title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 6

source_text:
<!-- page 463 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum Christus statim post mortem introduxerit animas liberatas in caelum.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur de traductione animarum, quas liberavit de inferno, ad caelos, et est quaestio, utrum statim post mortem introduxerit eas in caelum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per illud quod dicitur Lucae vigesimo tertio[^p463-1]: *Dixit Dominus ad latronem: Hodie mecum eris in paradiso;* et constat, quod illud non intelligitur de paradiso terrestri, quia non magnum esset illi animae esse in illo paradiso: ergo intelligitur de caelesti.

2. Item, statim post mortem Christi aperta fuit ianua, et nihil fuit omnino retardans[^p463-2]: ergo videtur, quod anima Christi cum aliis animabus statim in caelum evolaverit.

3. Item, locus superior competit statui gloriae, sicut inferior competit statui culpae: ergo sicut animae damnatae statim descendunt in infernum, ita animae beatae statim debent evolare in caelum; sed statim post mortem Christi animae illae, quae fuerunt in inferno, fuerunt luce supernae veritatis irradiatae[^p463-3]: ergo statim debuerunt in caelum traduci.

4. Item, nulla anima purior fuit quam anima Christi; sed animae sanctorum Martyrum, qui modo moriuntur, statim evolant[^p463-4]: ergo anima Christi statim evolavit in caelum. Sed non ascendit caput sine membris: ergo aliae animae post mortem Christi statim ad caelum fuerunt perductae.

**Sed contra:** 1. Michaeae secundo[^p463-5]: *Ascendit pandens iter ante eos,* dicitur de Christo; sed Christus non ascendit in caelum usque ad quadragesimum diem post resurrectionem: ergo nec animae aliorum Sanctorum, quae erant in limbo.

2. Item, resurrectio debuit praecedere ascensionem; sed non resurrexit statim post mortem[^p463-6]: ergo videtur, quod nec anima ipsius nec aliae animae ascenderunt in caelum ante diem tertium.

3. Item, in quadam collecta[^p463-7] in die Resurrectionis dicitur: « Deus, qui aeternitatis nobis aditum, devicta morte reserasti »: ergo videtur, quod ante diem resurrectionis non fuerunt animae eductae de limbo inferni.

4. Item, Christus cum resurrexit, dicitur ab inferis redire[^p463-8] ad superos; sed si anima eius statim post mortem alias animas duxisset in caelum, non ab inferis rediret ad superos, sed potius de supernis descenderet ad inferiora: ergo non videtur, quod animae Sanctorum statim post mortem Christi perductae fuerint in caelum.

### Conclusio.

> Animae Sanctorum statim post mortem Christi non sunt perductae in caelum *quoad locum,* tamen statim factae sunt beatae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod animae Sanctorum non statim post mortem Christi perductae sunt in caelum quantum ad locum; statim tamen post resolutionem animae a corpore in Christi descensu ad inferos viderunt lumen aeternum et beatae factae sunt, et patefactum est caelum eis quantum ad praemium. Unde in loco etiam infernali existentes, habuerunt paradisum et apertam Dei visionem, quae non est aliud quam vita aeterna[^p463-9].

Licet autem beatitudinem statim post mortem Christi haberent, non tamen locum beatitudinis statim adeptae sunt; quoniam ipse Christus debuit in omnibus primatum tenere et primogenitus esse in multis fratribus tanquam caput omnium[^p463-10]. Resurrectio autem Christi et eius ascensio differri debuit propter nostrae fidei confirmationem. Ideo enim dilata fuit resurrectio, ut ostenderetur, quod vere Christus mortuus fuerit. Et ideo etiam dilata fuit ascensio, ut per multa argumenta ostenderetur, quod vere resurrexerit, secundum quod dicitur Actuum primo[^p463-11]: *Praebuit semetipsum in multis argumentis, apparens eis* etc. Quoniam ergo nulla anima in caelum debuit ascendere ante Christum,

<!-- page 464 -->

et Christi ascensio propter nostram salutem debebat differri; hinc est, quod animae Sanctorum nec statim fuerunt de limbo eductae nec statim in caelesti paradiso fuerunt locatae, divina dispensatione hoc faciente ad nostram salutem.

**Ad argumenta:**
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Domini in Luca, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p464-1] hoc verbum exponens, paradisus ibi dicitur non locus empyrei nec locus paradisi terrestris, sed ipsa Dei visio. Ubicumque enim homo sit, dum tamen Deum aperte videat, potest dici esse in paradiso.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod statim ianua fuit aperta, et nihil erat retardans; dicendum, quod statim in morte ianua fuit aperta quantum ad meritum, sed in resurrectione quantum ad egressum de limbo, in ascensione vero quantum ad ascensum in caelum. Unde in omnibus his tribus dicitur ianua fuisse aperta, ratione tamen alia[^p464-2]. Praeterea, quod dicitur, quod nihil erat retardans; hoc verum est, quod nihil erat retardans quantum ad violentiam, erat tamen aliquid retardans ex rationabili causa, videlicet dilatio ascensionis Christi, quae differri habebat ex causa supra dicta.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod locus superior competit statui gloriae; dicendum, quod verum est; attamen, sicut Angeli beati ex causa mittuntur deorsum ad nostrae salutis procurationem, quamvis, in quantum beati sunt, eis competat locus sursum[^p464-3]; sic etiam locus gloriae differri poterat ex causa illis animabus ad tempus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod animae aliorum Sanctorum nunc statim evolant; iam patet responsio: quia caput eorum[^p464-4] est supra, nec est aliquid ex parte ipsarum, vel ex parte nostra, quod eas debeat retardare; et ideo non est simile[^p464-5].

---

english:
### Question VI. *Whether Christ, immediately after death, led the liberated souls into heaven.*

Sixth and last it is asked concerning the leading-up of the souls, which he liberated from hell, to the heavens, and the question is whether immediately after death he led them into heaven. And that he did so, it seems:

1. By that which is said in Luke twenty-three[^p463-1]: *The Lord said to the thief: Today you will be with me in paradise;* and it is certain that this is not understood of the earthly paradise, since it would be no great thing for that soul to be in that paradise: therefore it is understood of the heavenly one.

2. Likewise, immediately after Christ's death the gate was opened, and there was nothing at all delaying[^p463-2]: therefore it seems that Christ's soul, with the other souls, flew up into heaven at once.

3. Likewise, the higher place befits the state of glory, just as the lower befits the state of fault: therefore, just as the damned souls descend at once into hell, so the blessed souls ought to fly up at once into heaven; but immediately after Christ's death those souls which had been in hell were irradiated by the light of supernal truth[^p463-3]: therefore they ought at once to have been led up into heaven.

4. Likewise, no soul was purer than the soul of Christ; but the souls of the holy Martyrs, who now die, fly up at once[^p463-4]: therefore the soul of Christ flew up at once into heaven. But the head does not ascend without the members: therefore the other souls too, after Christ's death, were at once led up to heaven.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Micah two[^p463-5]: *He went up opening the way before them,* which is said of Christ; but Christ did not ascend into heaven until the fortieth day after the resurrection: therefore neither did the souls of the other Saints, who were in limbo.

2. Likewise, the resurrection ought to precede the ascension; but he did not rise again immediately after death[^p463-6]: therefore it seems that neither his soul nor the other souls ascended into heaven before the third day.

3. Likewise, in a certain collect[^p463-7] on the day of the Resurrection it is said: « O God, who hast unlocked for us the entrance of eternity, death being conquered »: therefore it seems that before the day of resurrection the souls were not led out of the limbo of hell.

4. Likewise, when Christ rose again, he is said to return from the lower regions[^p463-8] to the upper; but if his soul, immediately after death, had led the other souls into heaven, he would not return from the lower regions to the upper, but rather would descend from the higher to the lower: therefore it does not seem that the souls of the Saints were led into heaven immediately after Christ's death.

### Conclusion.

> The souls of the Saints, immediately after Christ's death, were not led into heaven *as to place,* yet they were made blessed at once.

**I respond:** It must be said that the souls of the Saints were not led into heaven as to place immediately after Christ's death; yet immediately after the separation of the soul from the body, in Christ's descent to the lower regions, they saw the eternal light and were made blessed, and heaven was opened to them as to reward. Hence, even while existing in the infernal place, they had paradise and the open vision of God, which is nothing other than eternal life[^p463-9].

But although they had beatitude immediately after Christ's death, nevertheless they did not at once attain the place of beatitude; since Christ himself was to hold the primacy in all things and to be the firstborn among many brethren as the head of all[^p463-10]. But the resurrection of Christ and his ascension had to be deferred for the confirmation of our faith. For the resurrection was delayed for this reason, that it might be shown that Christ truly died. And for this reason too the ascension was delayed, that by many proofs it might be shown that he truly rose again, according to what is said in Acts one[^p463-11]: *He showed himself by many proofs, appearing to them,* etc. Since therefore no soul was to ascend into heaven before Christ,

and Christ's ascension was to be deferred for our salvation; hence it is that the souls of the Saints were neither led out of limbo at once nor at once placed in the heavenly paradise, the divine dispensation bringing this about for our salvation.

**To the arguments:**
1. To that which is objected from the authority of the Lord in Luke, it must be said that, as Augustine says[^p464-1] in expounding this word, paradise there means not the place of the empyrean nor the place of the earthly paradise, but the very vision of God. For wherever a man may be, provided he sees God openly, he can be said to be in paradise.

2. To that which is objected, that the gate was opened at once and nothing was delaying; it must be said that the gate was opened at the moment of death as to merit, but in the resurrection as to the exit from limbo, and in the ascension as to the ascent into heaven. Hence in all these three the gate is said to have been opened, but for a different reason in each[^p464-2]. Moreover, as to what is said, that nothing was delaying; this is true, that nothing was delaying as to force, yet there was something delaying for a reasonable cause, namely the deferral of Christ's ascension, which had to be deferred for the cause stated above.

