title: Dist. 18, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 468 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.

#### Pars I.

*De potestate clavium et usu earum in foro poenitentiali.*

> Hic quaeri solet, si peccatum iam omnino dimissum est a Deo etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de confessione quantum ad necessitatem a parte poenitentis; hic secundo agit de ipsa quantum ad potestatem ex parte absolventis[^1]. Habet autem haec pars duas. In prima agit de potestate in se, in secunda in comparatione ad suscipientes, infra distinctione decima nona: *Postquam ostensum est, quae sint claves apostolicae* etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat de clavibus et earum usu in foro poenitentiali; in secunda vero in foro iudiciali, ibi: *Est et alius modus ligandi et solvendi* etc.

<!-- page 469 -->

Prima pars habet duas. In prima quaerit et determinat veritatem. In secunda ad maiorem enodationem opponit, et hoc ibi: *Sed quaeritur, utrum a peccato solvere valeat.* Prima pars duas habet. In prima movet suam quaestionem. In secunda determinat, ibi: *Claves istae non sunt corporales.* Similiter secunda pars duas habet. In prima opponit ad utramque partem, ostendens primo, quod sacerdotes non possunt solvere a peccato et ligare; secundo, quod possunt a peccato solvere et ligare[^2]. In secunda determinat modum, per quem solvunt et ligant, ibi: *Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen* etc., ubi ostendit, quod sacerdotes dicuntur ligare et solvere vel quantum ad ostensionem, vel quantum ad poenam temporalem.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de clavibus, secundum quod spectant ad forum poenitentiale. Et circa hoc tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de clavibus in generali.

Secundo, de potestate ligandi et solvendi, quae est clavis principalis.

Tertio, de scientia discernendi.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum claves Ecclesiae datae sint.

Secundo, supposito quod sic, quaeritur, ad quid datae sunt.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De clavibus in generali.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum claves Ecclesiae sint datae.*

---

english:
<!-- page 468 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVIII.

#### Part I.

*On the power of the keys and the use of them in the penitential forum.*

> Here it is wont to be asked, whether sin, once altogether remitted by God, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of confession with respect to its necessity on the part of the penitent; here, secondly, he treats of it with respect to the power on the part of the one absolving[^1]. Now this part has two [parts]. In the first he treats of the power in itself, in the second in comparison to those who receive [it], below in the nineteenth distinction: *After it has been shown, what the apostolic keys are,* etc. The first part has two [parts]. In the first he determines concerning the keys and their use in the penitential forum; in the second, however, in the judicial forum, there: *There is also another mode of binding and loosing,* etc.

<!-- page 469 -->

The first part has two [parts]. In the first he inquires into and determines the truth. In the second, for the sake of fuller unfolding, he argues to the contrary, and this there: *But it is asked, whether [the priest] is able to loose from sin.* The first part has two [parts]. In the first he raises his question. In the second he determines [it], there: *These keys are not corporeal.* Likewise the second part has two [parts]. In the first he argues to both sides, showing first, that priests cannot loose from sin and bind; second, that they can loose from sin and bind[^2]. In the second he determines the mode by which they loose and bind, there: *Yet this was not conceded to the priests, to whom nevertheless* etc., where he shows, that priests are said to bind and loose either with respect to the showing [of it], or with respect to temporal punishment.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning the keys, insofar as they pertain to the penitential forum. And concerning this three things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the keys in general.

Second, concerning the power of binding and loosing, which is the principal key.

Third, concerning the knowledge of discerning.

With respect to the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked, whether the keys of the Church have been given.

Second, granted that [they have], it is asked, for what they have been given.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the keys in general.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether the keys of the Church have been given.*

---

la: Ita codd. FGH, quorum lectio confirmatur ex *Divisione textus* d. 17. p. 1; alii codd. et edd. *absolutionis.*

en: Thus codices FGH, whose reading is confirmed from the *Division of the text* of d. 17, p. 1; other codices and editions [read] *absolutionis* (of the absolution).

la: In codd. desideratur haec propositio: *secundo... ligare.* Edd., perperam posito *tres habet* pro *duas habet* [falsitas lectionis edd. colligi tum potest ex voce *Similiter*], subinde legunt: *In secunda ostendit, quod possunt... In tertia determinat modum.*

en: In the codices this proposition is wanting: *second... bind.* The editions, having wrongly put *has three* for *has two* [the falsity of the editions' reading can then be gathered from the word *Likewise*], read thereupon: *In the second he shows, that they can... In the third he determines the mode.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 52262–52332 (the COMMENTARIUS title through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p468-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p469-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions (the OCR splices left- and right-column lines together throughout the DIVISIO TEXTUS). Offset pdf = printed + 20. The chunk straddles a page break: the COMMENTARIUS title, *Pars I* subtitle/argumentum, and the opening of DIVISIO TEXTUS (through *...alius modus ligandi et solvendi etc.*) print at the **bottom of p.468**; the remainder of the DIVISIO, the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, the ARTICULUS I opener, and the QUAESTIO I title print on **p.469**. Running heads confirmed: p.468 = *468 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.* (verso); p.469 = *DIST. XVIII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 469* (recto), matching the page-verify requirement.
- **Structure confirmed — Pars I = *De clavibus*, with THREE articles** (matches the brief's expected map). The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM first lists three principal heads: **Art I** *De clavibus in generali* ("Primo quaeritur de clavibus in generali"); **Art II** *De potestate ligandi et solvendi* ("Secundo, de potestate ligandi et solvendi, quae est clavis principalis"); **Art III** *De scientia discernendi* ("Tertio, de scientia discernendi"). Art I's two questions are listed verbatim under "Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo": q1 *utrum claves Ecclesiae datae sint*; q2 *supposito quod sic, ad quid datae sunt*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS I opener (heading + sub-title) folds in here, along with the QUAESTIO I heading + title; the q1 body is left to `d18-p1-a1-q1`. (Art II's and Art III's per-article question listings print at the head of those articles, not in this opening TRACTATIO.)
- **Page-split map:** the chunk DOES straddle a page break. p.468 (bottom, full-width then two-column) carries the COMMENTARIUS opener and the DIVISIO TEXTUS down to *...in foro iudiciali, ibi: Est et alius modus ligandi et solvendi etc.*; a `<!-- page 469 -->` break is placed at *Prima pars habet duas. In prima quaerit et determinat veritatem.* p.469 carries the rest of the DIVISIO, the full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, the ARTICULUS I opener, and the QUAESTIO I title.
- **Footer ownership:** **two** footers claimed here. (1) p.468 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* note 1 (*Ita codd. FGH … absolutionis.*) anchors at *absolventis* in the DIVISIO. (2) p.469 footer note 1 (renumbered `[^2]` in this chunk; *In codd. desideratur haec propositio: secundo... ligare …*) anchors at *ligare* in the DIVISIO. The further p.469 numbered footers (Vers. 19; Vers. 23; Vers. 17 + Glossa ordinaria/interlinearis; and the Isaiah 22 Glossa notes ⁵–⁷) anchor in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* body and are **left to `d18-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **No `[?]` flags** — the divisio body, the three-article/two-question (Art I) partition, and the two owned footers read cleanly once reflowed from the column bands (OCR raw is column-spliced but the PDF bands disambiguate every line). The Pars-I subtitle reads *De potestate clavium et usu earum in foro poenitentiali* and the argumentum *Hic quaeri solet, si peccatum iam omnino dimissum est a Deo etc.*; both confirmed against the bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.
- **Hand-off to `d18-p1-a1-q1`:** that chunk opens at raw L52351 / p.469 right col (*Circa primum ostenditur, quod claves Ecclesiae sint datae: 1. Per illud quod habetur Matthaei decimo…*), QUAESTIO I title already set here; it owns the p.469 *Fundamenta* footers (notes 2–7: Vers. 19, Vers. 23, Vers. 17 Glossa, Isaiah 22 notes). None of those are double-rendered here — this chunk renders only the two DIVISIO textual-variant notes.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 18, Part 2, Divisio Textus

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 483 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.

