: Cod. M addit: *quoniam est debitum bonitatis sive caritatis, et debitum necessitatis. Primum non est obnoxium, sed mera liberalitas; tale fuit in Christo. Secundum debitum fuit in nobis, non in ipso.* — Hoc dubium solvunt etiam B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Codex M adds: *since there is a debt of goodness or charity, and a debt of necessity. The first is not liable [to constraint], but [is] mere liberality; such was [the debt] in Christ. The second debt was in us, not in him.* — This doubt is also resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here near the text.

la: Cod. F praemittit *sic.*

en: Codex F prefixes *thus* (*sic*).

la: Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 2.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the City of God* XIII, c. 2.

la: Dubio praeced. — De hoc dubio vide Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 6. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 14; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: In the preceding doubt. — On this doubt see Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 18, m. 6, a. 4; Blessed Albert, here a. 14; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, here near the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{393,394,395,396}-{L,R}-*`), printed pp. 393–396 (PDF 415–418, offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 27414–27635). English is a fresh literal translation. Apparatus rendered directly from the printed page footers, page by page, with per-page numbering preserved in the slug prefixes.

**This chunk was CREATED on this promotion.** The `bon-sent-III-d18-dubia.md` file was **absent from the auto-chunker's d.18 skeleton set** — the auto-chunker emitted the six quaestio chunks (a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3) and the divisio, but dropped the DUBIA. It is built here from scratch, directly to Tier 2.

**Dubia count.** Five dubia (DUB. I–V) — the full DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI block of Distinctio XVIII. Confirmed against the raw OCR (DUB. I raw 27418; DUB. II raw 27475; DUB. III raw 27551; DUB. IV raw 27590; DUB. V raw 27627) and against the PDF running heads. **This promotion completes Distinctio XVIII** (divisio + a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3 + this dubia = 8 chunks; with the d18-divisio counted there are 9 chunks under d.18 — see audit note below).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.393** (R col only — the L col belongs to d18-a2-q3): DUBIA header; DUB. I opening (*In parte ista… ad primo quaesitum*) through *Ad illud vero, quod quaeritur secundo, cui per*. Apparatus: page-393 notes **7, 8, 9, 10** (notes 1–6 of p.393 belong to a2-q3, which held the L column). **These four notes are PICKED UP at the a2-q3 → dubia R-column seam.**
- **p.394** (L col → R col): DUB. I tail (*prius insit impassibilitas… excellentiores*); DUB. II opening + body + Respondeo (notitia certa / universalis / duplex; through *…sicut in nomine Filii Dei*). Apparatus: p.394 notes **1–11** (page-restarted).
- **p.395** (L col → R col): DUB. II epilogue (*Et per hoc patet responsio… clarificandum esse*); DUB. III in full; DUB. IV opening + body + Respondeo (debitum ex caritate / necessitate; through *…ideo dicit Magister, quod nullus po-*). Apparatus: p.395 notes **1–13** (page-restarted).
- **p.396** (L col → top of R col): DUB. IV tail (*terat Deum placare… dicta sunt*); DUB. V in full (*Item quaeritur… pro salute generis humani*). Apparatus: p.396 notes **1–5** (page-restarted). **Only the L-col footer block (nn.1–5) belongs to the dubia; the R-col footer block on p.396 (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, nn.1–4 = Rom. 3 etc.) belongs to DISTINCTIO XIX and is NOT captured here.**

Total apparatus = 4 (p.393) + 11 (p.394) + 13 (p.395) + 5 (p.396) = **33 entries.**

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* p.393 footer notes **7, 8, 9, 10** (Aristotle/Topics; cod. O *corporis*; Cfr. supra p.354; et al.), forwarded from d18-a2-q3 (which held p.393 L-col notes 1–6).
- *Forwarded:* none. **Distinctio XVIII is COMPLETE on this promotion.** **DISTINCTIO XIX** (Cap. I — *Qualiter a diabolo et a peccato redemit nos Christus per mortem*) begins at **raw line 27636**, immediately after this chunk's closing *…pro salute generis humani.* (raw ~27635). **Seam confirmed clean:** DUB. V's Respondeo concludes grammatically before DISTINCTIO XIX's Cap. I opens (the DUB. V conclusion and the DIST. XIX *Nunc igitur quaeramus…* opener are on the same printed p.396 but in different columns — L-col foot vs. R-col body — with no spliced or broken sentence at the boundary). Offset reminder for d.19: **pdf = printed + 22.** (Note: d.20 is the next Vol III decade-polish gate — NOT yet reached.)

**[?] flags.** None — the 450 dpi bands were fully legible throughout, and the IA OCR confirmed every prose passage and footer reference.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 19

title_alt: Distinctio XIX — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XIX — text of the Master of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 396 -->