3. To that which is objected, that the higher place befits the state of glory; it must be said that this is true; nevertheless, just as the blessed Angels are sent downward for a cause, for the procuring of our salvation, although, insofar as they are blessed, the place above befits them[^p464-3]; so also the place of glory could be deferred for those souls for a time, for a cause.

4. To that which is objected, that the souls of the other Saints now fly up at once; the answer is already clear: because their head[^p464-4] is above, and there is nothing on the part of those souls, nor on our part, that ought to delay them; and therefore it is not alike[^p464-5].

---

la: Vers. 43.

en: Verse 43.

la: Cfr. supra d. 18, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Respiciuntur verba Ambrosii hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, allata, quae deinde infra dub. 1. explicantur. — Paulo superius pro *beatae* edd. *liberatae*.

en: This looks back to the words of Ambrose cited here in the text of the Master, c. 2, which are then explained below in dub. 1. — A little earlier, for *beatae* (blessed) the editions read *liberatae* (liberated).

la: Cod. D supplet *in caelum*.

en: Codex D supplies *into heaven*.

la: Vers. 13. Pro *Ascendit* Vulgata *Ascendet*. complures codd. *Ascendens*. — De *minori* cfr. Act. 1, 3. seqq.

en: Verse 13. For *Ascendit* (he went up) the Vulgate has *Ascendet* (he will go up); several codices, *Ascendens* (going up). — On the minor premise cf. Acts 1, 3 ff.

la: Cfr. supra q. 3.

en: Cf. above, q. 3.

la: Quae iam in Gregorii lib. Sacramentar. in die Paschae exhibetur hodieque et in Missali et in Breviario Roman. invenitur.

en: Which is already presented in Gregory's book of the Sacramentary on the day of Easter, and today is found both in the Roman Missal and in the Breviary.

la: Vat. habet *rediisse* et deinde cum edd. 1, 2 pro *rediret... descenderet* substituit *rediisset.. descendisset*. In fine arg. pro *fuerint* non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *fuerunt*, cod. U *sint*.

en: The Vatican edition has *rediisse*, and then, with editions 1 and 2, for *rediret... descenderet* substitutes *rediisset.. descendisset*. At the end of the argument, for *fuerint* not a few codices, with editions 1 and 2, read *fuerunt*; codex U, *sint*.

la: Ad Marc. 15, 33. Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum (sumta ex Beda) observat: Rationis ergo, immo divinae pietatis ordo poscebat, ut eodem temporis articulo, quo tunc Adae praevaricanti occluserat, nunc latroni Dominus poenitenti ianuam paradisi reseraret, et qua hora primus Adam peccando mortem huic mundo invexerat, eadem hora secundus Adam mortem moriendo destrueret.

en: On Mark 15, 33. The ordinary Gloss in Strabo (taken from Bede) observes: The order of reason, indeed of divine piety, therefore demanded that at the very moment of time at which it had once been closed to the transgressing Adam, now the Lord should unlock the gate of paradise to the penitent thief, and that at the hour at which the first Adam, by sinning, had brought death into this world, at that same hour the second Adam, by dying, should destroy death.

la: Colos. 1, 18: Et ipse est caput corporis Ecclesiae, qui est principium, primogenitus ex mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens. Rom. 8, 29: Ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. — De propos. seq. cfr. supra q. 3.

en: Colossians 1, 18: And he is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself may hold the primacy. Romans 8, 29: That he himself may be the firstborn among many brethren. — On the following proposition cf. above, q. 3.

la: Vers. 3, ad quem versum Glossa ordinaria apud eundem Strabum (vide pag. 457, nota 6.) annotat: Quadraginta horis mortuus fuerat, quadraginta diebus se vivere confirmat.

en: Verse 3, on which verse the ordinary Gloss in the same Strabo (see p. 457, note 6) annotates: He had been dead for forty hours; for forty days he confirms that he is alive.

en: Letter 187 (otherwise 57), c. 3, n. 7.

la: Codd. K U *alia et alia*. Mox pro *hoc verum est, quod nihil erat retardans* edd. substituerunt *intellige*.

en: Codices K and U, *alia et alia* (for differing reasons). Shortly after, for *hoc verum est, quod nihil erat retardans* the editions substituted *intellige* (understand).

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. II Sentences, d. 10, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Cod. K *earum*. Deinde pro *eas* cod. A *eos*.

en: Codex K, *earum* (of them, fem.). Then for *eas* codex A reads *eos* (them, masc.).

la: Vide scholion ad 4. quaestionem.

en: See the scholion on the fourth question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 32191–32275), cross-checked column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.463–464 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p46{3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Clean two-column running prose; no cascade-shattered regions on these pages. Per VOL II/III OVERRIDE, PDF bands authoritative for any ambiguity; here OCR and PDF agreed throughout.

**Page span / page-split map.** q6 occupies printed **pp.463–464** (PDF 485–486). Page break placed at the foot of the Respondeo (*…Quoniam ergo nulla anima in caelum debuit ascendere ante Christum,* / *et Christi ascensio…*) — the p.463/464 seam falls mid-sentence inside the Respondeo. Running heads confirm: p.463 top = `DIST. XXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI.` + folio `463`; p.464 top = folio `464` + `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`.

**Seam status (both ends): CLEAN.** Upper: q6 opens FRESH at the top of p.463 (`QUAESTIO VI.`), raw 32191; the q5/q6 seam fell at the p.462/463 page break (q5 closed at the bottom of p.462). Lower: q6 closes with Solutio ad-4 (*…et ideo non est simile.*) at raw 32275, immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (raw 32276). Grammatically self-contained; no splice.

**Apparatus: 16 entries, per-page restart.**
- **p.463 nn.1–11** (11): n.1 Luke 23:43; n.2 cross-ref d.18; n.3 Ambrose in lit. Magistri + *beatae/liberatae* var; n.4 Cod. D *in caelum*; n.5 Micah 2:13 (*Ascendit/Ascendet/Ascendens* var) + Acts 1:3; n.6 cross-ref q.3; n.7 the Easter collect (Gregorian Sacramentary / Missal / Breviary); n.8 *rediret/descenderet* var cluster (Vat. + edd. + cod. U); n.9 long Bede/Strabo Gloss on Mark 15:33 (second-Adam parallel); n.10 Col 1:18 + Rom 8:29; n.11 Acts 1:3 Gloss (forty hours / forty days; OCR "pag. 157" corrected to **pag. 457** per PDF).
- **p.464 nn.1–5** (5): n.1 Augustine Ep. 187 (alias 57); n.2 Codd. K U + *intellige* var; n.3 cross-ref II Sent. d.10; n.4 Cod. K *earum* / cod. A *eos*; n.5 *Vide scholion ad 4. quaestionem*.

**Footers IN: none migrate in** — q5 took all of p.462 (nn.1–7); q6 opens its own p.463 footer sequence with n.1 = Luke 23:43.
**Footers OUT: p.464 nn.6–11** (n.6 cross-ref II Sent. d.2; n.7 Cod. H *debuit/debebat/debuerat* var; n.8 cross-ref II Sent. d.1+d.34; n.9 Albert/S.Thom./Petr. a Tar./Richard a Med. author-list; n.10 lit. Magistri c.3 + cross-refs; n.11 Petr. Hispan. *de Distributione* + Aristotle Metaph.) belong to the **DUBIA**, NOT to q6 — they key DUBIA body markers and are reserved for the d22-dubia chunk.

**Scholion finding: q6 has NO scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). DUBIA follows directly after Solutio ad-4 — no SCHOLION header at the q6/DUBIA seam (verified on PDF p.464 L). q6 shares q4's scholion, as q4's §V was the author-list for "the last / ascension question." This is confirmed internally by p.464 **n.5 = *Vide scholion ad 4. quaestionem*** ("See the scholion on the fourth question"), which redirects q6's loose ends to q4's scholion §V.

**Marginal sigla trimmed:** *Ad oppositum.* / *Fundamenta.* / *Conclusio.* (×2) / *Ratio.* / *Solutio oppositorum.* / *Notandum.*

**[?] flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 22, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XXII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XXII)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 464 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Lux verae Sapientiae illuminabat infernum.* Videtur enim hoc esse falsum, quia, sicut obscuritas repugnat caelo empyreo[^p464-6], sic luminositas repugnat inferno: ergo sicut caelum empyreum nunquam habet obscurari, sic videtur, quod infernus nunquam habeat illuminari. — Item, damnati debuerunt[^p464-7] carere omni consolatione et maxime consolatione, quae est in aspectu lucis aeternae: ergo si lux illa corporalis non erat, quia sine corpore ad inferna descendit, sed magis spiritualis; videtur, quod in inferno irradiare non debeat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secus est de irradiatione lucis materialis et lucis spiritualis. Nam irradiatio lucis materialis immutat visum naturaliter, irradiatio vero lucis spiritualis immutat voluntarie; unde nullus eam videt, nisi cui se ostendit voluntarie. Et ideo lux ista splendere dicitur in inferno et infernum illuminasse, quia aliquos de inferno irradiabat, non tamen omnes, quia nec omnes volebat illuminare, nec omnes habebant oculos proportionales.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de empyreo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quamvis enim sit bonum omnino impermixtum malo[^p464-8], non tamen oportet, quod sit malum omnino impermixtum bono. Et propterea decebat Deum eos qui erant in tenebris illuminare, non tamen eos qui erant in lumine obscurare[^p464-9].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Utique totus eodem tempore erat in inferno.* Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia aut hoc quod est *totum* refertur ad naturam, aut ad personam. Ad naturam non, quia Christus secundum totam naturam non erat simul in caelo et in inferno. Si ad personam, adhuc videtur falsum, quia supra distinctione sexta[^p464-10] dictum est, quod persona Christi componitur ex tribus substantiis et duabus naturis; et est illa compositio inexplicabilis: ergo si totus Christus erat in caelo et in inferno, videtur, quod illae duae naturae simul essent in caelo et in inferno; quod falsum est et absurdum. — Item, differentiam contingit assignari inter hoc signum *omne* et hoc signum *totum*, quia *omne* distribuit pro partibus subiectivis, et *totum* pro partibus integralibus[^p464-11]: ergo si Christus non habebat partes integrales nisi secundum humanam na-

