title: Dist. 19, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XIX)

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

source_text:
<!-- page 412 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *A peccatis per eius mortem soluti sumus, quia per ipsius mortem commendatur nobis caritas Dei.* Videtur enim ratio illa nulla esse, quia, cum per beneficia Dei commendetur nobis caritas Dei, sicut per passionem Christi; videtur, quod per beneficia Dei iustificemur a peccatis, sicut per passionem Christi. — Item, Martyres patiendo excitant nos ad credendum et ad amandum Deum[^p412-1]: ergo si passio Christi dicitur nos iustificare, quia nos accendit ad caritatem, pari ratione et passio aliorum Martyrum. — Item, si hoc verum est, tunc videtur, quod iustificatio non conveniat passioni Christi nisi solummodo per accidens, videlicet ratione caritatis nostrae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister in praedicta ratione non tangit causam iustificationis *totam*, sed partem causae. Praesupponit enim in ipsa passione rationem *meriti*, per quod passio Christi est fons nostrae salutis; per illam enim plenitudo gratiae Christi in nos redundat. Et illa praesupposita, adiungit aliam rationem, videlicet rationem *exempli provocantis* et excitantis; et haec quidem bona ratio est et sufficiens, priori praesupposita; per se autem non sufficit. Et ideo omnes illae rationes procedunt ex insufficienti. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad illas tres obiectiones[^p412-2].

culum passionis, sine quorum fide non possumus iustificari: ergo sicut *passio* Christi dicitur nos iustificare, in quantum est credita, pari ratione et *ascensio* et *adventus ad iudicium.* — Item, sicut fides et caritas requiruntur ad iustificationem, ita etiam et aliae virtutes: ergo sicut dicimur iustificari per fidem et caritatem passionis, ita et per humilitatem et alias virtutes, quibus assimilamur Christo patienti.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Magister[^p412-4] assignet adhuc tertiam rationem, quare dicimur iustificari per *passionem,* videlicet quod passio iustificat per modum *sacrificii oblati;* penes quid sumitur sufficientia et distinctio illarum trium rationum?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nec istam rationem assignat Magister tanquam principalem, sed ad istam praesupponit illam, qua passio dicitur *iustificare* per modum *meriti;* et illam assignat, cum dicit, quod «Christus morte sua tanquam uno verissimo sacrificio, quidquid culparum erat in nobis, destruxit»; et ita tres rationes innuit, secundum quas passio Christi dicitur *iustificare.* Iustificat enim ut *hostia oblata,* ut *credita,* ut *amata.* — Et istae tres rationes reducuntur ad illas tres, quae superius[^p412-5] dictae sunt, videlicet quod passio Christi iustificat per modum *meriti disponentis,* et per modum *exempli excitantis,* et per modum *exemplaris dirigentis,* ut sit in ea *meritum* in quantum hostia oblata, *directio* in quantum credita, et *excitatio* in quantum amata[^p412-6], secundum triplex genus causae. Et sic passio dicitur *iustificare* nos per fidem et caritatem, quia mediantibus his duabus virtutibus unimur ipsi passioni tanquam fonti salutis.

Et sic patet responsio ad illa tria obiecta. Primum enim obiectum procedit ab insufficienti; secundum vero dissolvitur per defectum similitudinis;

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod subiungit: *Dicimur per mortem Christi iustificari, quia per fidem mortis eius a peccatis mundamur.* Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia multi sunt articuli praeter[^p412-3] arti-

<!-- page 413 -->

non enim est simile de fide et caritate et aliis virtutibus; illud vero[^p413-1] quod tertio quaerebatur, manifestum est.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Incideramus in principem huius saeculi, qui seduxit Adam et coepit nos quasi vernaculos possidere.* Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia «fraus et dolus nemini debent patrocinari[^p413-2]»: ergo si diabolus hominem decepit, videtur, quod ei non debuerit dominari. — Item, diabolus nullum ius habebat in nobis: ergo non videtur, quod aliquo iure nos possederit[^p413-3]. — Item, nos eramus servi Dei: ergo non erat in potestate nostra facere nos servos diaboli. Si igitur nec Deus facit nos servos diaboli, nec *nos* potuimus nos facere, nec *diabolus* potuit nos subiugare; non videtur, verbum auctoritatis praedictae verum esse.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio homo iuste detinebatur; sed diabolus nullo eum iusto titulo detinebat nec possidebat, quoniam malae fidei possessor fuit; sed Deus, qui est iustus iudex, iusto iudicio suo hoc permisit. Iustum enim erat, ut ille qui se voluntarie subiecerat suggestioni *per culpam,* eidem involuntarie subderetur *per poenam*[^p413-4].