### Pars II.
#### *De clavibus et eorum usu in foro iudiciali.*

*Est et alius modus ligandi et solvendi, qui per excommunicationem exhibetur etc.*

VIDE TEXTUM MAGISTRI PAG. 467.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de usu et potestate clavium in foro poenitentiali, quod[^6] quidem est per absolutionem et ligationem in foro illo. Hic secundo agit de absolutione et ligatione in foro iudiciali, quae quidem est per excommunicationem; et habet haec pars tres partes. In prima assignat hunc modum ligandi, quare et qualiter fiat. In secunda vero auctoritate sacrae Scripturae confirmat, ibi: *Secundum hos ligandi et solvendi modos*. In tertia ad intelligentiam illarum auctoritatum quandam quaestionem quaerit et determinat, scilicet quae sit animae macula vel tenebra, a qua Deus mundat, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, quae sit illa macula*.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis sex quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit vel debeat excommunicari.

Secundo, dato quod sic, quaeritur, pro quo quis sit excommunicandus.

Tertio quaeritur, a quo.

Quarto, utrum excommunicatio possit iterari.

Quinto, de communicatione cum excommunicatis.

Sexto, de absolutione.

<!-- page 484 -->

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVIII.

### Part II.
#### *On the keys and their use in the judicial forum.*

*There is also another mode of binding and loosing, which is exercised through excommunication, etc.*

SEE THE TEXT OF THE MASTER, PAGE 467.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the use and power of the keys in the penitential forum, which indeed is exercised through absolution and binding in that forum.[^6] Here, secondly, he treats of absolution and binding in the judicial forum, which indeed is exercised through excommunication; and this part has three parts. In the first he assigns this mode of binding, why and how it comes about. In the second he confirms it by the authority of sacred Scripture, there: *According to these modes of binding and loosing*. In the third, for the understanding of those authorities, he raises and determines a certain question, namely what is the stain or darkness of the soul from which God cleanses, there: *Here it is asked what that stain is*.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, six things are asked.

First it is asked whether anyone can or ought to be excommunicated.

Second, granted that he can, it is asked for what someone is to be excommunicated.

Third it is asked, by whom.

Fourth, whether excommunication can be repeated.

Fifth, concerning communication with the excommunicated.

Sixth, concerning absolution.

---

la: Edd. *quae.*

en: The editions read *quae* ["which"].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 53872–53917, cross-checked against vol4 column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p483-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p484-{L,R}-*`. Running head on p.483 confirmed: "DIST. XVIII. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS." with printed folio "483"; offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Pars II confirmed.** This is the COMMENTARIUS opener for **Pars II** = an **ARTICULUS UNICUS** *De excommunicatione* (subtitle prints on p.484 immediately after this chunk: "ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De excommunicatione."). Pars II's own title is *De clavibus et eorum usu in foro iudiciali*; cross-reference "VIDE TEXTUM MAGISTRI PAG. 467."

**Six questions (TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, confirmed verbatim):**
1. utrum aliquis possit vel debeat excommunicari (whether anyone can or ought to be excommunicated)
2. dato quod sic, pro quo quis sit excommunicandus (granted so, for what one is to be excommunicated)
3. a quo (by whom)
4. utrum excommunicatio possit iterari (whether excommunication can be repeated)
5. de communicatione cum excommunicatis (on communication with the excommunicated)
6. de absolutione (on absolution)

**Footer split.** P.483 footers 1–6 fall in the supplied raw range, but by body-anchor: 1 (Codd. AGaa *aliquatenus*; Alex. Hal./Albert./Thomas parallels), 2 (Solae edd. *esset*), 3 (Edd. *an clavis erret, an non*…), 4 (Aristot. II. de Anima text. 24; *obligat*→*et ligat*…), 5 (Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 6…) all anchor in the preceding **Dub. IV** prose (Pars I, not this chunk) — carry them there. Only footer **6** (Edd. *quae*, on *quod⁶ quidem est*) anchors in this divisio body.

**[?] flags:** none. All readings clean on the bands.

**Hand-off to au-q1 (bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-au-q1):** The ARTICULUS UNICUS subtitle ("ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De excommunicatione.") and "QUAESTIO I." begin at raw line 53917–53918 (p.484), immediately after this chunk — they belong to the au-q1 chunk, not here. Per the Vol II/III chunking convention a short ARTICULUS opener folds into q1; here the article is the only article in the pars, so its subtitle leads au-q1. Q1 = *utrum aliquis possit vel debeat excommunicari*.

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. 18, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 469 -->

### Articulus I. *De clavibus in generali.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum claves Ecclesiae sint datae.*

Circa primum ostenditur, quod claves Ecclesiae sint datae:

1. Per illud quod habetur Matthaei decimo sexto[^1]: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum.*

2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per illud quod dicitur Ioannis vigesimo[^2]: *Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis* etc.: ergo in potestate Apostolorum fuit introducere ad iustitiam, ergo ad vitam; sed omnis qui potest admittere, vel excludere a regno, habet clavem regni: ergo Apostolis datae fuerunt claves, non nisi in quantum erant praelati Ecclesiae: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia nullus potest ingredi regnum caelorum nisi per Ecclesiam, et hoc significatum est, ubi dicitur Genesis vigesimo octavo[^3]: *Non est hic aliud nisi domus Dei et porta caeli*; sed constans est, quod ad rectum ordinem oportuit praelatos in Ecclesia institui; sed nullus sufficienter portae praeest, nisi qui habet clavem ipsius: ergo videtur, quod Dominus claves illis concesserit.

4. Item, decet regem terrenum, ut clavem ostii sive portae suis servis committat, qui ministrant in eius curia; sed non est liberalior rex terrenus quam rex aeternus, immo multo minus: ergo videtur, quod aliquibus servis sive hominibus claves commisit.

Ad oppositum ita arguitur: 1. Nulla necessitas est clavium, ubi ostium semper est patens et apertura; sed ostium semper est caeli et Ecclesiae apertum: ergo etc. Minor probatur sic: ostium paradisi Christus Dominus est, qui dicit Ioannis decimo[^4]: *Ego sum ostium*; sed illud semper est apertum, quia Ioannis sexto dicit ipse: *Eum qui venit ad me, non eiiciam foras*; et Apocalypsis quarto: *Vidi, et ecce in caelo ostium apertum*: ergo etc.

2. Item, illi soli conceditur clavis, qui potest claudere et aperire; sed hic est solus Christus, Isaiae vigesimo secundo[^5]: *Dabo clavem domus David super humerum eius, et claudet, et non erit qui aperiat* etc.: ergo solius Christi est aperire et claudere: ergo etc.

3. Item, solus ille fert clavem, qui potest obstaculum amovere; sed obstaculum regni caelorum solus Christus potuit amovere: ergo etc. Probatio minoris. Super illud Isaiae vigesimo secundo[^6]: *Dabo clavem domus David*; Glossa: « In passione resera-

<!-- page 470 -->

vit quod ante non poterat »: sed hoc fuit solius Christi: ergo etc.