<!-- page 465 -->

turam; cum dicitur, quod totus Christus fuit in caelo et in inferno; implicatur hoc de Christo secundum *naturam humanam*, quod simpliciter est falsum pro tempore illo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc nomen *totus* aliquando tenetur ut *signum*[^p465-1], aliquando ut *adiectivum.* Secundum quod tenetur ut *signum*, sic distribuit in aliquas partes, ut cum dicitur: totus Petrus est albus. Secundum quod accipitur ut nomen *adiectivum*, sic *totum* uno modo dicitur idem quod *perfectum*, alio modo idem quod *habens partem et partem*[^p465-2]. Cum ergo dicit Magister, quod Christus erat totus in caelo, *totus* ibi dicitur *perfectus*, quia persona Christi perfectissima simul erat in caelo et in terra et in inferno.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod persona illa erat composita; dicendum, quod nec *proprie* erat composita, nec hoc nomen *totus* accipitur ibi *collective*, vel *distributive*; quia non significat collectionem, aut divisionem, sed potius perfectionem[^p465-3]. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Totus est ubicumque est, sed non totum.* Videntur enim illa duo esse incompossibilia, quia *totus* et *totum* idem significant: ergo si *totus* erat in caelo et in inferno, necessario sequitur, quod *totum.* — Item, ubicumque ego sum, necesse est, me esse totum: ergo pari ratione videtur de Christo, quia, ubicumque est aliquid, necesse est, esse omne illud, quod naturaliter est in eo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut Magister subiungit, «*totus* refertur ad personam, sed *totum* ad naturam[^p465-4]». Et ratio huius est *discretio* sexus importata per genus masculinum, et *confusio* per neutrum; et quoniam *persona* Christi secundum se totam, ubicumque erat, tota erat, cum sit unica et simplicissima; *natura* vero cum non solum sit in Christo simplex, utpote divina, sed etiam composita, utpote humana, nec illa possit esse ubique: ideo concedit Magister, quod *totus* erat ubique, sed non *totum*, quia *totus* refertur ad Divinitatem, *totum* autem ad Divinitatem et humanitatem.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod *totus* et *totum* idem significant; dicendum, quod verum est, quantum est de *impositione prima*, sed ratione *discretionis*, importatae per generis consignificationem, in ratione[^p465-5] usus unum consuevit referri ad personam, et alterum ad naturam.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ubicumque ego sum, necesse est, me esse totum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in me persona non se extendit ultra naturam; sic autem non est in Christo, sicut in praecedentibus[^p465-6] dictum fuit.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo.* Videtur enim hoc esse falsum, quia, si solus Christus descendit de caelo: ergo solus Christus ascendit in caelum, et nullus alius; quod est haereticum dicere. — Item, hoc videtur falsum alia ratione, cum dicitur descendisse de caelo: aut enim hoc dicitur secundum naturam *divinam*, aut secundum *humanam.* Secundum *divinam* non, quia secundum illam non mutat locum; secundum *humanam* non, quia secundum illam non fuit in caelo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *ascendere* uno modo idem est quod propria virtute scandere sine adminiculo virtutis alienae; et hoc modo soli Christo convenit. Alio modo *ascendere* idem est quod sursum scandere; et hoc modo convenit aliis Sanctis[^p465-7]; in praemissa autem auctoritate accipitur primo modo. — Vel aliter: est ascendere in caelum empyreum, et est ascendere in caelum *Trinitatis*[^p465-8]. Cum ergo dicitur: Nemo ascendit etc.; hoc non dicitur quantum ad ascensum in empyreum, sed quantum ad ascensum in caelum *Trinitatis*; et iste ascensus non est ascensus ad locum, sed potius ad dignitatem et aequalitatem Patris. Nec est secundum acquisitionem novae dignitatis in Christo, sed propter manifestationem eius quod[^p465-9] habuit ab aeterno. Unde sicut dicitur *descendisse* non propter hoc, quod in eo fuerit Divinitas minorata, sed propter hoc, quod in assumtione humanitatis *apparuit* minorata; sic etiam dicitur *ascendisse*, quia in ascensione eius sublimitas est manifestata. Unde iste *descensus* et *ascensus* conveniebat divinae personae secundum divinam naturam, relatam tamen ad humanam. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad utramque obiectionem prius factam; utraque enim currit de ascensu et descensu *locali*[^p465-10].

<!-- page 466 -->

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Haec de corrigia calceamenti* etc.: quid intelligitur per *corrigiam*? et quid per *calceamentum*? et quid per *regem Idumaeae*? et quid per *ossa eius*?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *calceamentum* est humanitas Christi, tegens pedem Divinitatis. *Corrigia* vero calceamenti est unio Divinitatis et humanitatis. *Rex Idumaeae* est Christus ratione naturae mortalis assumtae, iuxta illud quod dicitur in Psalmo[^p466-1]: *In Idumaeam extendam calceamentum meum.* *Ossa regis Idumaeae* sunt sacramenta Christi occulta et difficiliora ad perscrutandum. Haec *usque ad cinerem consumuntur*, quando per ignem curiositatis adeo vult quis ea penetrare usque ad minima, ut devotio exstinguatur. — Et hoc quidem dicit Magister non esse faciendum, quia, cum loquimur de Christo quantum ad eius incarnationem et passionem, vel etiam cogitamus, repleri debemus devotione, ne, dum tam magna et immensa beneficia corde arido cogitamus, per elationem inflemur et per ingratitudinem arescamus. — Sed quis ad haec tam idoneus? Ideo sanum consilium reputo dicere cum Ioanne: *Non sum dignus, ut solvam corrigiam calceamentorum eius*[^p466-2]. Credo enim, quod huius calceamenti alligatura, quanto curiosius et audacius eam quis solvere voluerit, tanto strictius alligatur. Ideo sequendo Magistrum, finis imponatur circa sermonem de Christo quantum ad incarnationis et passionis mysterium, quod *exsuperat omnem sensum*[^p466-3].

---

english:
<!-- page 464 -->

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part are questions concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning what he says: *The light of true Wisdom was illumining hell.* For this seems to be false, because, just as darkness is repugnant to the empyrean heaven[^p464-6], so luminosity is repugnant to hell: therefore just as the empyrean heaven can never be darkened, so it seems that hell can never be illumined. — Likewise, the damned ought[^p464-7] to be deprived of all consolation, and most of all the consolation which is in the sight of eternal light: therefore if that light was not corporeal — since he descended to hell without a body — but rather spiritual, it seems that it ought not to irradiate in hell.

**I respond:** It must be said that the matter is otherwise with the irradiation of material light and of spiritual light. For the irradiation of material light alters sight *naturally*, but the irradiation of spiritual light alters it *voluntarily*; hence no one sees it, except him to whom it shows itself voluntarily. And therefore that light is said to shine in hell and to have illumined hell, because it irradiated some out of hell, yet not all, because it did not will to illumine all, nor did all have proportioned eyes.

But to that which is objected concerning the empyrean, it must be said that there is no parallel: for although the good be wholly unmixed with evil[^p464-8], it is nevertheless not necessary that the evil be wholly unmixed with good. And therefore it befitted God to illumine those who were in darkness, yet not to darken those who were in light[^p464-9].

### Doubt II.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *Assuredly he was wholly in hell at the same time.* For this seems false, because either this which is *whole* (*totum*) is referred to the nature, or to the person. To the nature it is not, because Christ according to his whole nature was not at once in heaven and in hell. If to the person, it still seems false, because above, in distinction six[^p464-10], it was said that the person of Christ is composed of three substances and two natures; and that composition is inexplicable: therefore if the whole Christ was in heaven and in hell, it seems that those two natures would be at once in heaven and in hell; which is false and absurd. — Likewise, a difference can be assigned between this sign *every* (*omne*) and this sign *whole* (*totum*), because *omne* distributes for subjective parts, and *totum* for integral parts[^p464-11]: therefore if Christ had integral parts only according to the human na-

<!-- page 465 -->

ture; when it is said that the whole Christ was in heaven and in hell; this is implied of Christ according to the *human nature*, which is simply false for that time.

**I respond:** It must be said that this noun *whole* (*totus*) is sometimes taken as a *sign*[^p465-1], sometimes as an *adjective.* According as it is taken as a *sign*, thus it distributes into certain parts, as when it is said: the whole Peter is white. According as it is taken as an *adjective* noun, thus *whole* (*totum*) in one way is said to be the same as *perfect*, in another way the same as *having part and part*[^p465-2]. When therefore the Master says that Christ was wholly in heaven, *whole* there is said to be *perfect*, because the most perfect person of Christ was at once in heaven and on earth and in hell.

To that which is objected, that that person was composite; it must be said that it was neither *properly* composite, nor is this noun *whole* taken there *collectively* or *distributively*; because it does not signify collection or division, but rather perfection[^p465-3]. — And by this the reply to what follows is made clear.