### DISTINCTIO XIX.

### Cap. I. *Qualiter a diabolo et a peccato redemit nos Christus per mortem.*

Nunc igitur quaeramus, quomodo per mortem ipsius a diabolo et a peccato et a poena redempti sumus. — A diabolo igitur et a peccato per Christi mortem liberati sumus, quia, ut ait Apostolus[^p396-1], *in sanguine ipsius iustificati sumus*, et in eo, quod sumus iustificati, id est a peccatis soluti, a diabolo sumus liberati, qui nos vinculis peccatorum tenebat. Sed quomodo a peccatis per eius mortem soluti sumus? Quia per eius mortem, ut ait Apostolus, *commendatur nobis caritas Dei*, id est, apparet eximia et commendabilis caritas Dei erga nos in hoc, quod Filium suum *tradidit in mortem* pro nobis peccatoribus. Exhibita autem tantae erga nos dilectionis arrha, et nos movemur accendimurque ad diligendum Deum, qui pro nobis tanta[^p396-2] fecit; et per hoc iustificamur, id est soluti a peccatis, iusti efficimur. Mors igitur Christi nos iustificat, dum per eam caritas excitatur in cordibus nostris. — Dicimur quoque et aliter per mortem Christi iustificari, quia per fidem mortis eius a peccatis mundamur. Unde Apostolus[^p396-3]: *Iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi*; et ibidem: *Quem Deus proposuit propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius*, id est per fidem passionis, ut olim aspicientes in serpentem aeneum, in ligno erectum, a morsibus serpentum sanabantur. Si ergo recte fidei intuitu in illum respicimus, qui pro nobis pependit in ligno, a vinculis diaboli solvimur, id est a peccatis, et ita a diabolo liberamur, ut nec post hanc vitam in nobis inveniat quod puniat. «*Morte* quippe *sua uno verissimo sacrificio quidquid culparum erat, unde nos diabolus ad luenda supplicia detinebat, Christus exstinxit*[^p396-4]», ut in hac vita tentando

<!-- page 397 -->

nobis non praevaleat. Licet enim nos tentet post Christi mortem, quibus modis ante tentabat, non tamen vincere potest, sicut ante vincebat. Nam Petrus, qui ante Christi mortem, voce ancillae territus, negavit, post mortem, ante reges et praesides ductus, non cessit. Quare? quia *fortior*, id est Christus, veniens *in domum fortis*, id est in corda nostra, ubi diabolus habitabat, *alligavit fortem*, id est, a seductione compescuit fidelium, ut tentationem, quae ei adhuc permittitur, non sequatur seductio. Itaque in Christi sanguine, *qui solvit quae non rapuit*, redempti sumus a peccato, et per hoc a diabolo. Nam, ut ait Augustinus[^p397-1], «*in ipso vincuntur inimicae nobis invisibiles potestates, ubi vincuntur invisibiles cupiditates*». «*Fuso enim sanguine sine culpa, omnium culparum chirographa deleta sunt, quibus debitores, qui in eum credunt, a diabolo ante tenebantur*»; unde: *Qui pro multis effundetur*. Per illum ergo redempti sumus, in quo *princeps mundi nihil invenit*. Unde Augustinus[^p397-2], causam et modum nostrae redemptionis insinuans, ait: «*Nihil invenit diabolus in Christo, ut moreretur, sed pro voluntate Patris mori Christus voluit; non habens mortis causam de peccato, sed de obedientia et iustitia, mortem gustavit, per quam nos redemit a servitute diaboli. Incideramus enim in principem huius saeculi, qui seduxit Adam et servum fecit, coepitque nos quasi vernaculos possidere; sed venit Redemptor, et victus est deceptor. Et quid fecit Redemptor captivatori nostro? Tetendit ei muscipulam crucem suam, posuit ibi quasi escam sanguinem suum. Ille autem sanguinem fudit*[^p397-3] *non-debitoris, per quod recessit a debitoribus. Ille quippe ad hoc sanguinem suum fudit, ut peccata nostra deleret. Unde ergo nos diabolus tenebat, deletum est sanguine Redemptoris. Non enim tenebat nos nisi vinculis peccatorum nostrorum; istae erant catenae captivorum. Venit ille, alligavit fortem vinculis passionis suae; intravit in domum eius, id est in corda eorum, ubi ipse habitabat, et vasa eius, scilicet nos, eripuit, quae ille impleverat amaritudine sua. Deus autem noster vasa eius eripiens et sua faciens, fudit amaritudinem et implevit dulcedine*», per mortem suam a peccatis redimens et adoptionem gloriae filiorum largiens.

### Cap. II. *Cur Deus homo et mortuus.*

Factus est igitur homo mortalis, ut moriendo diabolum vinceret. «*Nisi enim homo esset, qui diabolum vinceret, non iuste, sed violenter homo ei tolli videretur, qui se illi sponte subiecit. Sed si cum homo vicit, iure manifesto hominem perdidit. Et ut homo vincat, necesse est, ut Deus in eo sit, qui eum a peccatis immunem faciat. Si enim per se homo esset, vel Angelus in homine, facile peccaret, cum utramque naturam per se constet cecidisse*[^p397-4]». Ideo Dei Filius hominem passibilem sumsit, in quo et mortem gustavit; quo caelum nobis aperuit et a servitute diaboli, id est a peccato — servitus enim diaboli peccatum est — et a poena redemit.

### Cap. III. *Quomodo a poena Christus nos redemit.*

A qua poena? Temporali et aeterna: ab aeterna quidem relaxando debitum, a temporali vero penitus nos liberabit in futuro, *quando novissima mors inimica destruetur*[^p397-5]. Adhuc enim *exspectamus redemptionem corporis*, secundum *animas* vero iam redempti sumus ex *parte*, non ex *toto*: a *culpa*, non a *poena*, nec *omnino* a culpa. Non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus, ut non *sit*, sed ut non *dominetur*.

### Cap. IV. *Quomodo poenam nostram portavit.*

Peccata quoque nostra, id est poenam peccatorum nostrorum, dicitur *in corpore suo super lignum portasse*[^p397-6], quia per ipsius poenam, quam in cruce tulit, omnis poena temporalis, quae pro peccato conversis debetur, in *baptismo* penitus relaxatur, ut nulla a baptizato exigatur, et in *poenitentia* minoratur. Non enim sufficeret illa poena, qua poenitentes ligat Ecclesia, nisi poena Christi cooperaretur, qui pro nobis solvit. Unde peccata iustorum, qui fuerunt ante adventum, *in sustentatione Dei* fuisse usque ad Christi mortem, dicit Apostolus, *ad ostensionem iustitiae eius in hoc tempore*[^p397-7]. — Ecce, a parte expositum est, quomodo et quid Christus per mortem nobis meruit et impetravit.