4. Item, maius quid est habere claves paradisi, quam habere claves mortis et inferni; sed Christus clavem mortis et inferni sibi soli reservavit nec dedit Ecclesiae[^7]: ergo clavem regni multo fortius.

> **Conclusio.** Data est Ecclesiae clavis ministerii contra debitum peccati dimissi, quae descendit a clave auctoritatis mediante clave excellentiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nomen clavis translatum est ad spiritualia ab ipsis corporalibus. In his autem corporalibus clavis est instrumentum ad removendum aliquod obstaculum[^8]. Quoniam igitur in spiritualibus invenimus obstaculum ad ingrediendum in regnum caeleste; necesse est illud removere. Ideo spiritualia ad nomen clavis transferimus, vocantes clavem illam virtutem, per quam obstaculum removetur, sive per quam excluditur, vel includitur.

Secundum hoc igitur notandum, quod cum triplex sit obstaculum ingrediendi in regnum, et triplex potestas illud removens; triplex est clavis spiritualis, differens secundum gradum et dignitatem. Obstaculum autem ingrediendi in caelum est debitum alicuius peccati; hoc autem est triplex; primum peccati mortalis commissi, et hoc est debitum aeterni supplicii. Hoc autem obstaculum solus Deus amovet, quia hoc removetur per culpae deletionem; et ideo potestas hoc removens est potestas divina, quae ab aliquibus dicitur clavis auctoritatis. — Secundum obstaculum est debitum peccati contracti, et illud est debitum solutionis pretii[^9]; et hoc solvi potuit per eum qui potuit satisfacere; talis autem fuit solus Christus; et ideo haec potestas removens illud obstaculum est solius Christi, et vocant eam aliqui clavem excellentiae. — Tertium obstaculum est debitum peccati dimissi, quia, postquam homini dimissa est culpa, adhuc est obligatus ad temporalem poenam, et hoc removeri potest per illum qui potest peccati[^10] poenam taxare; et talis est minister Christi, non tantum Christus, et ista potestas est hominibus communicata, et vocatur ista potestas clavis ministerii.

Cum igitur triplex sit potestas secundum triplex obstaculum, triplex est clavis; prima scilicet auctoritatis, a qua est; secunda scilicet excellentiae, et haec est in solo Christo; et tertia est clavis ministerii, quae descendit a clave auctoritatis, mediante clave excellentiae; et de hac dictum est Petro: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum*, Matthaei decimo sexto[^11]. — Et de hac procedunt auctoritates et rationes ad primam partem; sed rationes ad oppositum procedant de aliis clavibus.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod soli ostium semper est apertum; dicendum, quod hoc verum est de se; sed tamen homo sibi claudit per debitum peccati, quod incurrit, a quo oportet hominem per aliquam clavium liberari.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solus Christus potest claudere; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de clave *excellentiae*, per quam clausit lymbum Sanctis, ne ibi descendant, et aperuit paradisum; et de ista apertione dicitur in oratione paschali[^12]: « Deus, qui aeternitatis nobis aditum, devicta morte, reserasti »: de hac intelligitur textus et Glossa; et ita patet sequens obiectio.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de clavibus inferni, potest responderi secundum aliquos, quod istae etiam sunt claves inferni, sed tamen denominantur a digniori[^13], quia, dum aperiunt caelum, claudunt infernum; sed principaliter sunt ad aperiendum caelum. — Potest aliter dici, quod claves inferni habet Christus secundum quod Deus, quia ipse est, qui potest *animam et corpus perdere in gehennam*[^14], et qui potest liberare et ibidem includere; unde hoc competit ei secundum clavem auctoritatis, quae est in removendo culpam. Et ideo plus dicit per clavem inferni quam per clavem regni; sicut plus est liberare a culpa et morte aeterna, quam liberare ab aliqua poena temporali introducendo in gloriam. Ideo non valet illud.

english:
### Article I. *On the keys in general.*
### Question I. *Whether the keys of the Church have been given.*

Concerning the first, that the keys of the Church have been given is shown:

1. By that which is found in Matthew, the sixteenth chapter[^1]: *To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.*

2. Likewise, this same thing is proved by that which is said in John, the twentieth chapter[^2]: *Whose sins you remit, they are remitted to them* etc.: therefore it was in the power of the Apostles to lead [men] to justice, therefore to life; but everyone who can admit, or exclude from, the kingdom has the key of the kingdom: therefore the keys were given to the Apostles only insofar as they were prelates of the Church: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems so by *reason*: because no one can enter the kingdom of heaven except through the Church, and this was signified where it is said in Genesis, the twenty-eighth chapter[^3]: *There is nothing here but the house of God and the gate of heaven*; but it is certain that for right order it was necessary that prelates be instituted in the Church; but no one is sufficiently set over the gate except him who has its key: therefore it seems that the Lord granted the keys to them.

4. Likewise, it is fitting for an earthly king to commit the key of the doorway or gate to his servants, who minister in his court; but an earthly king is not more liberal than the eternal king, rather far less so: therefore it seems that he committed the keys to some servants or men.

To the opposite it is argued thus: 1. There is no necessity of keys where the doorway is always open and free of obstruction; but the doorway of heaven and of the Church is always open: therefore etc. The minor is proved thus: the doorway of paradise is Christ the Lord, who says in John, the tenth chapter[^4]: *I am the door*; but it is always open, because in John, the sixth chapter, he himself says: *Him who comes to me I will not cast out*; and in the Apocalypse, the fourth chapter: *I saw, and behold, in heaven a door opened*: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a key is granted only to him who can shut and open; but this is Christ alone, Isaiah, the twenty-second chapter[^5]: *I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall shut, and there shall be none who opens* etc.: therefore it belongs to Christ alone to open and to shut: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, he alone bears the key who can remove the obstacle; but the obstacle of the kingdom of heaven Christ alone was able to remove: therefore etc. The proof of the minor. Upon that text of Isaiah, the twenty-second chapter[^6]: *I will give the key of the house of David*; the Gloss: "In his passion he opened what before he could not": but this was Christ's alone: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it is something greater to have the keys of paradise than to have the keys of death and of hell; but Christ reserved the key of death and of hell to himself alone and did not give it to the Church[^7]: therefore [he reserved] the key of the kingdom much more strongly.

> **Conclusion.** The key of ministry has been given to the Church against the debt of forgiven sin, which descends from the key of authority by means of the key of excellence.

**I respond:** It must be said that the name "key" has been transferred to spiritual things from corporeal things themselves. Now in these corporeal things a key is an instrument for removing some obstacle[^8]. Since therefore in spiritual things we find an obstacle to entering into the heavenly kingdom, it is necessary to remove it. Therefore we transfer [the term] to spiritual things under the name "key," calling that power a key by which the obstacle is removed, or by which [one] is excluded or included.

According to this, then, it is to be noted that, since there is a threefold obstacle to entering into the kingdom, and a threefold power removing it, there is a threefold spiritual key, differing according to grade and dignity. Now the obstacle to entering heaven is the debt of some sin; and this is threefold: the first, of mortal sin committed, and this is the debt of eternal punishment. But this obstacle God alone removes, because it is removed through the deletion of guilt; and therefore the power removing this is the divine power, which by some is called the key of authority. — The second obstacle is the debt of contracted sin, and that is the debt of paying the price[^9]; and this could be paid by him who was able to make satisfaction; but such was Christ alone; and therefore this power removing that obstacle belongs to Christ alone, and some call it the key of excellence. — The third obstacle is the debt of forgiven sin, because, after guilt has been forgiven a man, he is still bound to temporal penalty, and this can be removed through him who can assess the penalty of sin[^10]; and such is a minister of Christ, not Christ only, and this power is communicated to men, and this power is called the key of ministry.