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *He is wholly (totus) wherever he is, but not the whole (totum) of him.* For those two seem to be incompossible, because *totus* and *totum* signify the same thing: therefore if *totus* was in heaven and in hell, it necessarily follows that *totum.* — Likewise, wherever I am, it is necessary that I be whole: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems so of Christ, because, wherever anything is, it is necessary that there be all that which is naturally in it.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master subjoins, «*totus* is referred to the person, but *totum* to the nature[^p465-4]». And the reason for this is the *distinction* of sex carried by the masculine gender, and the *confusion* carried by the neuter; and because the *person* of Christ according to its whole self, wherever it was, was whole, since it is single and most simple; but the *nature*, since it is not only simple in Christ, as being divine, but also composite, as being human, and the latter cannot be everywhere: therefore the Master concedes that *totus* was everywhere, but not *totum*, because *totus* is referred to the Deity, but *totum* to the Deity and the humanity.

To that, then, which is objected, that *totus* and *totum* signify the same thing; it must be said that this is true, so far as concerns the *first imposition*, but by reason of the *distinction* carried by the consignification of gender, in the manner of[^p465-5] use the one has been wont to be referred to the person, and the other to the nature.

To that which is objected, that wherever I am, it is necessary that I be whole; it must be said that there is no parallel, because in me the person does not extend itself beyond the nature; but it is not so in Christ, as was said in the foregoing[^p465-6].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *No one ascends into heaven, except him who descended from heaven.* For this seems to be false, because, if Christ alone descended from heaven: therefore Christ alone ascends into heaven, and no other; which is heretical to say. — Likewise, this seems false for another reason, when he is said to have descended from heaven: for either this is said according to the *divine* nature, or according to the *human.* According to the *divine* not, because according to it he does not change place; according to the *human* not, because according to it he was not in heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to ascend* in one way is the same as to mount by one's own power without the support of another's power; and in this way it belongs to Christ alone. In another way *to ascend* is the same as to mount upward; and in this way it belongs to the other Saints[^p465-7]; but in the aforesaid authority it is taken in the first way. — Or otherwise: there is ascending into the empyrean heaven, and there is ascending into the heaven of the *Trinity*[^p465-8]. When therefore it is said: No one ascends, etc.; this is not said with respect to ascent into the empyrean, but with respect to ascent into the heaven of the *Trinity*; and that ascent is not an ascent to a place, but rather to the dignity and equality of the Father. Nor is it according to the acquisition of a new dignity in Christ, but on account of the manifestation of that which[^p465-9] he had from eternity. Hence just as he is said to have *descended* not because the Deity was diminished in him, but because in the assumption of the humanity it *appeared* diminished; so also he is said to have *ascended*, because in his ascension his sublimity was manifested. Hence that *descent* and *ascent* befitted the divine person according to the divine nature, yet as related to the human. — And by this the reply to both objections previously made is made clear; for each of them runs concerning *local* ascent and descent[^p465-10].

<!-- page 466 -->

### Doubt V.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *These things concerning the strap of the sandal,* etc.: what is understood by the *strap*? and what by the *sandal*? and what by the *king of Idumaea*? and what by his *bones*?

**I respond:** It must be said that the *sandal* is the humanity of Christ, covering the foot of the Deity. But the *strap* of the sandal is the union of the Deity and the humanity. The *king of Idumaea* is Christ by reason of the assumed mortal nature, according to that which is said in the Psalm[^p466-1]: *Into Idumaea I will extend my sandal.* The *bones of the king of Idumaea* are the sacraments of Christ, hidden and rather difficult to investigate. These are *consumed unto ashes* when, through the fire of curiosity, someone wishes so to penetrate them down to the least things that devotion is extinguished. — And this indeed the Master says is not to be done, because, when we speak of Christ as regards his incarnation and passion, or even think of it, we ought to be filled with devotion, lest, while we think of such great and immense benefits with a dry heart, we be puffed up through elation and dried up through ingratitude. — But who is so fit for these things? Therefore I reckon it sound counsel to say with John: *I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandals*[^p466-2]. For I believe that the binding of this sandal, the more curiously and boldly someone shall wish to loose it, the more tightly it is bound. Therefore, following the Master, let an end be imposed upon the discourse concerning Christ as regards the mystery of the incarnation and the passion, which *surpasses all understanding*[^p466-3].

---

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. I. q. I.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cod. H *debuit*, codd. K N Z *debebat*, cod. S *debuerat.*

en: Codex H reads *debuit*, codices K N Z *debebat*, codex S *debuerat.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. I. p. I. a. 2. q. I. et d. 34. a. 1. q. I.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I.

en: Cf. concerning this doubt B. Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1.

la: Lit. Magistri, c. 3. et Comment. a. I. q. 2. Ibid. a. 2. q. 2. ostenditur etiam, compositionem illam esse specialem. — Codd. allegant dist. 7, ubi Magister quaestionem in dist. 6. inceptam exsequitur et habet verba: *inexplicabilis est istius unionis... ratio* (c. 2.). Cfr. ibid. dub. I.

en: Text of the Master, c. 3, and Commentary, a. 1, q. 2. In the same place, a. 2, q. 2, it is also shown that that composition is special. — The codices cite dist. 7, where the Master carries out the question begun in dist. 6 and has the words: *the account of this union is inexplicable* (c. 2). Cf. in the same place, dub. 1.

la: Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. *de Distributione*: *Signorum distributivorum substantiae, alia sunt distributiva partium integralium, ut* totus; *alia sunt signa distributiva partium subiectivarum [sive inferiorum v. gr. speciei respectu generis], ut* omnis, nullus. Cfr. Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 31. (IV. c. 26.); — Paulo superius pro *contingit* edd. *convenit*, cod. A exhibet *consuevit.*

en: Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, tract *On Distribution*: «Of the distributive signs of substance, some are distributive of integral parts, as *totus* (whole); others are signs distributive of subjective parts [or of inferiors, e.g. of the species in respect of the genus], as *omnis* (every), *nullus* (none)». Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* V, text 31 (IV, c. 26); — A little above, for *contingit* the editions read *convenit*, codex A exhibits *consuevit.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 142, nota 5. — Subinde codd. A K Z bb vocabulo *adiectivum* praefigunt nomen, et post pauca pro *in aliquas* [cod. O *alias*] *partes* Vat. substituit *in omnes partes.* In rem esse ducimus ex Petri Hispani Summul. tr. *de Distributione* (§ *de hoc signo* totus) afferre haec: *totus Socrates est albus*; est enim sensus: *Socrates secundum quamlibet sui partem est albus.* Unde ad istam: *totus Socrates est albus*, immediate sequitur ista: *Socrates secundum quamlibet sui partem est albus*, ad quam sequitur: *quaelibet pars Socratis est alba* etc.

en: Cf. above, p. 142, note 5. — Thereupon codices A K Z bb prefix the noun to the word *adiectivum*, and shortly after, for *in aliquas* [codex O *alias*] *partes* the Vatican edition substitutes *in omnes partes.* We judge it to the point to adduce these things from Peter of Spain's *Summulae*, tract *On Distribution* (§ *on this sign* totus): *the whole Socrates is white*; for the sense is: *Socrates according to each of his parts is white.* Hence from this: *the whole Socrates is white*, there immediately follows this: *Socrates according to each of his parts is white*, from which follows: *each part of Socrates is white*, etc.

la: Cfr. Aristot., III. Phys. text. 63. (c. 6.), et V. Metaph. text. 31. (IV. c. 26.), ubi duplex haec acceptio *totius* proponitur.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 63 (c. 6), and *Metaphysics* V, text 31 (IV, c. 26), where this twofold acceptation of *whole* (*totius*) is set forth.

la: Vide supra d. 5. dub. 3. — Huius dubii solutionem invenis etiam apud B. Albert., hic a. 3, et apud Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: See above, d. 5, dub. 3. — The solution of this doubt you find also in B. Albert, here a. 3, and in Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Hic lit. c. 3.

en: Here, text c. 3.

la: Cod. A *et ratione.*

en: Codex A reads *et ratione.*

la: Quaest. 2, ubi etiam in scholio addito alii auctores nominantur, qui de hoc dubio tractant.

en: Question 2, where also, in the added scholion, other authors are named who treat of this doubt.

la: Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 12. n. 8. seq., et Serm. 263. (alias 174. de Tempore et 90. de Diversis) n. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tract 12, n. 8 f., and Sermon 263 (otherwise 174 *On the Season* and 90 *On Diverse Matters*), n. 3.

la: Sive ad celsitudinem Divinitatis; de quo vide II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. dub. 2.

en: Or to the loftiness of the Deity; concerning which see II Sent., d. 2, p. II, dub. 2.

la: Codd. A Z bb perperam *quam.*

en: Codices A Z bb wrongly read *quam.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 3. et Comment. dub. 2. seq. Cfr. etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 23. m. 4. et 6; B. Albert., hic a. 7. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, text of the Master, d. XVIII, c. 3, and Commentary, dub. 2 f. Cf. also Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 23, m. 4 and 6; B. Albert, here a. 7 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 2.

la: Psalm. 59, 10. Gregor., I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 7. n. 3: *Quis enim nesciat, quod calceamenta ex mortuis animalibus fiunt? Incarnatus vero Dominus veniens quasi calceatus apparuit, quia in Divinitate sua morticina nostrae corruptionis assumsit. Unde etiam per Prophetam dicit:* In Idumaeam extendam calceamentum meum. *Per Idumaeam quippe gentilitas, per calceamentum vero assumta mortalitas designatur. In Idumaeam ergo Dominus calceamentum suum se extendere asserit, quia, dum per carnem gentibus innotuit, quasi calceata ad nos Divinitas venit. Sed huius incarnationis mysterium humanus oculus penetrare non sufficit... Corrigia ergo calceamenti est ligatura mysterii. Ioannes itaque solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius non valet, quia incarnationis eius mysterium nec ipse investigare sufficit, qui hanc per prophetiae spiritum agnovit. Quid est ergo dicere:* Non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius (Marc. 1, 7.), *nisi aperte et humiliter suam ignorantiam profiteri?* — Hieronym., exponens illud Amos 2, 1: *Eo quod incenderit ossa regis Idumaeae usque ad cinerem*, ait: *Sic ossa regis Idumaeae comburere non debemus et in cinerem favillamque dissolvere. Iudaei transferunt intelligentiam spiritualem in carnes Idumaeas, sensumque regium, qui versatur in littera et est solidissimus atque firmissimus, genealogiis quibusdam et traditionibus superfluis enervant atque comminuunt et in pulverem rediguni; et non solum illi hoc faciunt, sed omnes haeretici* etc.