### Cap. V. *Si Christus solus redemptor, ut mediator, debet dici.*

Unde ipse vere dicitur *mundi redemptor* et *Dei hominumque mediator*. Sed *mediator* in Scriptura dicitur solus Filius[^p397-8], *redemptor* vero aliquando etiam Pater, vel Spiritus sanctus, sed hoc propter usum potestatis, non propter exhibitionem humilitatis et obedientiae. Nam secundum potestatis simul et obedientiae

<!-- page 398 -->

usum Filius proprie dicitur *redemptor*, quia et in se explevit per quae iustificati sumus, et ipsam iustificationem est operatus potentia Deitatis cum Patre et Spiritu sancto. Est igitur redemptor, in quantum est *Deus*, potestatis usu, et in quantum *homo*, humilitatis effectu. Et saepius dicitur redemptor secundum humanitatem, quia secundum eam et in ea suscepit et implevit illa sacramenta, quae sunt causa nostrae redemptionis. *Proprie* igitur Filius dicitur redemptor.

### Cap. VI. *De mediatore.*

Qui solus dicitur *mediator*, non Pater, vel Spiritus sanctus. De quo Apostolus[^p398-1]: *Unus mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus*, id est, per hominem quasi in medio *arbiter* est ad componendam pacem, id est ad reconciliandum homines Deo. «*Hic est arbiter, quem Iob desiderat: Utinam esset nobis arbiter*». *Reconciliati enim sumus Deo*, ut ait Apostolus[^p398-2], *per mortem Christi*; «*quod non sic est intelligendum, quasi nos ei sic reconciliaverit Christus, ut inciperet amare quos oderat, sicut reconciliatur inimicus inimico, ut deinde sint amici, qui ante se oderant; sed iam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus. Non enim, ex quo ei reconciliati sumus per sanguinem Filii, nos coepit diligere, sed ante mundum, priusquam nos aliquid essemus*». Quomodo igitur diligenti nos Deo sumus reconciliati? «*Propter peccatum cum eo habebamus inimicitias, qui habebat erga nos caritatem, etiam cum inimicitias exercebamus adversus eum, operando iniquitatem*». «*Ita ergo inimici eramus Deo, sicut iustitiae sunt inimica peccata; et ideo, remissis peccatis, tales inimicitiae finiuntur, et reconciliantur iusto quos ipse iustificat*». Christus ergo dicitur mediator, eo quod *medius* inter Deum et homines ipsos reconciliat Deo. Reconciliat autem, dum offendicula hominum tollit ab oculis Dei, id est, dum peccata delet, quibus Deus offendebatur, et nos inimici eius eramus. — Sed cum peccata deleat non solus Filius, sed et Pater et Spiritus sanctus, quorum deletio est nostra ad Deum reconciliatio, quare solus Filius dicitur mediator? Nam de Patre legitur, quod reconciliaverit sibi mundum. Ait enim Apostolus[^p398-3]: *Deus erat in Christo mundum sibi reconcilians*. Cum igitur reconciliet, quare non dicitur *mediator*? — Quia nec *medius* est inter Deum et homines nec in se habuit illa sacramenta, quorum fide et imitatione iustificamur, id est reconciliamur Deo. Reconciliavit igitur nos tota Trinitas *virtutis usu*, scilicet dum peccata delet, sed Filius solus *impletione obedientiae*, in quo patrata sunt secundum humanam naturam, per quae credentes et imitantes iustificantur.

### Cap. VII. *Secundum quam naturam sit mediator.*

Unde et *mediator* dicitur secundum *humanitatem*, non secundum *Divinitatem*. «*Non est enim mediator inter Deum et Deum, quia unus est Deus; sed inter Deum et hominem, quasi inter duo extrema, quia medius esse non potest nisi inter aliqua*[^p398-4]». Mediator est igitur, in quantum *homo*; nam in quantum Deus, non mediator, sed aequalis Patri est, hoc idem quod Pater, cum Patre unus Deus. Mediat ergo inter homines et Deum-Trinitatem secundum hominis naturam, in qua suscepit illa, per quae reconciliamur Deo-Trinitati; et secundum eandem habet aliquid simile Deo et aliquid simile hominibus; quod mediatori congruebat, ne per omnia similis hominibus longe esset a Deo, aut per omnia Deo similis longe esset ab hominibus, et ita mediator non esset. Verus igitur mediator Christus inter mortales peccatores et immortalem iustum apparuit *mortalis* cum hominibus, *iustus* cum Deo; per infirmitatem propinquans nobis, per iustitiam Deo. Recte igitur mediator dictus est, quia inter Deum immortalem et hominem mortalem est Deus-homo, reconcilians hominem Deo, in tantum mediator, in quantum est homo; in quantum autem Verbum, non est medius, quia unus cum Patre Deus. — Si ergo Christus secundum vos, o haeretici, unam tantum habet naturam, unde medius erit? Nisi ita sit medius, ut Deus sit propter naturam Divinitatis et homo propter humanitatis naturam; quomodo humana in eo reconciliantur divinis[^p398-5]? Nam ipse veniens prius in se humana sociavit divinis per utriusque naturae coniunctionem in una persona; deinde omnes fideles per mortem reconciliavit Deo, dum sanati sunt ab impietate, quicumque humilitatem Christi, credendo dilexerunt et diligendo imitati sunt. — Ecce, hic aliquatenus insinuatur, quare Christus solus dicitur mediator Dei et hominum; et secundum quam naturam mediet, scilicet humanam; et cui mediet, scilicet Deo-Trinitati. Trinitati enim nos reconciliavit per mortem, per quam etiam nos redemit a servitute diaboli. Nam, ut Petrus ait in canonica Epistola[^p398-6], *non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti sumus, sed pretioso sanguine Agni immaculati*.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XIX.