Since therefore there is a threefold power according to the threefold obstacle, there is a threefold key: the first, namely, of authority, from which [it is]; the second, namely, of excellence, and this is in Christ alone; and the third is the key of ministry, which descends from the key of authority, by means of the key of excellence; and of this it was said to Peter: *To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven*, Matthew, the sixteenth chapter[^11]. — And concerning this proceed the authorities and reasons for the first part; but the reasons to the opposite proceed concerning the other keys.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected first, that the doorway alone is always open; it must be said that this is true of itself; but nevertheless man shuts it to himself through the debt of sin which he incurs, from which man must be freed through one of the keys.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that Christ alone can shut; it must be said that that is understood of the key of *excellence*, by which he shut limbo for the saints, lest they descend there, and opened paradise; and of this opening it is said in the paschal prayer[^12]: "O God, who, death being conquered, have opened for us the entrance of eternity": of this the text and the Gloss are understood; and thus the following objection is clear.

4. To that which is objected concerning the keys of hell, it can be answered according to some that these are also keys of hell, but are nevertheless named from the worthier[^13], because, while they open heaven, they shut hell; but they are principally for opening heaven. — It can be said otherwise that Christ has the keys of hell insofar as he is God, because it is he who can *destroy soul and body in hell*[^14], and who can free [one] and shut [him] in there; whence this belongs to him according to the key of authority, which is in the removing of guilt. And therefore he says more by the key of hell than by the key of the kingdom; just as it is more to free [one] from guilt and eternal death than to free [him] from some temporal penalty by leading [him] into glory. Therefore that [objection] is invalid.

la: [Page 469] In codd. desideratur haec propositio: *secundo... ligare*. Edd., perperam posito *tres habet* pro *duas habet* [falsitas lectionis edd. colligi iam potest ex voce *Similiter*], subinde legunt: *In secunda ostendit, quod possunt... In tertia determinat modum.*

en: [Page 469] In the codices this proposition is lacking: *secundly... to bind*. The editions, having wrongly put *has three [parts]* for *has two [parts]* [the falsity of the editions' reading can already be gathered from the word *Likewise*], then read: *In the second it shows that they can... In the third it determines the manner.*

la: Vers. 19.

en: Verse 19.

la: Vers. 23.

en: Verse 23.

la: Vers. 17. Cfr. Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum in hunc loc., quae est ex Rabano et in qua dicitur, quod evigilans a torpore inertiae et sese exercens in bonis operibus « in Ecclesia supereminentem gratiam et introitum regni caelestis intelliget ». Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum sumta ex August. (Qq. in Pentateuch. l. q. 83.): *Tanquam inde fiat aditus* credentibus ad capessendum regnum caelorum. — In fine arg. pro *illis*, quod habet cod. U, alii codd. *aliis*, edd. *Apostolis*.

en: Verse 17. Cf. the *Glossa ordinaria* in Strabus and Lyranus on this place, which is from Rabanus, and in which it is said that one waking from the torpor of sloth and exercising himself in good works "will understand in the Church the surpassing grace and the entrance of the heavenly kingdom." The *Glossa interlinearis* in Lyranus, taken from Augustine (*Questions on the Pentateuch* bk. 1 q. 83.): *As though thence an entrance be made* for believers to lay hold of the kingdom of heaven. — At the end of the argument, for *to them*, which codex U has, other codices [read] *to others*, the editions *to the Apostles*.

la: Vers. 7. — Seq. locus est Ioan. 6, 37, ubi codd. *Omnis qui* pro *Eum qui*; tertius Apoc. 4, 1. — Cod. huic arg. subiungit: *Item, Ecclesia nulli claudit gremium, ergo neminem excludit, quantum in se est; ergo ille potius claudit peccando, qui [se] excludit, quam Ecclesia vel praelatus: ergo etc.*

en: Verse 7. — The following passage is John 6, 37, where the codices [read] *Everyone who* for *Him who*; the third [is] Apocalypse 4, 1. — A codex appends to this argument: *Likewise, the Church shuts its bosom to no one, therefore it excludes no one, as far as it lies in itself; therefore he rather shuts [it] by sinning who excludes [himself], than [does] the Church or the prelate: therefore etc.*

la: Vers. 22. Vulgata post *eius* addit *et aperiet, et non erit qui claudat*. Codd. omittunt *domus*.

en: Verse 22. The Vulgate after *his* adds *and he shall open, and there shall be none who shuts*. The codices omit *of the house*.

la: Vers. 22. Etiam hic codd. omittunt *domus*. — Glossa ordinaria (ex Hieron. in hunc loc.) a Strabo et Lyrano sic exhibetur: *Quod in passione* [Hieron. elicit hoc ex verbis *Dabo clavem super humerum eius*, scil. crucem portatam in pas[sione]] *reseravit claudi non poterit; quod in caerimoniis [Iudaeorum] clausit nemo aperiet.*

en: Verse 22. Here too the codices omit *of the house*. — The *Glossa ordinaria* (from Jerome on this place) is presented thus by Strabus and Lyranus: *What in his passion* [Jerome draws this out from the words *I will give the key upon his shoulder*, namely the cross carried in his pas[sion]] *he opened cannot be shut; what among the ceremonies [of the Jews] he shut, none shall open.*

la: [Page 470] Apoc. 1, 18. seq.: *Ego sum primus et novissimus; et vivus, et fui mortuus... et habeo claves mortis et inferni.* Cfr. expositio in hunc locum, quae inter opera Ambrosii habetur, et haec est: *Qui clavem alicuius domus habet, quem vult intromittit, et quem vult ab ingressu domus repellit. Per clavem ergo potestas Filii Dei intelligitur. Claves igitur mortis et inferni ipse possidet, quia quos vult a damnatione mortis perpetuae misericorditer liberat, et quos vult in eodem damnationis periculo iusto iudicio remanere sinit.*

en: [Page 470] Apocalypse 1, 18. f.: *I am the first and the last; and living, and I was dead... and I have the keys of death and of hell.* Cf. the exposition on this place, which is found among the works of Ambrose, and it is this: *He who has the key of any house admits whom he wills, and repels from entry to the house whom he wills. By the key, therefore, the power of the Son of God is understood. He therefore possesses the keys of death and of hell, because those whom he wills he mercifully frees from the damnation of perpetual death, and those whom he wills he allows to remain by a just judgment in the same peril of damnation.*

la: Isidor., XX. Etymolog. c. 13. n. 5: *Clavis dicta, quod claudat et aperiat.*

en: Isidore, *Etymologies* XX. c. 13. n. 5: *It is called a "key" (clavis) because it shuts (claudat) and opens.*

la: Cod. Z *debiti pretii*. Cfr. supra d. 15. p. I. q. 1.

en: Codex Z [reads] *of the debt-price*. Cf. above d. 15. p. I. q. 1.

la: Cod. H *peccatori*, multi alii *peccato*.

en: Codex H [reads] *to the sinner*, many others *to sin*.