en: Psalm 59[58]:10. Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospel*, bk. I, homily 7, n. 3: «For who would not know that sandals are made from dead animals? But the Lord, coming incarnate, appeared as it were shod, because in his Deity he took up the dead remains of our corruption. Hence also through the Prophet he says: *Into Idumaea I will extend my sandal.* For by Idumaea the Gentile world, but by the sandal the assumed mortality, is designated. Into Idumaea therefore the Lord asserts that he extends his sandal, because, when he became known to the Gentiles through the flesh, the Deity came to us as it were shod. But the human eye does not suffice to penetrate the mystery of this incarnation... The strap of the sandal, therefore, is the binding of the mystery. And so John is not able to loose the strap of his sandal, because not even he suffices to investigate the mystery of his incarnation, who recognized it through the spirit of prophecy. What then is it to say: *I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal* (Mark 1:7), except openly and humbly to profess his own ignorance?» — Jerome, expounding that text of Amos 2:1: *Because he burned the bones of the king of Idumaea unto ashes*, says: «Thus we ought not to burn the bones of the king of Idumaea and dissolve them into ash and embers. The Jews transfer the spiritual understanding into the Idumaean flesh, and the royal sense, which abides in the letter and is most solid and most firm, they enervate and crush by certain genealogies and superfluous traditions and reduce to dust; and not only do they do this, but all heretics» etc.

la: Marc. 1, 7; Ioan. 1, 27. — Paulo ante edd., pluribus omissis, *sed sanum consilium reputet dicere cum Ioanne*; cod. C *cum quis [quidem?] ad hoc nullus sit idoneus, ideo sanum* etc. Paulo inferius pro *strictius* cod. Y *fortius*, edd. *arctius*, quae et subinde pro *Magistrum* exhibent *medium.*

en: Mark 1:7; John 1:27. — A little before, the editions, with several things omitted, read *but let him reckon it sound counsel to say with John*; codex C *since no one [indeed?] is fit for this, therefore sound* etc. A little below, for *strictius* codex Y reads *fortius*, the editions *arctius*, which also thereupon for *Magistrum* exhibit *medium.*

la: Phil. 4, 7. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Phil. 4:7. — Cf. concerning this doubt B. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p464-{L,R}-*`, `vol3-p465-{L,R}-*`, `vol3-p466-{L,R}-*`) cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (raw lines 32276–32402). Printed pp.464–466 (PDF 486–488; offset pdf = printed + 22).

**Structure / dubia count.** **FIVE dubia confirmed (Dub. I–V).** Each opens *Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:* + a lemma from Lombard's text. Logical order confirmed eyes-on against the 450 dpi bands:
- **Dub. I** (raw ~32278): *Lux verae Sapientiae illuminabat infernum* — whether the light of true Wisdom illumined hell.
- **Dub. II** (raw ~32287): *Utique totus eodem tempore erat in inferno* — whether Christ was wholly in hell at one time (*totum* → nature or person).
- **Dub. III** (raw ~32344, in p.465 LEFT column): *Totus est ubicumque est, sed non totum* — *totus*/*totum* distinction (person vs nature).
- **Dub. IV** (raw ~32330, in p.465 RIGHT column): *Nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo* — twofold sense of *ascendere*.
- **Dub. V** (raw ~32387): *Haec de corrigia calceamenti etc.* — allegory of strap/sandal/king of Idumaea/bones; closes the distinction.

**III/IV column-interleave (RESOLVED).** In raw OCR reading order the `Dub.` headers appear I, II, **IV, III**, V — because the two-column layout puts **Dub. III in p.465's LEFT column and Dub. IV in p.465's RIGHT column** of the same printed opening. The PDF bands confirm the correct *logical* order is III (*Totus est ubicumque*) then IV (*Nemo ascendit*). **Note:** the q6 hand-off had the III/IV incipits swapped (it tagged III=*Nemo ascendit*, IV=*Totus est ubique*); the printed page corrects this — III=*Totus est ubicumque*, IV=*Nemo ascendit*.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.464** — tail of q6's Solutio (prior chunk), then DUBIA header, Dub. I (whole), Dub. II opener (through *...humanam na-*). Footers nn.6–11 (dubia's share).
- **p.465** — Dub. II remainder + Dub. II Respondeo (L col), Dub. III (L col, whole), Dub. IV (R col, whole). Footers nn.1–10.
- **p.466** — Dub. V (whole), then DISTINCTIO XXIII / Cap. I opens (next chunk). Footers nn.1–3, then NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM begins (belongs to d.23).
- Page breaks: p.464→465 mid-Dub. II (*...secundum humanam na-|turam*); p.465→466 at the Dub. IV close / Dub. V opener boundary.

**Apparatus (19 entries, per-page restart, page-prefixed IDs).**
- **p.464 nn.6–11** — INHERITED IN per the q6 hand-off (q6 took nn.1–5). Dub. I: n.6 (II Sent. d.2 cross-ref), n.7 (Cod. H *debuit* var.), n.8 (II Sent. d.1+d.34 cross-ref), n.9 (Albert/Thom./Petr.a Tar./Richard author-list). Dub. II: n.10 (lit. Magistri c.3 + Codd. dist.7 *inexplicabilis*), n.11 (Petr. Hispan. *de Distributione* + Aristotle Metaph.).
- **p.465 nn.1–10** — Dub. II: n.1 (*pag. 142* + Petr. Hispan. *totus Socrates*). Dub. III: n.2 (Aristot. Phys.III/Metaph.V twofold *totius*), n.3 (supra d.5 dub.3 + Albert/Petr.a Tar.), n.4 (Hic lit. c.3), n.5 (Cod. A *et ratione*), n.6 (Quaest.2 scholion). Dub. IV: n.7 (Aug. in Ioan. + Serm.263), n.8 (II Sent. d.2 p.II dub.2 celsitudo), n.9 (Codd. *quam* var.), n.10 (lit. Magistri d.XVIII c.3 + Alex.Hal./Albert/Thom./Petr.a Tar./Richard).
- **p.466 nn.1–3** — Dub. V: n.1 (Psalm 58:10 + long Gregory Homily 7 + Jerome on Amos 2:1), n.2 (Mark 1:7/John 1:27 + variant cluster), n.3 (Phil. 4:7 + Albert/Thom./Petr.a Tar./Richard).

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up IN:* p.464 footers **nn.6–11** (the dubia's share of p.464; q6 took nn.1–5), forwarded from the a1-q6 report.
- *Forwarded OUT:* none — Dub. V closes the dubia AND DISTINCTIO XXII. The p.466 NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM block + Cap. I–III footers (Dubium 1, Dubium 2) belong to the d.23-littera chunk, NOT here.

**Seam status.** CLEAN both ends. IN: q6's Solutio ad-4 closes *…et ideo non est simile* at the top of p.464 (prior chunk); the DUBIA header opens below on the same printed page (raw 32276). OUT: Dub. V closes *…quod exsuperat omnem sensum* (p.466 R col, raw ~32402); DISTINCTIO XXIII / Cap. I opens immediately after (raw 32403). The dubia close grammatically before XXIII begins.

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

**Distinction status.** With this chunk, **DISTINCTIO XXII is COMPLETE.** Next semantic unit is the d.23 *littera Magistri* (DISTINCTIO XXIII, Cap. I ff.) at raw 32403.

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. 23

title_alt: Distinctio XXIII — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

source_text:
<!-- page 466 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXIII.

### Cap. I. *Si Christus habuerit fidem, spem, ut caritatem.*

Cum vero supra perhibitum sit, Christum plenum gratia fuisse, non est supervacuum inquirere, utrum fidem et spem, sicut caritatem, habuerit. Si enim his caruit, non videtur plenitudinem gratiarum habuisse. Ut autem haec quaestio valeat apertius explicari, de his singulis aliqua in medium proferenda sunt; et primum de fide, secundum *mensuram cuius* praecipit Apostolus *unicuique sapere*.

### Cap. II. *Quid sit fides.*

«Fides est virtus, qua creduntur quae non videntur»; quod tamen non de omnibus quae non videntur, accipiendum est, sed de his tantum, quae credere, ut ait Augustinus, «ad religionem pertinet»[^p466-2]. Multa enim sunt, quae si Christianus ignoret, nihil metuendum est, quia non ideo a religione deviat.

### Cap. III. *Quot modis dicitur fides.*

Accipitur autem fides tribus modis, scilicet pro eo quo creditur et est virtus; et pro eo quo[^p466-3] creditur et non est virtus; et pro eo quod creditur, quod aliud est ab eo quo creditur. Unde Augustinus[^p466-4] inquit: «Aliud sunt ea quae creduntur, aliud fides, qua creduntur; illa enim in rebus sunt, quae vel esse, vel fuisse, vel futurae esse dicuntur; haec autem in animo credentis est, ei tantum conspicua, cuius est». Et tamen nomine fidei censetur utrumque, et illud scilicet quod creditur, et id quo creditur. Id quod creditur

<!-- page 467 -->

dicitur fides, sicut ibi[^p467-1]: «Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit». Fides autem, qua creditur, si cum caritate sit, virtus est, quia «caritas, ut ait Ambrosius[^p467-2], mater est omnium virtutum», quae omnes informat, sine qua nulla *vera* virtus est. Fides ergo *operans per dilectionem* virtus est, qua non visa creduntur. Haec est *fundamentum*, quod mutari non potest, ut ait Apostolus, quae posita in fundamento neminem perire sinit. Unde Augustinus[^p467-3]: «*Fundamentum* est Christus Iesus, id est Christi fides, scilicet quae *per dilectionem operatur*, per quam Christus *habitat in cordibus*, quae neminem perire sinit; alia vero non est *fundamentum*. Fides enim sine dilectione inanis est, fides cum dilectione Christiani est, alia daemonis est. Nam *daemones credunt et contremiscunt*». «Sed multum interest, utrum quis credat *Christum*, vel *Christo*, vel *in Christum*. Nam ipsum esse *Christum*, daemones crediderunt, nec tamen *in Christum* crediderunt».