### Chap. I. *In what way Christ by his death redeemed us from the devil and from sin.*

Now therefore let us inquire how through his death we have been redeemed from the devil and from sin and from punishment. — From the devil therefore and from sin we have been freed through Christ's death, because, as the Apostle says[^p396-1], *in his blood we have been justified*, and in the fact that we have been justified, that is, loosed from sins, we have been freed from the devil, who held us by the chains of sins. But how have we been loosed from sins through his death? Because through his death, as the Apostle says, *the charity of God is commended to us*, that is, the surpassing and commendable charity of God toward us appears in this, that he *handed over* his Son *unto death* for us sinners. And the pledge of so great a love toward us having been displayed, we too are moved and kindled to love God, who did such great things[^p396-2] for us; and through this we are justified, that is, being loosed from sins, we are made just. Christ's death therefore justifies us, while through it charity is stirred up in our hearts. — We are also said to be justified in another way through Christ's death, because through faith in his death we are cleansed from sins. Whence the Apostle[^p396-3]: *The justice of God is through faith of Jesus Christ*; and in the same place: *Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiator, through faith in his blood*, that is, through faith in the passion, just as of old those looking upon the bronze serpent, raised on the wood, were healed from the bites of serpents. If therefore we rightly with the gaze of faith look upon him who hung on the wood for us, we are loosed from the chains of the devil, that is from sins, and so we are freed from the devil, so that even after this life he finds nothing in us to punish. «*By his death* indeed *by one most true sacrifice whatever there was of faults, on account of which the devil was holding us to pay the penalties, Christ extinguished*[^p396-4]», so that in this life by tempting

he may not prevail against us. For although he tempts us after Christ's death, by whatever modes he tempted before, yet he cannot conquer, as he conquered before. For Peter, who before Christ's death, terrified by the voice of a maidservant, denied, after the death, led before kings and governors, did not give way. Why? Because the *stronger one*, that is Christ, coming *into the house of the strong one*, that is into our hearts, where the devil dwelt, *bound the strong one*, that is, restrained him from the seduction of the faithful, so that the temptation, which is still permitted to him, the seduction may not follow. And so in Christ's blood, *who paid back what he did not seize*, we have been redeemed from sin, and through this from the devil. For, as Augustine says[^p397-1], «*in him are conquered the invisible powers hostile to us, where the invisible desires are conquered*». «*For the blood having been poured out without fault, the bonds of all faults have been blotted out, by which debtors, who believe in him, were before held by the devil*»; whence: *Which shall be poured out for many*. Through him therefore we have been redeemed, in whom *the prince of the world found nothing*. Whence Augustine[^p397-2], intimating the cause and mode of our redemption, says: «*The devil found nothing in Christ for which he should die, but by the will of the Father Christ willed to die; not having a cause of death from sin, but from obedience and justice, he tasted death, through which he redeemed us from the servitude of the devil. For we had fallen into the prince of this world, who seduced Adam and made him a slave, and began to possess us as his home-born servants; but the Redeemer came, and the deceiver was conquered. And what did the Redeemer do to our captor? He stretched out for him a snare, his cross, he placed there as bait his blood. But he poured out the blood*[^p397-3] *of one not a debtor, by which he withdrew from the debtors. For he poured out his blood for this, that he might blot out our sins. Whence therefore the devil held us, it has been blotted out by the blood of the Redeemer. For he held us only by the chains of our sins; these were the fetters of the captives. He came, he bound the strong one with the chains of his passion; he entered into his house, that is into the hearts of those in whom he himself dwelt, and his vessels, namely us, he snatched away, which the other had filled with his bitterness. But our God, snatching away his vessels and making them his own, poured out the bitterness and filled them with sweetness*», through his death redeeming from sins and bestowing the adoption of the glory of sons.

### Chap. II. *Why God [became] man and [why] dead.*

He was therefore made a mortal man, that by dying he might conquer the devil. «*For unless he were man, who should conquer the devil, it would seem that man was taken from him not justly, but violently, who subjected himself to him of his own will. But if, since he conquered as man, by manifest right he destroyed the man. And that man may conquer, it is necessary that God be in him, who makes him immune from sins. For if he were man by himself, or an Angel in a man, he would easily sin, since it is established that each nature by itself fell*[^p397-4]». Therefore the Son of God assumed a passible man, in whom he also tasted death; by which he opened heaven to us and redeemed us from the servitude of the devil, that is from sin — for the servitude of the devil is sin — and from punishment.

### Chap. III. *How Christ redeemed us from punishment.*

From what punishment? Temporal and eternal: from the eternal indeed by remitting the debt, but from the temporal he will free us entirely in the future, *when the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed*[^p397-5]. For we still *await the redemption of the body*, but as to *souls* we have already been redeemed *in part*, not *in whole*: from *guilt*, not from *punishment*, nor *altogether* from guilt. For we have not been redeemed from it in such a way that it does not *exist*, but that it does not *have dominion*.

### Chap. IV. *How he bore our punishment.*

Our sins too, that is the punishment of our sins, he is said *to have borne in his body upon the wood*[^p397-6], because through his punishment, which he bore on the cross, all temporal punishment, which is owed for sin to those converted, is in *baptism* entirely remitted, so that none is exacted from the baptized, and in *penance* is lessened. For that punishment with which the Church binds penitents would not suffice, unless the punishment of Christ cooperated, who paid for us. Whence the sins of the just, who were before the advent, were *in the sustaining of God* until Christ's death, the Apostle says, *unto the showing of his justice in this time*[^p397-7]. — Behold, it has been in part expounded, how and what Christ by his death merited and obtained for us.