la: Vers. 19. — Superius codd. omittunt *prima*.

en: Verse 19. — Above, the codices omit *first*.

la: Apud Gregor., Lib. Sacramentor. in die sancto Paschae (quo die etiam in Breviario Romano habetur). Permulti codd. omittunt *nobis*.

en: In Gregory, *Book of Sacraments*, on the holy day of Easter (on which day it is also found in the Roman Breviary). Very many codices omit *for us*.

la: Sive, ut dicitur infra q. 2. in corp. secundum Aristot. (cfr. tom. I. pag. 14, nota 7.), ab optimo et fine. — Matth. 10, 28.

en: Or, as is said below q. 2. in the body, according to Aristotle (cf. vol. I. p. 14, note 7.), from the best and the end. — Matthew 10, 28.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Fide constat, « potestatem remittendi et retinendi peccata ad reconciliandos fideles post baptismum lapsos Apostolis et eorum legitimis successoribus fuisse communicatam » (Concil. Trident. Sess. XIV. c. 1; cfr. can. 3.). Item, haeresis est dicere, « absolutionem sacramentalem sacerdotis non esse actum iudicialem, sed nudum ministerium pronuntiandi et declarandi, remissa esse peccata confitenti » (ibid. can. 9; cfr. can. 10. et c. 2.). Ex parte poenitentis requiritur « contritio in animo, confessio in verbo, satisfactio in facto »; quibus « debito modo concurrentibus cum absolutione facta ab eo, in quo est *ordo, clavis et iurisdictio*, absolvitur homo a peccato [in Sacramento poenitentiae] et reunitur Ecclesiae et reconciliatur Christo mediante clave sacerdotali » (Breviloq. p. VI. c. 10.). — « Clavis potestas spiritualis est, quae est aliquid datum animae in sigillatione, qua sigillatur charactere sacerdotali » (infra d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.); ipsa confertur tantum in nova lege (ibid.) et cum ordine sacerdotali (ibid. a. 2. q. 1.), nec « videtur a charactere differre nisi secundum relationem quandam »; « fundatur radicaliter in anima quantum ad essentiam » (ibid. a. 2. q. 2.); denique quoad *usum* huius potestatis requiritur status viatoris et iurisdictio (ibid.). Distinguitur autem in sacerdote duplex clavis (infra a. 3. q. 1. 2.); et generatim quoad *remissionem* peccati clavis auctoritatis, excellentiae et ministerii (hic q. 1, infra dub. 2, d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.).

**II.** Quoad duas huius articuli quaestiones quaedam locutiones illa aetate communes indigent explicatione, quae exhibetur infra a. 2. q. 1. in scholio. De triplici clave, scilicet auctoritatis, excellentiae et ministerii, eodem sensu loquuntur locis infra citt. Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Scot., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. et Durand. — De forma *iudiciali* cfr. supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. — De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 1. et m. 6. a. 3. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. infra d. 19. n. 4. 5. et n. 21. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. q. 17. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1.; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**III.** De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2, et m. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 1. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** It is established by faith that "the power of remitting and retaining sins, for reconciling the faithful who fall after baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV. c. 1; cf. can. 3.). Likewise, it is heresy to say "that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins have been remitted to the one confessing" (ibid. can. 9; cf. can. 10. and c. 2.). On the part of the penitent there is required "contrition in the mind, confession in word, satisfaction in deed"; with which "duly concurring with the absolution made by him in whom there is *order, key, and jurisdiction*, man is absolved from sin [in the Sacrament of penance] and reunited to the Church and reconciled to Christ by means of the priestly key" (Breviloquium p. VI. c. 10.). — "The power of the key is a spiritual power, which is something given to the soul in the sealing by which it is sealed with the priestly character" (below d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.); it is conferred only in the new law (ibid.) and with the priestly order (ibid. a. 2. q. 1.), nor "does it seem to differ from the character except according to a certain relation"; "it is founded radically in the soul as to its essence" (ibid. a. 2. q. 2.); finally, as to the *use* of this power, the state of a wayfarer and jurisdiction are required (ibid.). But a twofold key is distinguished in the priest (below a. 3. q. 1. 2.); and in general, as to the *remission* of sin, [there is] the key of authority, of excellence, and of ministry (here q. 1, below dub. 2, d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.).

**II.** As regards the two questions of this article, certain expressions common in that age need explanation, which is provided below a. 2. q. 1. in the scholion. Concerning the threefold key, namely of authority, excellence, and ministry, in the same sense there speak, in the places cited below, Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas, Scotus, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and Durandus. — On the *judicial* form cf. above d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. — On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 20. m. 1. and m. 6. a. 3. — Scotus, on this and the following question, below d. 19. n. 4. 5. and n. 21. ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1; *Suppl.* q. 17. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — On this and the following question Durandus, here q. 1.; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**III.** On the following (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2, and m. 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. subquestion 2; *Suppl.* loc. cit. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. a. 1. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 469–471; pdf pp. 489–491 at +20; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 52333–52502) as base for the clean videtur / ad-oppositum running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, replies, all footers, and the scholion were cascade-shattered / two-column-bled in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation. Editorial margin glosses (*Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Quid clavis*, *Triplex obstaculum / potestas et clavis*, *De primo / secundo / tertio*, *Clavis auctoritatis / excellentiae / ministerii*, *Solutio / posit.*, *Nota*) were trimmed as marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.

**Alignment.** Page-verify PASSES on all three pages. The opener at raw line 52333 (QUAESTIO I, *Utrum claves Ecclesiae sint datae*, body "Circa primum ostenditur, quod claves Ecclesiae sint datae") sits at the foot of **p.469** L-column, immediately after the ARTICULUS I title (*De clavibus in generali*). Running heads: p.469-L = "DIST. XVIII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. [I]"; p.469-R = "QUAEST. I. 469"; p.470-L = "470 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.470-R = "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.471-L = "DIST. XVIII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. II"; p.471-R = "QUAEST. II. 471". The article aligns with the assigned title.

**Page span / printed_pages correction.** The prompt's "~468–470" was off by one: **printed page 468 is entirely the prior distinction's Lombard littera (Cap. VIII) plus the pars-I COMMENTARIUS, DIVISIO TEXTUS, and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM** — all of which belong to a separate `d18-p1-divisio` chunk (it carries its own NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM footer n.1 = "Ita codd. F G H... ex Divisione textus d. 17. p. 1"). QUAESTIO I's body begins on **p.469** (its videtur 1–4 + ad-oppositum 1–3 on p.469; ad-oppositum 4 + Conclusio + Respondeo + replies 1–4 on p.470; the scholion straddles p.470–p.471). printed_pages = [469, 470, 471], pdf_pages = [489, 490, 491].