### Cap. IV. *Quid sit credere Deo, vel Deum, vel in Deum.*

«Aliud est enim credere *in Deum*, aliud credere *Deo*, aliud credere *Deum*. Credere *Deo* est credere, vera esse quae loquitur; quod et mali faciunt, et nos credimus *homini*, sed *non in hominem*. Credere *Deum* est credere, quod ipse sit Deus; quod etiam mali faciunt. Credere *in Deum* est credendo amare, credendo in eum ire, credendo ei adhaerere et eius membris incorporari[^p467-4]». Per hanc fidem «iustificatur impius, ut deinde ipsa fides incipiat per dilectionem operari». Ea enim sola bona opera dicenda sunt, quae fiunt per dilectionem Dei. Ipsa enim dilectio opus fidei dicitur. Fides igitur, quam daemones et falsi Christiani habent, qualitas mentis est, sed informis, quia sine caritate est. Nam et malos fidem habere, cum tamen caritate careant, Apostolus[^p467-5] ostendit dicens: *Si habuero omnem fidem, caritatem autem non habuero* etc.; quae fides etiam donum Dei dici potest, quia et in malis quaedam Dei dona sunt.

### Cap. V. *De informi qualitate mentis, quae in malo Christiano est.*

Si vero quaeritur, utrum illa informis qualitas, qua malus Christianus universa credit, quae bonus Christianus, accedente caritate, remaneat et *fiat virtus*, an ipsa eliminetur, et alia qualitas succedat, quae *virtus* sit; utrumlibet sine periculo dici potest; mihi tamen videtur, quod qualitas illa, quae prius erat, remaneat et accessu caritatis *virtus* fiat.

### Cap. VI. *Quomodo dicatur una fides.*

Cumque diversis modis dicatur fides, fatendum est tamen, *unam* esse fidem, ut ait Apostolus[^p467-6]: *Unus Dominus, una fides*. Sive enim accipiatur fides pro eo quod creditur, sive pro eo quo creditur, recte dicitur fides *una*. Si pro eo *quod* creditur accipiatur, ex hac intelligentia dicitur *una fides*, quia idem iubemur credere, et unum idemque est, quod creditur a cunctis fidelibus. Unde fides *catholica* dicitur, id est universalis. Si vero accipitur fides pro eo *quo* creditur, ea ratione dicitur *una* esse fides, non quia sit una numero in omnibus, sed genere, id est similitudine. Unde Augustinus[^p467-7] libro decimo tertio de Trinitate: «Fides, quam qui habent fideles vocantur, et qui non habent, infideles, communis est omnibus fidelibus, sicut pluribus hominibus facies communis esse dicitur, cum tamen singuli suas habeant. Non enim fides *numero* est una, sed *genere*, quae, cum sit in uno, est et in aliis, non ipsa, sed similis, et propter similitudinem magis *unam* dicimus esse quam *multas*. Sicut idem volentium dicitur voluntas *una*, cum tamen cuique sit *sua* voluntas; et duorum simillimorum dicitur facies *una*».

### Cap. VII. *Quod fides est de his quae non videntur, proprie, ipsa tamen videtur ab eo, in quo est.*

Notandum quoque est, quod fides proprie de non apparentibus tantum est. Unde Gregorius[^p467-8]: «Apparentia non habent fidem, sed agnitionem». Idem: «Cum Paulus dicat: *Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum non apparentium*; hoc veraciter dicitur credi, quod non valet videri. Nam credi iam non potest, quod videri potest». «Thomas aliud vidit, et aliud credidit: hominem vidit et Deum confessus est dicens: *Deus meus et Dominus meus*». De hoc etiam Augustinus[^p467-9] ait: «Fidem ipsam videt quisque in corde suo esse, si credit, vel non esse, si non credit; non sicut corpora, quae videmus oculis corporis, et per ipsorum imagines, quas memoria tenemus, etiam ab-

<!-- page 468 -->

sentia cogitamus; nec sicut ea quae non vidimus, et ex his quae vidimus, cogitatione utcumque formamus et memoriae commendamus; nec sicut hominem, cuius animam, etsi non videmus, ex nostra coniicimus, et ex motibus corporis hominem, sicut videndo didicimus, intuemur etiam cogitando: non sic videtur fides in corde, in quo est, ab eo cuius est, sed eam tenet certissima scientia. Cum igitur ideo credere iubemur, quia id quod credere iubemur, videre non possumus; ipsam tamen fidem, quando est in nobis, videmus in nobis, quia et rerum *absentium praesens* est fides, et rerum, quae *foris* sunt, *intus* est fides, et rerum, quae *non videntur, videtur* fides; et ipsa temporaliter fit in cordibus hominum, et si ex fidelibus infideles fiunt, perit ab eis». His verbis evidenter traditur, fidem ipsam in corde hominis ab ipso homine videri non corporaliter, non imaginarie, sed intellectualiter; et ipsam tamen absentium et eorum quae non videntur, esse. Ut enim Augustinus[^p468-1] alibi ait: «Credimus, ut cognoscamus; non cognoscimus, ut credamus. Quid est enim fides, nisi credere quod non vides? Fides ergo est quod non vides credere; veritas quod credidisti videre». Unde recte fides dicitur *argumentum* — vel *convictio* — rerum non apparentium, quia, si fides est, ex eo convincitur et probatur, aliqua esse non apparentia[^p468-2], cum fides non sit nisi de non apparentibus.

### Cap. VIII. *Descriptio fidei.*

Ait enim Apostolus: *Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum* — vel convictio — *non apparentium*, quia per fidem subsistunt in nobis etiam modo speranda et subsistent in futuro per experientiam. Et ipsa est probatio et convictio non apparentium, quia, si quis de his dubitet, per fidem probantur, ut adhuc probatur futura resurrectio, quia ita crediderunt Patriarchae et alii Sancti; vel probatio est et certitudo, quod sint aliqua non apparentia, ut supra dictum est. Proprie autem fides dicitur *substantia rerum sperandarum*, quia sperandis substat et quia *fundamentum* est bonorum, quod nemo mutare potest. Si vero quaeritur, an haec descriptio *spei* conveniat; sane concedi potest *utrumlibet*. Si autem dicatur *convenire*, sunt et alia plura, quibus differunt fides et spes[^p468-3]. Sed non improbe dici potest, *soli fidei* convenire, non spei; quia fides sola *fundamentum* dicitur, non quia fides-*virtus* possit esse sine spe et caritate.

### Cap. IX. *Quare sola fides dicitur fundamentum.*

Unde et recte ea sola dicitur *fundamentum* omnium virtutum et bonorum operum. Non autem fundamentum est *caritatis*, quia non ipsa caritatis, sed caritas ipsius virtutis fidei causa est. Caritas enim causa est et mater omnium virtutum, «quae si desit, frustra habentur cetera; si autem adsit, habentur omnia[^p468-6]». Caritas enim Spiritus sanctus est, ut in superioribus[^p468-7] praetaxatum est. Ipsa est ergo causa omnium virtutum, non ipsius aliqua virtutum causa est, quia omnia munera excellit. Unde Augustinus[^p468-8]: «Respice ad munera Ecclesiae, et universis excellentius caritatis munus cognosces», «quae, ut oleum, non potest premi in imo, sed superexsilit». Non ergo eius causa vel fundamentum fides est. — Gregorius tamen super Ezechielem[^p468-9] dicit, «quia, nisi prius fides teneatur, nullatenus ad spiritualem amorem attingitur. Non enim caritas fidem, sed fides caritatem praecedit, quia nemo potest amare quod non crediderit», sicut nec sperare. — Sed hoc accipi potest dictum de fide, quae virtus non est; ipsa enim spem et caritatem frequenter praecedit; vel de actu fidei, qui forte naturaliter actum caritatis praecedit, sicut actum spei; quod verba praemissa diligenter notata innuunt et ea etiam, quae addit dicens: «Nisi ea, inquit, quae audis, credideris, ad amandum ea quae audis, non inflammaberis»; quae tantum de non visis est, ut ante diximus. Unde facit Ioannes Chrysostomus[^p468-10]: «Fides in anima nostra facit subsistere ea quae non videntur, de quibus proprie fides est; de visis enim non est fides, sed agnitio».

---

english:
### Cap. I. *Whether Christ had faith, hope, as charity.*

But since it has been set forth above that Christ was full of grace, it is not superfluous to inquire whether he had faith and hope, as charity. For if he lacked these, he does not seem to have had the fullness of graces. But that this question may be more clearly explained, some things must be brought forward concerning these matters individually; and first concerning faith, *according to the measure of which* the Apostle commands *each one to be wise*.

### Cap. II. *What faith is.*

«Faith is a virtue by which the things that are not seen are believed»; which nevertheless is not to be understood of all the things that are not seen, but only of those things which to believe, as Augustine says, «pertains to religion»[^p466-2]. For there are many things which, if a Christian is ignorant of them, nothing is to be feared, because he does not on that account deviate from religion.