### Chap. V. *Whether Christ alone, as mediator, ought to be called redeemer.*

Whence he is truly called *redeemer of the world* and *mediator of God and men*. But *mediator* in Scripture is called the Son alone[^p397-8], whereas *redeemer* sometimes also the Father, or the Holy Spirit, but this on account of the use of power, not on account of the display of humility and obedience. For according to the use of power and at the same time of obedience

the Son is properly called *redeemer*, because both in himself he accomplished those things by which we are justified, and the justification itself he wrought by the power of the Deity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is therefore redeemer, insofar as he is *God*, by the use of power, and insofar as he is *man*, by the effect of humility. And more often he is called redeemer according to his humanity, because according to it and in it he undertook and fulfilled those sacraments which are the cause of our redemption. *Properly* therefore the Son is called redeemer.

### Chap. VI. *On the mediator.*

Who alone is called *mediator*, not the Father, or the Holy Spirit. Of whom the Apostle[^p398-1]: *One mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus*, that is, through a man as it were in the middle he is *arbiter* for composing peace, that is for reconciling men to God. «*This is the arbiter whom Job desires: Would that there were for us an arbiter*». *For we have been reconciled to God*, as the Apostle says[^p398-2], *through the death of Christ*; «*which is not to be so understood, as though Christ so reconciled us to him, that he began to love those whom he hated, as an enemy is reconciled to an enemy, so that afterward they may be friends, who before hated each other; but we have already been reconciled to God [who] loves [us]. For not from the time when we were reconciled to him through the blood of the Son did he begin to love us, but before the world, before we were anything*». How therefore have we been reconciled to God [who] loves us? «*On account of sin we had enmities with him, who had charity toward us, even while we were exercising enmities against him, by working iniquity*». «*So therefore we were enemies to God, as sins are enemies to justice; and therefore, with sins remitted, such enmities are ended, and those whom he himself justifies are reconciled to the just one*». Christ therefore is called mediator, in that as *the middle one* between God and men he reconciles them to God. And he reconciles, while he removes the offenses of men from the eyes of God, that is, while he blots out the sins by which God was offended, and we were his enemies. — But since not the Son alone blots out sins, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit, whose blotting-out is our reconciliation to God, why is the Son alone called mediator? For of the Father it is read, that he reconciled the world to himself. For the Apostle says[^p398-3]: *God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself*. Since therefore he reconciles, why is he not called *mediator*? — Because he is neither *the middle one* between God and men, nor did he have in himself those sacraments by whose faith and imitation we are justified, that is reconciled to God. The whole Trinity therefore reconciled us by the *use of power*, namely while it blots out sins, but the Son alone by the *fulfillment of obedience*, in whom they were accomplished according to the human nature, through which believers and imitators are justified.

### Chap. VII. *According to which nature he is mediator.*

Whence also he is called *mediator* according to his *humanity*, not according to his *Divinity*. «*For there is no mediator between God and God, because God is one; but between God and man, as it were between two extremes, because the middle one cannot be except between some things*[^p398-4]». He is therefore mediator, insofar as he is *man*; for insofar as God, he is not mediator, but equal to the Father, the same as the Father, with the Father one God. He mediates therefore between men and the God-Trinity according to the nature of man, in which he undertook those things through which we are reconciled to the God-Trinity; and according to the same he has something like God and something like men; which was fitting for a mediator, lest by being in all things like men he should be far from God, or by being in all things like God he should be far from men, and so should not be a mediator. The true mediator therefore Christ between mortal sinners and the immortal just one appeared *mortal* with men, *just* with God; by infirmity drawing near to us, by justice to God. Rightly therefore was he called mediator, because between immortal God and mortal man there is the God-man, reconciling man to God, a mediator in so far as he is man; but in so far as he is the Word, he is not the middle one, because one with the Father God. — If therefore Christ, according to you, O heretics, has only one nature, whence will he be the middle one? Unless he be the middle one in such a way that he is God on account of the nature of Divinity and man on account of the nature of humanity; how are human things in him reconciled to divine[^p398-5]? For he himself, coming first, joined human things to divine in himself through the conjunction of each nature in one person; then he reconciled all the faithful through his death to God, while they were healed from impiety, whoever loved the humility of Christ by believing and imitated it by loving. — Behold, here it is somewhat intimated why Christ alone is called mediator of God and men; and according to which nature he mediates, namely the human; and to whom he mediates, namely to the God-Trinity. For to the Trinity he reconciled us through his death, through which also he redeemed us from the servitude of the devil. For, as Peter says in his canonical Epistle[^p398-6], *not with corruptible gold or silver have we been redeemed, but with the precious blood of the immaculate Lamb*.

---

la: Rom. 3, 24. 25. Seq. locus est Rom. 5, 8. 9. Tamen hi loci Scripturae sicut et seqq. aliquatenus contracti sunt, vel a Vulgata differunt.

en: Rom. 3, 24. 25. The following passage is Rom. 5, 8. 9. Yet these passages of Scripture, like those following, are somewhat abridged, or differ from the Vulgate.

la: Codd. B C D E et edd. 1, 3, 7 *tantum*.

en: Codices B C D E and editions 1, 3, 7 [read] *only*.

la: Rom. 3, 22. 23. Respicitur Numer. 21, 9.

en: Rom. 3, 22. 23. Numbers 21, 9 is referred to.