**Articulus-opener fold.** Per the locked chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS I opener is folded here: its only content is the article title *De clavibus in generali* (the "Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo / Primo quaeritur utrum claves Ecclesiae datae sint / Secundo... ad quid datae sunt" enumeration is the pars-level TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM and lives in the d18-p1-divisio chunk). No standalone a1-divisio chunk.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 15 rendered footnotes, all paired in both bodies. Quaracchi per-page restart: **p.469** footers 1–7 → [^1] (n1 = the *In codd. desideratur... secundo... ligare* divisio-text variant, anchored to the Matth. 16 citation in videtur 1), [^2] (n2 = Vers. 19, John 20), [^3] (n3 = Vers. 23, Gen. 28), [^4] (n4 = Vers. 17, John 10 + the Glossa ordinaria/interlinearis on the open door + the *illis/aliis/Apostolis* variant), [^5] (n5 = Vers. 7 Isa. 22 + John 6,37/Apoc. 4,1 + the *Ecclesia nulli claudit gremium* codex addition), [^6] (n6 = Vers. 22 + Vulgate addition + *domus* omission), [^7] (n7 = Vers. 22 + Jerome/Strabus Glossa on the passion key). **p.470** footers 1–8 → [^8] (n1 = Apoc. 1,18 + the pseudo-Ambrose exposition on the keys of death/hell, anchored to ad-oppositum 4 "nec dedit Ecclesiae"), [^9] (n2 = Isidor. Etymolog. on *clavis*, anchored to "instrumentum ad removendum aliquod obstaculum" in the Respondeo), [^10] (n3 = Cod. Z *debiti pretii*, anchored to "debitum solutionis pretii"), [^11] (n4 = Cod. H *peccatori*, anchored to "qui potest peccati poenam taxare"), [^12] (n5 = Vers. 19, anchored to "Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, Matthaei decimo sexto"), [^13] (n6 = Apud Gregor. Lib. Sacramentor. paschal prayer, anchored to "oratione paschali"), [^14] (n7 = Sive ut dicitur infra q.2 / Aristot., anchored to "denominantur a digniori"), and the p.470 n.8 (Matth. 10,28, anchored to "perdere in gehennam") is folded into [^14]'s tail since the two footers share the single "ab optimo et fine / Matth. 10, 28" note block in the band. **p.471** footers (Vers. 22 / Vers. 19 et Ioan. 20,23 / *non tantum est* edd. / *removent* / Codd. / Vers.) anchor in QUAESTIO II's body, which opens at the foot of p.471, and are owned by the q2 chunk, NOT here. The scholion uses inline back-references only (no numbered footers).

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus I scholion in full. It is article-level and **covers BOTH questions of Articulus I (q1 = utrum claves datae sint · q2 = ad quid datae sint)**: **I** = the established doctrine of the keys (Trent Sess. XIV on the power of binding/loosing and the judicial nature of absolution; the contrition–confession–satisfaction triad; the Breviloquium and d.19/a.3 cross-refs on the priestly key and the threefold key auctoritatis/excellentiae/ministerii) — pertains chiefly to q1; **II** = "Quoad duas huius articuli quaestiones..." opening note + "De 1. quaestione" parallel-author list (q1: Alex. Hal., Scot., S. Thom., Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard, Durand., Dionys.); **III** = "De seq. (2.) quaestione" parallel-author list (q2: Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard). Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. Printed at the foot of p.470-R, continuing onto p.471-L (section I tail) and p.471-R (sections II–III), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II's body. Sibling question a1-q2 renders `has_scholion: false` and points here. No second distinct scholion block appears within q1's raw range.

**Hand-off to q2.** QUAESTIO II ("Ad quid istae claves Ecclesiae datae sint", raw 52546) opens at the foot of p.471 L-column, right after scholion III. Its body's footers begin with p.471 nn. 1–7 (n1 = Vers. 22 / supra pag. 469 nota 6; n2 = Vers. 19 et Ioan. 20,23 + *donatione*; n3 = the *non tantum est* edd. variant; n4 = *removent*; n5 = Codd.; nn.6–7 = Vers.) — these p.471 footers migrate to q2's body, NOT here. q2's first arguments (visible on p.471): "Secundo quaeritur, ad quid sint istae claves. Et supposito, quod sint ad aperiendum, quaeritur, utrum sint ad claudendum. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Isaiae vigesimo secundo: Dabo clavem domus David...". The d18-p1-divisio chunk holds the pars-I COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (printed p.468 → p.469-L/R top) that precedes raw line 52333.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `raiione`→`ratione`, `fiiit`/`fuit`→`fuit`, `iilis`/`illis`→`illis`, `eiiciam`→`eiiciam`, `obstacuhuii`→`obstaculum`, `inslrumentum`→`instrumentum`, `polerat`→`poterat`, `iudiciali`→`iudiciali`, `quaestiunc.`→`quaestiunc.`/subquestion). The pseudo-Ambrose exposition text and Gloss quotations in [^4], [^7], [^8] were reconstructed from the cascade-bled OCR footer lines confirmed against the p.469-L-2 / p.469-R-2 / p.470-R-2 bands.


title: Dist. 18, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 471 -->

### Quaestio II. *Ad quid istae claves Ecclesiae datae sint.*

Secundo quaeritur, ad quid sint istae claves. Et supposito, quod sint ad *aperiendum*, quaeritur, utrum sint ad *claudendum*. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Isaiae vigesimo secundo[^1]: *Dabo clavem domus David, et aperiet, et nemo claudet, et claudet* etc.; sed potestas collata est ministris conformis potestati Christi: ergo ad claudendum et ad aperiendum.

2. Item, in datione clavium Dominus dedit non solum potestatem solvendi, sed etiam ligandi, non solum dimittendi peccata, sed etiam retinendi, sicut patet Matthaei decimo sexto[^2] et Ioannis vigesimo; et per hoc, quod solvunt, sunt ad aperiendum; et per hoc, quod remittunt, similiter: ergo *ab oppositis* per hoc, quod ligant et retinent, erunt ad claudendum: non ergo solum ad aperiendum.

3. Item, si clavis dicitur *metaphorice* in spiritualibus ad similitudinem clavis in corporalibus[^3]: sed officium clavis non tantum est aperire, sed etiam claudere: ergo etc.

4. Item, si solum est ad aperiendum: ergo pari ratione, cum baptismus sit ad aperiendam ianuam et omnia Sacramenta, et praecipue eucharistia et unctio extrema, quae removent[^4] obstacula ad ingrediendum in gloriam; ergo omne Sacramentum esset *clavis*, quod non admittit usus nec ratio: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Claves datae sunt ad nostram utilitatem; sed utilitas nostra non est, quod regnum caeli nobis claudatur: ergo non sunt ad claudendum.

2. Item, nihil claudit regnum caelorum, nisi quod apponit[^5] obstaculum; appositum autem obstaculum ad ingrediendum non est nisi debitum, quod est ex peccato; sed claves non sunt ad faciendum homines peccare: ergo etc.

3. Item, quicumque utitur instrumento ad illud, ad quod est, recte utitur illo; sed sacerdos claudendo aditum regni non recte facit, sed peccat: ergo clavis non est ei ad hoc data. Probatio minoris, Matthaei vigesimo tertio[^6]: *Vae vobis Scribae et Pharisaei, qui clauditis regnum caelorum ante homines*: ergo peccabant in hoc.

4. Item, nihil idem est ad oppositos fines; sed claudere et aperire regnum caelorum sunt opposita: ergo clavis non ordinatur ad haec duo.

Quaeritur etiam iuxta hoc, cum malum exemplum claudat regnum caelorum, et bonum aperiat: quare non dicitur clavis?

Item, cum solvere et ligare non sit clavis usus, sed magis manus, non videtur, quod Dominus deberet clavibus attribuere usum ligandi et solvendi; quod tamen facit Matthaei decimo sexto[^7]; quaeritur ergo, unde hoc sit.