### Cap. III. *In how many ways faith is spoken of.*

Now faith is taken in three ways, namely for that by which one believes and is a virtue; and for that by which[^p466-3] one believes and is not a virtue; and for that which is believed, which is other than that by which one believes. Hence Augustine[^p466-4] says: «The things which are believed are one thing, the faith by which they are believed another; for those are in things, which are said either to be, or to have been, or to be about to be; but this is in the mind of the believer, conspicuous only to him whose it is». And yet by the name of faith both are reckoned, namely both that which is believed, and that by which one believes. That which is believed

is called faith, as there[^p467-1]: «This is the catholic faith, which unless each one believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved». But the faith by which one believes, if it be with charity, is a virtue, because «charity, as Ambrose says[^p467-2], is the mother of all the virtues», which informs them all, without which there is no *true* virtue. Faith therefore *working through love* is a virtue, by which the things not seen are believed. This is the *foundation*, which cannot be changed, as the Apostle says, which, placed in the foundation, lets no one perish. Hence Augustine[^p467-3]: «The *foundation* is Christ Jesus, that is, the faith of Christ, namely that which *works through love*, by which Christ *dwells in hearts*, which lets no one perish; but the other is not a *foundation*. For faith without love is empty, faith with love belongs to the Christian, the other belongs to the demon. For *the demons believe and tremble*». «But it makes a great difference whether one believes *Christ*, or believes *in Christ*. For that he is *Christ*, the demons believed, yet they did not believe *in Christ*».

### Cap. IV. *What it is to believe God, or to believe a God, or to believe in God.*

«For it is one thing to believe *in God*, another to believe *God*, another to believe *a God*. To believe *God* is to believe that the things he speaks are true; which even the wicked do, and we believe a *man*, but *not in a man*. To believe *a God* is to believe that he himself is God; which even the wicked do. To believe *in God* is by believing to love, by believing to go into him, by believing to cleave to him and to be incorporated into his members[^p467-4]». By this faith «the impious is justified, so that thereafter the faith itself may begin to work through love». For those alone are to be called good works which are done through the love of God. For love itself is called the work of faith. Therefore faith, which the demons and false Christians have, is a quality of the mind, but unformed, because it is without charity. For that the wicked also have faith, while nevertheless they lack charity, the Apostle[^p467-5] shows, saying: *If I should have all faith, but have not charity* etc.; which faith can also be called a gift of God, because even in the wicked there are certain gifts of God.

### Cap. V. *On the unformed quality of mind which is in the wicked Christian.*

But if it be asked whether that unformed quality, by which the wicked Christian believes all the things which the good Christian believes, with charity coming upon it, remains and *becomes a virtue*, or whether it is eliminated, and another quality succeeds, which is a *virtue*; either may be said without danger; to me, however, it seems that that quality which was there before remains and at the accession of charity becomes a *virtue*.

### Cap. VI. *How faith is said to be one.*

And since faith is spoken of in diverse ways, it must nevertheless be confessed that faith is *one*, as the Apostle says[^p467-6]: *One Lord, one faith*. For whether faith be taken for that which is believed, or for that by which one believes, it is rightly called *one* faith. If it be taken for that *which* is believed, from this understanding it is called *one faith*, because we are commanded to believe the same thing, and it is one and the same which is believed by all the faithful. Hence faith is called *catholic*, that is, universal. But if faith be taken for that *by which* one believes, for this reason it is said to be *one* faith, not because it is one in number in all, but in kind, that is, in likeness. Hence Augustine[^p467-7] in the thirteenth book on the Trinity: «The faith which those who have it are called faithful, and those who do not, unfaithful, is common to all the faithful, just as a face is said to be common to many men, although each has his own. For faith is not *one in number*, but *in kind*, which, while it is in one, is also in others, not the same, but similar, and because of the likeness we say it to be *one* rather than *many*. Just as the will of those willing the same thing is called *one*, although each has *his own* will; and the face of two who are most alike is said to be *one*».

### Cap. VII. *That faith is properly of those things which are not seen, yet it itself is seen by him in whom it is.*

It is also to be noted that faith is properly only of things not apparent. Hence Gregory[^p467-8]: «Things apparent do not have faith, but recognition». The same: «Since Paul says: *Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the argument of things not apparent*; this is truly said to be believed, which cannot be seen. For now that cannot be believed which can be seen». «Thomas saw one thing, and believed another: he saw a man and confessed God, saying: *My Lord and my God*». Of this also Augustine[^p467-9] says: «Each one sees that faith itself is in his heart, if he believes, or is not, if he does not believe; not as bodies, which we see with the eyes of the body, and through their images, which we hold in memory, we think also of things ab-

sent; nor as the things which we have not seen, and from those which we have seen, we somehow form by thought and commend to memory; nor as a man, whose soul, even if we do not see it, we conjecture from our own, and we behold a man also by thinking, from the motions of the body, as we have learned by seeing: not thus is faith seen in the heart, in which it is, by him whose it is, but a most certain knowledge holds it. Since therefore we are commanded to believe for this reason, that we cannot see what we are commanded to believe; yet we see the faith itself, when it is in us, in us, because faith is *present* of things *absent*, and faith is *within* of things which are *without*, and faith is *seen* of things which are *not seen*; and it itself comes to be temporally in the hearts of men, and if from faithful they become unfaithful, it perishes from them». By these words it is evidently handed down that faith itself is seen in the heart of a man by the man himself, not corporeally, not by imagination, but intellectually; and that it nevertheless is of things absent and of those which are not seen. For as Augustine[^p468-1] says elsewhere: «We believe, that we may know; we do not know, that we may believe. For what is faith, if not to believe what you do not see? Faith therefore is to believe what you do not see; truth is to see what you have believed». Hence faith is rightly called the *argument* — or *conviction* — of things not apparent, because, if there is faith, from it it is convinced and proved that there are some things not apparent[^p468-2], since faith is only of things not apparent.

### Cap. VIII. *The description of faith.*

For the Apostle says: *Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the argument* — or conviction — *of things not apparent*, because through faith the things to be hoped for subsist in us even now and will subsist in the future through experience. And it itself is the proof and conviction of things not apparent, because, if anyone doubts about these, they are proved through faith, as the future resurrection is still proved, because the Patriarchs and other Saints so believed; or it is the proof and certitude that there are some things not apparent, as was said above. But faith is properly called the *substance of things hoped for*, because it underlies the things to be hoped for and because it is the *foundation* of good things, which no one can change. But if it be asked whether this description fits *hope*; it can well be granted *either way*. If, however, it be said to *fit*, there are also many other things by which faith and hope differ[^p468-3]. But it can not improperly be said to fit *faith alone*, not hope; because faith alone is called the *foundation*, not because faith-as-*virtue* could be without hope and charity.

### Cap. IX. *Why faith alone is called the foundation.*

Hence it is also rightly called the *foundation* of all virtues and good works. But it is not the foundation of *charity*, because it is not the cause of charity, but charity is the cause of the virtue itself of faith. For charity is the cause and mother of all the virtues, «which if it be lacking, the rest are had in vain; but if it be present, all are had[^p468-6]». For charity is the Holy Spirit, as was indicated above[^p468-7]. It itself therefore is the cause of all the virtues, nor is any of the virtues the cause of it, because it surpasses all gifts. Hence Augustine[^p468-8]: «Look to the gifts of the Church, and you will recognize the gift of charity as more excellent than all», «which, like oil, cannot be pressed to the bottom, but leaps up above». Therefore faith is not its cause or foundation. — Gregory, however, on Ezekiel[^p468-9] says, «that, unless faith first be held, one in no way attains to spiritual love. For charity does not precede faith, but faith precedes charity, because no one can love what he has not believed», just as neither hope it. — But this can be taken as said of faith which is not a virtue; for it frequently precedes hope and charity; or of the act of faith, which perhaps naturally precedes the act of charity, as it does the act of hope; which the words set down above, diligently noted, suggest, and also those which he adds, saying: «Unless, he says, you believe the things you hear, you will not be inflamed to love the things you hear»; which is only of things not seen, as we said before. Hence John Chrysostom[^p468-10] does so: «Faith in our soul makes to subsist the things which are not seen, of which faith properly is; for of things seen there is not faith, but recognition».

---

la: Ad verbum est in Glossa ad Rom. I, 18, apud Lyranum; cfr. August., Enchirid. c. 8. n. 2; II. Quaestion. Evang. c. 39. n. 1. — Verba *ad religionem pertinet* sunt in Enchirid. c. 9. n. 3. — Cod. E post *videntur* adiungit: *Unde Augustinus in libro de Praedest. Sanctor.: Credere ipsum nihil est aliud quam cum assensione cogitare; quod tamen* etc. Quae verba in aliis codd. et ed. 1. alibi, nempe in cap. 4, ponuntur.

en: Word for word it is in the Gloss on Rom. 1:18, in Lyra; cf. Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 8, n. 2; *Eighty-three Questions on the Gospels* c. 39, n. 1. — The words *pertains to religion* are in the *Enchiridion* c. 9, n. 3. — Codex E after *videntur* adds: *Hence Augustine in the book On the Predestination of the Saints: To believe is itself nothing other than to think with assent; which nevertheless* etc. These words in other codices and in ed. 1 are placed elsewhere, namely in chapter 4.

la: Ita cum ed. 1 (quae tamen omittit *creditur*) legendum esse putamus; in aliis edd. et codd. *quod creditur*. Intelligitur autem a Magistro fides informis, quae ab ipso aliisque antiquis non vocatur virtus, scil. perfecta.

en: We think it should be read thus with ed. 1 (which, however, omits *creditur*); in the other editions and codices *quod creditur* (that which is believed). But the Master understands unformed faith, which by him and by the other ancients is not called a virtue, namely a perfect one.

la: Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 2. n. 5. — Pro *futurae esse dicuntur* Vat. cum pluribus edd. *futura creduntur*, refragante originali.

en: Book XIII on the Trinity, c. 2, n. 5. — For *futurae esse dicuntur* (are said to be about to be) the Vatican edition with several editions has *futura creduntur* (are believed to be future), against the original.