la: August., IV. de Trin. c. 13. n. 17, ubi etiam quae sequuntur insinuantur. Verba Augustini sunt etiam in Glossa ad Colos. 2, 12, apud Lyranum. Paulo inferius respicitur Luc. 22, 56. seqq. (de negatione Petri) et Luc. 11, 22 (de forti armato), denique Ps. 68, 5.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV, c. 13. n. 17, where also the things that follow are intimated. Augustine's words are also in the Gloss on Colossians 2, 12, in Lyra. A little below Luke 22, 56 ff. (on Peter's denial) and Luke 11, 22 (on the armed strong man) are referred to, and finally Ps. 68, 5.

la: De Agone christiano, c. 2. n. 2. Seq. locus est II. de Peccator. meritis et remiss. c. 30. n. 49, ubi alluditur ad Matth. 26, 28. et in fine ad Ioan. 11, 30. Haec verba omnia leguntur in Glossa ad Colos. 2, 15, apud Lyranum.

en: *On the Christian Combat*, c. 2. n. 2. The following passage is [from] book II *On the Merits and Remission of Sins*, c. 30. n. 49, where Matt. 26, 28 is alluded to, and at the end John 11, 30. All these words are read in the Gloss on Colossians 2, 15, in Lyra.

la: Ita verbotenus in Glossa ad Hebr. 2, 14. (apud Lyranum), quam Beda (ibid.) sumsit ex August., Serm. 130. n. 2, et II. de Peccator. meritis etc. c. 31. n. 51.

en: Thus word for word in the Gloss on Hebrews 2, 14 (in Lyra), which Bede (ibid.) took from Augustine, *Sermon* 130. n. 2, and book II *On the Merits of Sins* etc. c. 31. n. 51.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. addit *suum*, refragantibus codd. B C D E et edd. 1, 3, 7, 8; ed. 6 addit *istum*. In August. citato sermone legitur plenius: *Ille autem (scil. diabolus) potuit sanguinem istum fundere, non meruit bibere. Et in eo quod fudit sanguinem non-debitoris, iussus est reddere debitores. Fudit sanguinem innocentis, iussus est recedere a nocentibus. Ille quippe* etc. — Infra pro *eripuit* et *eripens* in originali *arripuit* et *arripiens*. Hic respicitur Matth. 12, 29; Marc. 3, 27.

en: The Vatican [edition] with a few editions adds *his*, against codices B C D E and editions 1, 3, 7, 8; edition 6 adds *that*. In the cited sermon of Augustine it is read more fully: *But he (namely the devil) was able to pour out that blood, he did not deserve to drink it. And in the fact that he poured out the blood of one not a debtor, he was commanded to give back the debtors. He poured out the blood of an innocent one, he was commanded to withdraw from the guilty. For he* etc. — Below, for *snatched away* and *snatching away* the original [has] *seized* and *seizing*. Here Matt. 12, 29; Mark 3, 27 are referred to.

la: Glossa ad Hebr. 2, 11, apud Lyranum. Quae sequuntur sunt ibid. sententialiter.

en: The Gloss on Hebrews 2, 11, in Lyra. The things that follow are there in substance.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 26. Mox respicitur Rom. 8, 23.

en: Epistle I to the Corinthians 15, 26. Soon after Rom. 8, 23 is referred to.

la: Epist. I. Petr. 2, 24.

en: Epistle I of Peter 2, 24.

la: Rom. 3, 26. — Immediate post pro *Ecce, a parte* Vat. multaeque edd. *Ecce, aperte*, refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 8.

en: Rom. 3, 26. — Immediately after, for *Behold, in part* the Vatican and many editions [read] *Behold, openly*, against the codices and editions 1, 8.

en: Epistle I to Timothy 2, 5; Gal. 3, 20; Isai. 41, 14.

la: Loc. cit. ad Tim. 2, 5. — Sequitur locus August., Enarrat. in Ps. 103. Serm. 4. n. 8, ubi respicitur Iob, 9, 33, secundum Septuaginta. Vulgata: *Non est qui utrumque valeat arguere, et ponere manum suam in ambobus.*

en: The cited passage to Timothy 2, 5. — There follows a passage of Augustine, *Expositions on Psalm* 103. Sermon 4. n. 8, where Job 9, 33 is referred to, according to the Septuagint. The Vulgate: *There is none who can rebuke both, and lay his hand upon both.*

la: Rom. 5, 10. Sequitur locus August., in Evang. Ioan. tr. 110. n. 6. Seq. locus est ibid.; tertius locus est eiusdem, XIII. de Trin. c. 16. n. 21.

en: Rom. 5, 10. There follows a passage of Augustine, *On the Gospel of John* tractate 110. n. 6. The following passage is ibid.; the third passage is by the same author, *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 16. n. 21.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 5, 19.

en: Epistle II to the Corinthians 5, 19.

la: August., Expos. in Epist. ad Galatas (3, 19.) n. 24., in quo loco post *quia* edd., excepta 1, addunt *tantum*, refragante etiam originali. — Quae sequuntur secundum sensum, retentis pluribus verbis, Magister contraxit ex August., X. Confess. c. 42. 43. n. 67. 68. Inveniuntur etiam in Glossa ad I. Tim. 2, 5, apud Lyranum. Cfr. August., I. de Consensu Evangelist. c. 35. n. 53.

en: Augustine, *Exposition on the Epistle to the Galatians* (3, 19.) n. 24., in which place after *because* the editions, except 1, add *only*, the original also opposing. — The things that follow, according to the sense, with many words retained, the Master abridged from Augustine, *Confessions* X, c. 42. 43. n. 67. 68. They are found also in the Gloss on I Tim. 2, 5, in Lyra. Cf. Augustine, *On the Agreement of the Evangelists* I, c. 35. n. 53.

la: Quae praecedunt sumta esse videntur ex Vigilio Tapsensi, V. contra Eutycheten, n. 15.

en: The things that precede seem to have been taken from Vigilius of Thapsus, *Against Eutyches* V, n. 15.

en: That is, the cited passage [1 Peter] I, 18. 19.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Lombard's *littera* for Distinctio XIX (Cap. I–VII), re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp.396–398 = PDF 418–420, offset pdf = printed + 22) with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 27636–27816) as cross-check. The IA OCR for these pages is heavily cascade-shattered (two-column bleed, diagonal fragmentation of the footers and the Cap.-heading region), so the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout per the Vol II/III override. Confirmed this is the *littera* (Cap. I *Qualiter a diabolo et a peccato redemit nos Christus per mortem*), not a quaestio. `has_scholion: false` (littera has no scholion); `has_apparatus: true`.