> **Conclusio.** Claves Ecclesiae datae sunt simul ad ligandum et solvendum, ad claudendum et aperiendum, sed principalius ad solvendum et aperiendum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod potestas sacerdotibus communiter concessa super subditos non est ad omnino solvendum debitum, quia non debebat

<!-- page 472 -->

hoc cuilibet communicari, ne culpa sine poena remaneret[^a]; ideo data est eis potestas, ut ligando solverent, ligando scilicet ad unum, absolverent ab alio; sed non est data potestas ligandi nisi propter solutionem. — Quoniam igitur *solvere* aliquem a debito est removere obstaculum; et hoc est *aperire* caelum, et per consequens *ligare* est claudere: ideo dico, quod claves istae *simul* sunt ad ligandum et solvendum, claudendum et aperiendum; sed actus ligandi et solvendi competit eis *immediate* et in[^b] *subiectum*; sed actus claudendi et aperiendi in relatione *ad finem ultimum*. Et quoniam instrumentum denominatur ab optimo et a fine, ideo magis denominatur illa potestas a nomine respiciente finem.

Quia vero instrumentum ordinatum ad claudendum et aperiendum in corporalibus est clavis; ideo talis potestas recte dicitur *clavis*; non tamen est omnimoda similitudo, sed aliqua. Clavis enim *materialis* ad utrumque principaliter est, et principalius ad *claudendum* propter latrones et fures[^c]; sed *spiritualis* principalius est ordinata ad *aperiendum*, nec est ordinata ad *claudendum* nisi propter *aperitionem*, sicut nec ad *ligandum* nisi propter *solutionem*. Et ita, quemadmodum medicina est scientia sani et aegri — sani per se, et aegri per accidens[^d] — ita intelligendum est in proposito.

Concedo ergo, quod sit ad claudendum, licet non omnino eodem modo, quo clavis materialis.

*1. 2. 3.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod *clausio* est nobis damnosa et fit per peccatum; dicendum, quod sicut in corporalibus quaedam est ligatio simpliciter *nocens* et impediens, sicut ligatur homo propter paralysim; quaedam simpliciter *expediens*, sicut ligatur homo medicamento emplastri: sic in spiritualibus *ligatio peccati impedit*, sed *ligatio sacerdotalis* melius facit ad velociorem et expeditiorem solutionem. Similiter intelligendum de *clausione*, quod est quaedam *bona* et expediens, et hac ligat clavis, non alia; ipse autem opponit de alia. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad tria obiecta; ligat enim non *debito peccati*, sed *impositione* sive *superpositione remedii*.

*4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil idem est ad oppositos fines; dicendum, quod verum est, intelligendo de fine *per se*, sed si est ita, quod ad unum sit *per se*, ad alterum *per accidens*, nihil impedit; sic autem dicimus in proposito esse.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare *exemplum* non dicitur *clavis*? dicendum, quod officium clavis est, quod eadem solvit et ligat, et claudit et aperit; et solum est haec potestas sacerdotalis: ideo sola dicitur clavis. Unde *baptismus* non dicitur clavis, eo quod tantum aperit; similiter nec *bonum exemplum*; e converso peccatum, vel malum exemplum tantum *claudit*: et ideo neutrum dicitur clavis. Praeterea, exemplum disponit a remotis; sed clavis aperit de propinquo: ideo clavis non debet dici.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod clavis non est ad solvere; dicendum, quod potestas illa habet actum in relatione ad *subiectum* et in relatione ad *finem actus*. In comparatione ad *subiectum* respicit potestatis usum, sed in comparatione ad *finem* respicit fructum. Et quia denominatio est ab optimo, ideo Dominus *claves*[^e] illam potestatem vocavit. Sed quia exsecutio et usus respicit actum primum, ideo illi clavi actum solvendi et ligandi attribuit[^f].

---

english:
### Question II. *To what end these keys of the Church have been given.*

Secondly, it is asked to what end these keys are. And granted that they are for *opening*, it is asked whether they are for *closing*. And that they are, it seems.

1. Isaiah 22[^1]: *I will give the key of the house of David, and he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut* etc.; but the power conferred upon the ministers is conformed to the power of Christ: therefore [it is] for closing and for opening.

2. Likewise, in the giving of the keys the Lord gave not only the power of loosing, but also of binding, not only of remitting sins, but also of retaining, as is plain in Matthew 16[^2] and John 20; and by the fact that they loose, they are for opening; and by the fact that they remit, likewise: therefore, *from the opposites*, by the fact that they bind and retain, they will be for closing: therefore not only for opening.

3. Likewise, if a key is said *metaphorically* of spiritual things by likeness to a key in bodily things[^3]: but the office of a key is not only to open, but also to close: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if it is only for opening: then by parity of reasoning, since baptism is for opening the door, and [so are] all the Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist and extreme unction, which remove[^4] obstacles to entering into glory; therefore every Sacrament would be a *key*, which neither usage nor reason admits: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. The keys have been given for our advantage; but it is not our advantage that the kingdom of heaven be closed to us: therefore they are not for closing.

2. Likewise, nothing closes the kingdom of heaven except what sets up[^5] an obstacle; but the obstacle set up against entering is nothing but a debt, which is from sin; but the keys are not for making men sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, whoever uses an instrument for that for which it is [made], uses it rightly; but the priest, in closing the entrance of the kingdom, does not act rightly, but sins: therefore the key was not given to him for this. Proof of the minor, Matthew 23[^6]: *Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, who shut the kingdom of heaven before men*: therefore they were sinning in this.

4. Likewise, nothing one and the same is [ordained] to opposite ends; but to close and to open the kingdom of heaven are opposites: therefore the key is not ordained to these two.

It is also asked, in connection with this, since a bad example closes the kingdom of heaven, and a good one opens it: why is it not called a key?

Likewise, since to loose and to bind is not the use of a key, but rather of the hand, it does not seem that the Lord ought to have attributed to the keys the use of binding and loosing; which nevertheless he does in Matthew 16[^7]; it is asked, therefore, whence this is.

> **Conclusion.** The keys of the Church have been given at once for binding and loosing, for closing and opening, but more principally for loosing and opening.

**I respond:** It must be said that the power commonly granted to priests over their subjects is not for entirely loosing the debt, because this ought not to be communicated to just anyone, lest fault should remain without penalty[^a]; therefore the power was given to them that by binding they might loose, namely by binding to the one thing, they might absolve from the other; but the power of binding was not given except for the sake of loosing. — Since therefore to *loose* someone from a debt is to remove the obstacle, and this is to *open* heaven, and consequently to *bind* is to close: therefore I say that these keys are *at once* for binding and loosing, closing and opening; but the act of binding and loosing belongs to them *immediately* and in[^b] the *subject*; whereas the act of closing and opening [belongs to them] in relation *to the ultimate end*. And since an instrument is named from what is best and from the end, therefore that power is rather named by a name regarding the end.

But because the instrument ordained for closing and opening in bodily things is a key; therefore such a power is rightly called a *key*; yet there is not a complete likeness, but some [likeness]. For the *material* key is principally for both, and more principally for *closing* on account of robbers and thieves[^c]; but the *spiritual* [key] is principally ordained for *opening*, and is not ordained for *closing* except for the sake of *opening*, just as neither for *binding* except for the sake of *loosing*. And so, just as medicine is the science of the healthy and the sick — of the healthy in itself, and of the sick by accident[^d] — so it is to be understood in the matter proposed.

I grant therefore that it is for closing, although not entirely in the same way as the material key.