la: Symbolum Athanasianum.

en: The Athanasian Creed.

la: In Epist. ad Rom. 14, 1. (vide hic in Comment. dub. 6.), et apud Lyranum in Glossa ad Rom. 14, 5, et I. Cor. 8, 2. — Inferius respicitur Gal. 5, 6, et deinde I. Cor. 3, 11.

en: On the Epistle to the Romans 14:1 (see here in the Commentary, dub. 6), and in Lyra in the Gloss on Rom. 14:5, and 1 Cor. 8:2. — Below Gal. 5:6 is referred to, and then 1 Cor. 3:11.

la: De Fide et operibus, c. 16. n. 27, ubi respicitur Eph. 3, 17: *Christum habitare per fidem in cordibus vestris*; et deinde Iac. 2, 19. — Seq. locus est August., Serm. 144. (alias 61. de Verbis Domini) c. 2. n. 2.

en: *On Faith and Works*, c. 16, n. 27, where Eph. 3:17 is referred to: *that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts*; and then James 2:19. — The following passage is Augustine, *Sermon* 144 (otherwise 61 *On the Words of the Lord*) c. 2, n. 2.

la: August., serm. de Symb. (alias 181. de Temp.) c. 1, et Enarrat. in Ps. 77. n. 8, et in Evang. Ioan. tr. 29. n. 6. Eadem sententia ad verbum est in Glossa ad Rom. 4, 5, et Iac. 2, 23, apud Lyranum. — Quae sequuntur sunt apud August., Enarrat. in Ps. 67. n. 41.

en: Augustine, *Sermon on the Creed* (otherwise 181 *On the Season*) c. 1, and *Expositions of the Psalms* on Ps. 77, n. 8, and on the Gospel of John tr. 29, n. 6. The same sentence is word for word in the Gloss on Rom. 4:5, and James 2:23, in Lyra. — What follows is in Augustine, *Expositions of the Psalms* on Ps. 67, n. 41.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 2.

en: Epistle 1 Cor. 13:2.

la: Cap. 2. n. 5. — In fine pro *simillimorum* edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 *simili modo*, contra codd. et originale.

en: Chapter 2, n. 5. — At the end, for *simillimorum* (of those most alike) editions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 have *simili modo* (in a like manner), against the codices and the original.

la: Libr. II. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 8; seq. locus est IV. Dialog. c. 6; tertius in Evang. loc. cit. Locus S. Pauli est Hebr. 11, 1. Vulgata: *Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium.* Deinde respicitur Ioan. 20, 28.

en: Book II of the *Homilies on the Gospel*, homily 26, n. 8; the following passage is *Dialogues* IV, c. 6; the third is in the *Gospel* at the place cited. The passage of St. Paul is Heb. 11:1. The Vulgate: *Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not apparent.* Then John 20:28 is referred to.

la: Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 1. n. 3. — Pro *oculis corporis* originale cum Vat. et paucis edd. *corporeis*, refragantibus etiam codd. Pro *non vidimus* codd. B C D E et edd. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 *videmus*, refragante originali. Denique pro *cogitatione* cod. E et Vat. cum edd. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 *cogitationem*.

en: Book XIII on the Trinity, c. 1, n. 3. — For *oculis corporis* (with the eyes of the body) the original with the Vatican edition and a few editions has *corporeis* (corporeal), the codices also resisting. For *non vidimus* (we have not seen) codices B C D E and editions 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 have *videmus* (we see), against the original. Finally, for *cogitatione* (by thought) codex E and the Vatican edition with editions 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 have *cogitationem* (the thought).

la: In Evang. Ioan. tr. 40. n. 9. — Vocabulum *convictio* est alia antiqua versio termini ἔλεγχος (Hebr. 11, 1.), de quo cfr. August., Enchirid. c. 8. n. 2, et XIII. de Trin. c. 1. n. 3.

en: On the Gospel of John tr. 40, n. 9. — The word *convictio* (conviction) is another ancient version of the term ἔλεγχος (Heb. 11:1), concerning which cf. Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 8, n. 2, and Book XIII on the Trinity c. 1, n. 3.

la: Edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt: *quia si quis de eis dubitet, per fidem probantur.*

en: Editions 1, 8 add: *because if anyone doubts about them, they are proved through faith.*

la: Cfr. infra in d. XXVI.

en: Cf. below in d. XXVI.

la: August., in Evang. Ioan. tr. 9. n. 8.

en: Augustine, on the Gospel of John tr. 9, n. 8.

la: Libr. I. Sent. d. XVII.

en: Book I of the *Sentences*, d. XVII.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 103. serm. 1. n. 9; seq. locus est in Evang. Ioan. tr. 6. n. 20. Pro *superexsilit* Vat. *superebullit*, refragantibus codd. cum pluribus edd.; edd. 1, 8 *superexcellit vel superexsilit*; originale *exsilit* et *in ima* pro *in imo*.

en: *Expositions of the Psalms* on Ps. 103, sermon 1, n. 9; the following passage is on the Gospel of John tr. 6, n. 20. For *superexsilit* (leaps up above) the Vatican edition has *superebullit* (boils up above), the codices with several editions resisting; editions 1, 8 have *superexcellit vel superexsilit*; the original has *exsilit* (leaps up) and *in ima* for *in imo* (to the bottom).

la: Libr. II. hom. 4. in Ezech. n. 13. Seq. locus ibid. — Superius post *accipi potest* edd. 1, 8 *quia forte* pro *qui forte*.

en: Book II, homily 4 on Ezekiel, n. 13. The following passage is in the same place. — Above, after *accipi potest*, editions 1, 8 have *quia forte* (because perhaps) for *qui forte* (which perhaps).

la: Hom. 21. in Epist. ad Hebr. n. 2, sententialiter.

en: Homily 21 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 2, in substance.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Lombard's text (*littera Magistri*) for Distinctio XXIII, re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{466,467,468}-{L,R}-*.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 32403–32601) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The OCR for this distinction is heavily cascade-shattered (two-column bleed, diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation, especially in Cap. III–VIII and every footer); the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout, per the Vol II/III override. `type: littera`, **`has_scholion: false`** — the littera carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM*.

**Cap. count + incipits (9 chapters, confirmed eyes-on):**
- **Cap. I** (p.466) — *Si Christus habuerit fidem, spem, ut caritatem.* (opener *Cum vero supra perhibitum sit…*)
- **Cap. II** (p.466) — *Quid sit fides.*
- **Cap. III** (p.466→467) — *Quot modis dicitur fides.*
- **Cap. IV** (p.467) — *Quid sit credere Deo, vel Deum, vel in Deum.*
- **Cap. V** (p.467) — *De informi qualitate mentis, quae in malo Christiano est.*
- **Cap. VI** (p.467) — *Quomodo dicatur una fides.*
- **Cap. VII** (p.467→468) — *Quod fides est de his quae non videntur, proprie, ipsa tamen videtur ab eo, in quo est.*
- **Cap. VIII** (p.468) — *Descriptio fidei.*
- **Cap. IX** (p.468) — *Quare sola fides dicitur fundamentum.*

The hand-off's "Cap. I–IX" is confirmed. The chapters interleave across the two columns: each is short, so the standard Quaracchi left-column-then-right-column reading order yields I, II (wraps L→R on p.466), III (wraps p.466-R → p.467-L), IV, V (wraps p.467-L → p.467-R), VI, VII (wraps p.467-R → p.468-L), VIII (wraps p.468-L → p.468-R), IX (p.468-R).

**Page-split map.** p.466 holds Dub.V's tail (belongs to d22-dubia) followed by DISTINCTIO XXIII / Cap. I–II + start of Cap. III. Page break p.466→467 mid-Cap. III (*…Id quod creditur* | *dicitur fides, sicut ibi*). Page break p.467→468 mid-Cap. VII (*…etiam ab-* | *-sentia cogitamus*). p.468 holds the rest of Cap. VII–IX, ending the distinction at *…sed agnitio».* (raw 32601); COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIII begins at raw 32602 (the divisio/commentary, a separate chunk).

**Apparatus (23 entries), NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, per-page restart:**
- **p.466** → nn. 1–4. The *NOTAE* block begins at the bottom of p.466 right column, after Dub.V's nn.1–3 (which belong to d22-dubia). n.1 (Dist. XIII c.1 / Rom. 12:3 / *praecipit*) attaches to Cap. I's *unicuique sapere* clause and is folded into the preceding text (no displayed marker); rendered nn. 2–4 carry Cap. II–III.
- **p.467** → nn. 1–9 (Cap. III–VII).
- **p.468** → nn. 1–10 (Cap. VII–IX); markers used are 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. nn. 4, 5 on p.468 (Enchirid. c.8 n.2 / Gal.5,6 + 1 Cor.13,3; Vat. *enim aliquid, quod*) attach to body lemmas (*Fides operans per dilectionem…*, *Creditur autem quod non speratur*) that fall in the right-column tail of Cap. VIII and are folded into the running text without displayed markers, to keep the marker stream clean — they are documented here for completeness.

**Footers IN:** the entire p.466 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* block (nn. 1–4) + all of pp.467–468 NOTAE migrate IN to this littera chunk (per the d.8/d.18-littera template — the littera carries the Lombard-text NOTAE, page-restarted). The d22-dubia took only Dub.V's nn.1–3 on p.466.
**Footers OUT:** none. The COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS footers (NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM) on later pages belong to the forthcoming d23-divisio chunk.

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends. Open: Dub.V closes *…quod exsuperat omnem sensum* (p.466-R, d22-dubia) and DISTINCTIO XXIII / Cap. I opens immediately on the same printed p.466. Close: Cap. IX ends *…sed agnitio».* (raw 32601); the COMMENTARIUS (raw 32602) is the next chunk.

**`[?]` flags:** none — 450 dpi bands fully legible.