**Page-split map (apparatus, per-page restart).**
- p.396 R-col footer (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM): nn.1–4 → `[^p396-1..4]`.
- p.397 footer (begins L-col, continues R-col): nn.1–8 → `[^p397-1..8]`. (n.3 is the long *Vat. … addit suum* variant note spanning both columns; n.4 begins in the R-col footer.)
- p.398 footer (begins L-col, continues R-col): nn.1–6 → `[^p398-1..6]`. (n.4 is the long *Galatas … contraxit ex August.* note spanning both columns.)
- **Total: 18 apparatus entries.**

**Body page-split.** Cap. I opens at the foot of p.396 (L-col, after DUB. V of the d.18 dubia in the same L-col) and the body continues into the p.396 R-col, then runs L-col→R-col on p.397 (Cap. II–V) and on p.398 (Cap. V tail–Cap. VII). `<!-- page 396/397/398 -->` markers placed at the column-wrap boundaries.

**Hand-off PICKED UP (from d.18 dubia).** The p.396 R-col footer block — the DIST. XIX *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–4 (Rom. 3, 24.25 etc.) — which d18-dubia explicitly left for the littera, is captured here as `[^p396-1..4]`. The p.396 L-col footers nn.1–5 (*Cfr. infra d.20…* through *Dubio praeced…*) are the d.18 COMMENTARIUS/dubia notes and stay with d18-dubia (not duplicated here). Seam confirmed CLEAN: DUB. V Respondeo concludes (*…pro salute generis humani.*) in the p.396 L-col before the DISTINCTIO XIX heading and Cap. I opener begin lower in the same L-col; no spliced/broken sentence.

**Hand-off FORWARDED (to d19-divisio).** The littera ends at p.398 R-col (*…sed pretioso sanguine Agni immaculati.*); the running head DIST. XIX. ART. I. QUAEST. I. (printed p.399) and then COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX / DIVISIO TEXTUS begin at raw line 27817. d19-divisio picks up from raw 27817 (printed p.399).

**[?] flags.** None — the 450 dpi bands are fully legible across all three pages.

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


title: Dist. 19, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XIX — Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XIX — Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 399 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX.
*De redemptione nostra, facta per passionem Christi, quoad efficaciam et utilitatem.*

*Nunc igitur quaeramus, quomodo per mortem ipsius etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de Christi incarnatione et de his, secundum quae incarnatio habebat ordinari ad nostram reparationem. In hac vero parte agit de redemptione nostra, quae facta est per passionem. Dividitur autem ista pars in duas partes. In quarum prima agit de Christi passione. In secunda de morte, quae consecuta est passionem, distinctione vigesima prima: *Post praedicta considerandum est, utrum in morte* etc. Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima agitur[^p399-1] de efficacia eius et utilitate. In secunda vero agitur de congruentia et necessitate, intra distinctione vigesima: *Si vero quaeritur, utrum alio modo possit* etc.

Prima pars, quae continet praesentem distinctionem, dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima agitur de efficacia passionis. In secunda vero agitur de persona redemptoris, ibi: *Unde ipse vere dicitur mundi redemptor.* Prima pars dividitur in quatuor partes. In prima ostendit efficaciam passionis in remissione peccatorum. In secunda vero in deletione chirographorum, ibi: *Itaque in Christi sanguine, qui solvit quae non rapuit* etc. In tertia vero in liberatione a potestate diaboli, ibi: *Factus est igitur homo mortalis.* In quarta in absolutione peccati[^p399-2], ibi: *A qua poena? Temporali et aeterna.*

Similiter secunda pars principalis quatuor habet partes. In quarum prima determinat Magister, quare[^p399-3] dicitur redemptor. In secunda, quare dicitur mediator, ibi: *Qui solus dicitur mediator* etc. In tertia vero, quare solus Filius dicitur mediator, ibi: *Sed cum peccata deleat non solus Filius* etc. In quarta, secundum quam naturam dicitur mediator, ibi: *Unde et mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem.* Subdivisiones autem partium in littera satis apparent.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa duo. Primo enim quaeritur de efficacia passionis. Secundo vero quaeritur de persona redemptoris et mediatoris.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor iuxta ea quae prius[^p399-4] tacta sunt.

Primo quaeritur, utrum per passionem fiat peccatorum remissio.

Secundo vero quaeritur, utrum fiat chirographorum deletio.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum per ipsam fiat liberatio a potestate diaboli.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum per ipsam fiat absolutio a poena peccati.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIX.
*On our redemption, accomplished through the passion of Christ, with respect to its efficacy and usefulness.*

*Now therefore let us ask, how through his death etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of Christ's incarnation and of those things according to which the incarnation had to be ordered to our restoration. But in this part he treats of our redemption, which was accomplished through the passion. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he treats of Christ's passion. In the second, of the death which followed upon the passion, in the twenty-first distinction: *After the foregoing it must be considered, whether in death* etc. The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these is treated[^p399-1] its efficacy and usefulness. But in the second is treated its fittingness and necessity, within the twentieth distinction: *But if it is asked, whether in another way he could* etc.