*1. 2. 3.* To that, then, which is objected, that *closing* is harmful to us and comes about through sin; it must be said that, just as in bodily things there is a certain binding simply *harmful* and impeding, as a man is bound on account of paralysis; [and] a certain [binding] simply *expedient*, as a man is bound by the medicine of a plaster: so in spiritual things *the binding of sin impedes*, but *the priestly binding* makes for a swifter and more expeditious loosing. Likewise it is to be understood concerning *closing*, that it is a certain *good* and expedient [thing], and with this [closing] the key binds, not another; but he objects concerning another. — And by this the response to the three objections is plain; for it binds not by the *debt of sin*, but by the *imposition* or *superimposition of a remedy*.

*4.* To that which is objected, that nothing one and the same is [ordained] to opposite ends; it must be said that this is true, understanding it of the end *in itself*; but if it be so that to the one it is [ordained] *in itself*, to the other *by accident*, nothing prevents [it]; and thus we say it is in the matter proposed.

To that which is asked: why is an *example* not called a *key*? it must be said that the office of a key is that the same [thing] looses and binds, and closes and opens; and this priestly power alone is such: therefore it alone is called a key. Whence *baptism* is not called a key, because it only opens; likewise neither [is] a *good example*; conversely, sin, or a bad example, only *closes*: and therefore neither is called a key. Moreover, an example disposes from afar; but a key opens from near at hand: therefore it ought not to be called a key.

To that which is objected, that a key is not for loosing; it must be said that that power has its act in relation to the *subject* and in relation to the *end of the act*. In comparison to the *subject* it regards the use of the power, but in comparison to the *end* it regards the fruit. And because the naming is from what is best, therefore the Lord called that power *keys*[^e]. But because execution and use regard the first act, therefore he attributed to that key the act of loosing and binding[^f].

---

la: Vers. 22. Cfr. supra pag. 469, nota 6. Codd. omittunt *domus*.

en: [Isaiah 22,] verse 22. Cf. above p. 469, note 6. The codices omit *domus* (of the house).

la: Vers. 19. et Ioan. 20, 23. — Superius pro *datione* codd. G H *donatione*.

en: [Matthew 16,] verse 19, and John 20, 23. — Above, for *datione* (giving) codices G H [read] *donatione* (gift).

la: Ut dictum est quaest. praeced. in corp. — Inferius post *non tantum est* edd. cum pluribus codd. subiungunt *ad*.

en: As was said in the preceding question, in the body. — Below, after *non tantum est* (is not only) the editions with several codices add *ad* (to).

la: Edd. *removet*.

en: The editions [read] *removet* (removes).

la: Codd. 1 K *ponit*, codd. G L *opponit*. Mox pro *appositum* non pauci codd. *oppositum*.

en: Codices 1 K [read] *ponit* (places), codices G L *opponit* (sets against). Soon, for *appositum* (set up) not a few codices [read] *oppositum* (set against).

la: Vers. 13. Vulgata post *Pharisaei* addit *hypocritae* et substituit *quia* pro *qui*.

en: [Matthew 23,] verse 13. The Vulgate after *Pharisaei* (Pharisees) adds *hypocritae* (hypocrites) and substitutes *quia* (because) for *qui* (who).

la: Vers. 19. — Superius pro *sit* codd. F G *sint*.

en: [Matthew 16,] verse 19. — Above, for *sit* (is) codices F G [read] *sint* (are).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 356, nota 6. — Inferius pro *solverent* codd. 1 K *absolutionem*. Subinde pro *aliquem a debito* codd. ... *aliquem debitorem*.

en: Cf. above p. 356, note 6. — Below, for *solverent* (they might loose) codices 1 K [read] *absolutionem* (absolution). Thereafter, for *aliquem a debito* (someone from a debt) codices [read] *aliquem debitorem* (someone a debtor).

la: In cod. X secunda manus addidit *relatione ad*. Mox fide codd. H K P Q (1 a secunda manu) supplevimus *claudendi et* ...

en: In codex X a second hand added *relatione ad* (relation to). Soon, on the faith of codices H K P Q (1, by a second hand), we have supplied *claudendi et* (of closing and).

la: Vide supra pag. 470, nota 2.

en: See above p. 470, note 2.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 1004, nota 1. [verba Aristotelis].

en: Cf. tom. II p. 1004, note 1 [the words of Aristotle].

la: Edd. cum uno alterove cod. *clavem*.

en: The editions with one or another codex [read] *clavem* (key, singular).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF bands for printed pp. 471–472 (split x≈1880, three bands per column), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 52546–52663) used as a cross-check. The OCR for this span is cascade-shattered by two-column bleed (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation, with the q1-scholion footers of p.470 and q2 body interleaved), so the PDF column reads are authoritative for the body, Respondeo, and Ad-replies. Offset confirmed pdf = printed + 20. Opener "Secundo quaeritur, ad quid sint istae claves" aligns with the briefed alignment check.

**Page span correction.** The IA OCR floats the q2 opener up onto p.470 column space, but the PDF places the bare QUAESTIO II header + title at the foot of p.471 left column (running head "DIST. XVIII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. II"); the quaestio runs through p.472, ending just before ARTICULUS II (*De potestate ligandi et solvendi in foro poenitentiali*) at the foot of p.472 left column (raw line 52664). printed_pages set to [471, 472].

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false. The Articulus I scholion (the "Quoad duas huius articuli quaestiones..." block on pp. 470–471, with its De-triplici-clave doctrine and the parallel-author citations for both "De hac (1.) quaestione" and "De seq. (2.) quaestione") covers q1 AND q2 but is rendered in full with **bon-sent-IV-d18-p1-a1-q1**. Footer [^f] here ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") is Quaracchi's own cross-pointer confirming this; q2 renders no scholion of its own.

**Per-page footer split.** Two restarted footer sequences. p.471 footers 1–7 → numeric markers [^1]–[^7] (all anchored in the videtur args, the two incidental questions, and the Vulgate citations). p.472 footers 1–6 → lettered markers [^a]–[^f] (anchored in the Conclusio "remaneret" and across the Respondeo). p.472 footers 7–8 (Matth. 10,28 / "mortale actuale") are NOT q2's — they belong to the following ARTICULUS II, Quaestio I, whose contra-arguments share the p.472 right column; they hand off to the a2-q1 chunk. p.470's footers (notes 2–8, including the "Sive, ut dicitur infra q. 2 in corp." cross-reference) belong to q1 and the Articulus I scholion, not here.

**[?] flags.** None genuinely ambiguous. The side-rubrics on pp. 471–472 ("Quaest. incid. 1 / 2", "Conclusio 1/2/3", "Notandum", "Solutio oppositorum", "Duplex ligatio", "Ad oppositum") are Quaracchi marginal glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and have been trimmed per the marginalia rule. In [^a] and [^b] the codex-variant lemmata that bleed into the p.470/p.472 column gutter are rendered with an ellipsis where the band crop truncated the variant tail; the substantive variant and its lemma are preserved. The two "Quaeritur etiam iuxta hoc..." and "Item, cum solvere..." paragraphs are the article's two *incidental* questions (Quaest. incid. 1, 2), folded into q2's videtur per the source layout and answered in the Respondeo.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** q2 ends just before ARTICULUS II (*De potestate ligandi et solvendi in foro poenitentiali*, raw 52664 / foot of p.472 L). The next chunk (a2 opener folded into its q1 per the locked convention) inherits the p.472 right-column footers **7** (*Vers. 23* — Matth. 10,28) and **8** (*Vat. mortale actuale...*), which anchor in the a2-q1 videtur arguments visible at the foot of p.472.