The first part, which contains the present distinction, is divided into two parts. In the first of these is treated the efficacy of the passion. But in the second is treated the person of the redeemer, at the place: *Hence he is truly called the redeemer of the world.* The first part is divided into four parts. In the first he shows the efficacy of the passion in the remission of sins. But in the second, in the blotting-out of the handwritings, at the place: *Therefore in the blood of Christ, who paid back what he did not take away* etc. But in the third, in the liberation from the power of the devil, at the place: *Therefore man was made mortal.* In the fourth, in the absolution of sin[^p399-2], at the place: *From what penalty? Temporal and eternal.*

Likewise the second principal part has four parts. In the first of these the Master determines why[^p399-3] he is called redeemer. In the second, why he is called mediator, at the place: *Who alone is called mediator* etc. But in the third, why the Son alone is called mediator, at the place: *But since not the Son alone blots out sins* etc. In the fourth, according to what nature he is called mediator, at the place: *Hence he is also called mediator according to his humanity.* But the subdivisions of the parts appear sufficiently in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part a question arises here concerning two matters. For first it is asked about the efficacy of the passion. But secondly it is asked about the person of the redeemer and mediator.

Concerning the first, four matters are asked, according to those things which were touched on above[^p399-4].

First it is asked, whether through the passion the remission of sins comes about.

But secondly it is asked, whether the blotting-out of the handwritings comes about.

Thirdly it is asked, whether through it the liberation from the power of the devil comes about.

Fourthly it is asked, whether through it the absolution from the penalty of sin comes about.

---

la: Cod. G hic, et in seqq. cum cod. G etiam alii codd. *agit.*

en: Codex G here, and in the following passages together with codex G also the other codices, [read] *agit* ["he treats"].

la: Edd. *in solutione pretii.*

en: The editions [read] *in solutione pretii* ["in the payment of the price"].

la: Edd. supplent *Christus* et paulo inferius pro *solus Filius* exhibent *solus Christus.*

en: The editions supply *Christus* ["Christ"], and a little below, in place of *solus Filius* ["the Son alone"], they give *solus Christus* ["Christ alone"].

la: In divisione textus huius dist. — Mox voci *passionem* edd. adiungunt *Christi.*

en: In the division of the text of this distinction. — Presently, to the word *passionem* ["passion"] the editions add *Christi* ["of Christ"].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.399 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p399-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 27817–27855). Offset: pdf = printed + 22 (PDF 421). Running head DIST. XIX. ART. I. QUAEST. I.; page number 399 top-right of R column — confirmed eyes-on.

**Page-split map.** This chunk is single-page: all of the COMMENTARIUS opener, DIVISIO TEXTUS, and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (ART. I's four-question listing) sit on printed p.399. The ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I header and body begin at the foot of p.399 (L-col bottom + R-col) and carry over to p.400+ — those belong to the a1-q1 chunk.

**Question counts (verified).** d.19 has TWO articles. **ART. I (De efficacia passionis Christi) = FOUR questions; ART. II (De persona redemptoris et mediatoris) = TWO questions** — matching the skeleton set (a1-q1/q2/q3/q4 + a2-q1/q2), plus the DUBIA chunk. No missing or extra skeleton. The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM in THIS divisio lists only ART. I's four questions ("Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor"); ART. II's two-question sub-listing appears later, at the head of ART. II. All six titles:
- ART. I q1: *Utrum per passionem Christi fiat remissio peccatorum* — Whether through the passion of Christ the remission of sins comes about.
- ART. I q2: *Utrum per passionem Christi facta fuerit chirographorum deletio* — Whether through the passion of Christ the blotting-out of the handwritings was accomplished.
- ART. I q3: *Utrum per passionem Christi liberati simus a potestate diaboli* — Whether through the passion of Christ we were freed from the power of the devil.
- ART. I q4: *Utrum per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati* — Whether through the passion of Christ we are absolved from the penalty of sin.
- ART. II q1: *Utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus* — Whether the Son alone is redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit.
- ART. II q2: *Secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator* — According to what nature Christ is mediator.

**Apparatus.** 4 entries, p.399 footer nn.1–4 (`[^p399-1..4]`), per-page restart. The divisio body carries markers 1 (*agitur*), 2 (*peccati*), 3 (*quare*), 4 (*prius*). Page 399's note 5 (`Vers. 5. — In minori pro abluere…`) anchors on *Apocalypsis primo⁵* in the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I body and is FORWARDED to the a1-q1 chunk.

**Hand-offs picked up.** NONE — per the d19-littera hand-off, the littera was self-contained at the seam (no footer migrated in). The divisio begins fresh at raw 27817 / printed p.399 (COMMENTARIUS opener).

**Hand-off forwarded (to d19-a1-q1).** ARTICULUS I (*De efficacia passionis Christi*) / QUAESTIO I (*Utrum per passionem Christi fiat remissio peccatorum*) begins at the foot of printed p.399 (raw line 27852: `ARTICULUS I.`; opener *Circa primum sic procedituret quaeritur, utrum per passionem Christi fiat remissio peccatorum. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Apocalypsis primo⁵: Lavit nos a peccatis…*). The ARTICULUS I opener is folded into a1-q1 (no standalone divisio chunk). **Migrating footers:** p.399 footer note **5** (`Vers. 5. — In minori pro abluere cod. U lavare, codd. H I L T V Z aa absolvere.`) belongs to a1-q1, anchored on *Lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo⁵*. Offset reminder: pdf = printed + 22.

**[?] flags.** None — p.399 fully legible at 450 dpi.