Quod ergo obiicit, quod diabolus non potuit possidere, quia nullum ius habebat; dicendum, quod non valet, quia multi possident iniusto titulo, quorum diabolus princeps et dux est, qui est caput fraudis et malitiae. Nec fraus et dolus ei patrocinabatur, quia ad malum suum eum detinebat, sicut fures et latrones ad tempus ea possident, quae furantur.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homo non potuit se facere servum, cum esset in alterius iurisdictione constitutus; dicendum, quod Deus reliquerat hominem *in manu consilii sui*[^p413-5], et sicut ei permittebat, ut posset se inducere in servitutem peccati, sic etiam ei permittebat, ut posset semetipsum ducere in servitutem diaboli.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Unde ipse vere dicitur mundi redemptor.* Videtur enim esse falsum, nemo enim emit quod suum est; si ergo Deus dominium super homines non amiserat, videtur, quod ad eum redemptio hominis non spectabat. — Item quaero: a quo et per quem redemit? Si tu dicas, quod redemit a diabolo; sed contra: ei solvit pretium, a quo redemit; sed redemit nos pretio sanguinis sui[^p413-6]: ergo videtur, quod pretium sui sanguinis solverit diabolo. Si tu dicas, quod redemit a Deo; contra: nullus redemit vel emit aliquid a se ipso[^p413-7].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod homo *venundatus erat, ut faceret malum in conspectu Domini*[^p413-8], et se ipsum fecerat servum peccati et supplicii; in his autem omnibus detinebatur auctoritate divinae sententiae et iustitiae. Et ideo pretium redemptionis ei oportebat offerri, qui damnum et iniuriam passus erat; et quoniam hic est Deus, ideo Christus in offerendo sanguinem suum Deo, redemit nos a servitute diaboli, peccati et supplicii, ita quod manus misericordiae redemit hominem de manu severitatis[^p413-9] et iustitiae. Transierat enim homo per culpam suam de una manu ad aliam. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta[^p413-10].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Redemptor dicitur Pater et Spiritus sanctus propter usum potestatis.* Si enim Deus ab aeterno habuit potestatem, videtur, quod ab aeterno fuerit noster redemptor. — Item, Augustinus[^p413-11] dicit, quod in nostra redemptione

<!-- page 414 -->

non erat utendum potestate, sed potius iustitia: ergo non videtur ratio illa recte assignata.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in redemptione et fuit usus *potestatis* et usus *humilitatis;* sed usus *humilitatis* apparuit in primordio, usus *potestatis* apparuit in fine. Vicit enim mortem et auctorem mortis patiendo et resurgendo[^p414-1]; et licet passio *infirmitatis* attribuatur soli Christo, tamen operatio virtutis debetur toti Trinitati. Et ideo dicit Magister, quod tota Trinitas est redemptor usu potestatis.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potestas in Deo fuit ab aeterno; dicendum, quod Magister non dicit, quod fuerit redemptor ex *potestate,* sed ex *usu potestatis;* et hunc quidem non habuit ab aeterno, sed ex tempore[^p414-2].

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Redemptor dicitur secundum humanitatem; quia in ea suscepit illa Sacramenta, quae sunt causa nostrae redemptionis.* Sed *contra:* poenitentia et confirmatio et extrema unctio faciunt ad nostram redemptionem; et tamen Christus ea in se non suscepit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *sacramenta* hic vocantur non illa quae sunt signa et vasa, in quibus confertur gratia, sicut sunt septem Sacramenta Ecclesiae, sed *sacramenta* hic dicuntur *sacra mysteria* sive *sacra*[^p414-3] *secreta,* quae ordinata sunt ad nostram redemptionem, sicut Christi incarnatio, nativitas, passio et resurrectio.

---

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

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is asked about that which he says: *We are released from sins through his death, because through his death the charity of God is commended to us.* For that reasoning seems to be void, because, since the charity of God is commended to us through the benefits of God, just as through the passion of Christ; it seems that we are justified from sins through the benefits of God, just as through the passion of Christ. — Likewise, the martyrs by suffering stir us up to believe and to love God[^p412-1]: therefore if the passion of Christ is said to justify us because it kindles us to charity, then by like reasoning also the passion of the other martyrs. — Likewise, if this is true, then it seems that justification does not belong to the passion of Christ except only accidentally, namely by reason of our charity.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master in the aforesaid reasoning does not touch the *whole* cause of justification, but a part of the cause. For he presupposes in the passion itself the account of *merit,* by which the passion of Christ is the fount of our salvation; for through it the fullness of Christ's grace overflows into us. And that being presupposed, he adds another reason, namely the reason of the *example that provokes* and stirs up; and this indeed is a good and sufficient reason, the prior one being presupposed; but of itself it does not suffice. And therefore all those reasonings proceed from what is insufficient. — And by this the response to those three objections is plain[^p412-2].

…of the passion, without faith in which we cannot be justified: therefore just as the *passion* of Christ is said to justify us, inasmuch as it is believed, by like reasoning also the *ascension* and the *coming to judgment.* — Likewise, just as faith and charity are required for justification, so also are the other virtues: therefore just as we are said to be justified through the faith and charity of the passion, so also through humility and the other virtues, by which we are made like to Christ in his suffering.

Alongside this it is asked, since the Master[^p412-4] assigns yet a third reason why we are said to be justified through the *passion,* namely that the passion justifies after the manner of a *sacrifice offered;* on what basis is the sufficiency and distinction of those three reasons taken?

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master does not assign this reason either as the principal one, but to this he presupposes that by which the passion is said *to justify* after the manner of *merit;* and he assigns it, when he says that «Christ by his death, as by one most true sacrifice, destroyed whatever of faults was in us»; and thus he intimates three reasons, according to which the passion of Christ is said *to justify.* For it justifies as a *victim offered,* as *believed,* as *loved.* — And these three reasons are reduced to those three which were said above[^p412-5], namely that the passion of Christ justifies after the manner of *disposing merit,* and after the manner of *stirring example,* and after the manner of *directing exemplar,* so that in it there is *merit* inasmuch as it is a victim offered, *direction* inasmuch as it is believed, and *stirring up* inasmuch as it is loved[^p412-6], according to the threefold kind of cause. And thus the passion is said *to justify* us through faith and charity, because by the mediation of these two virtues we are united to the passion itself as to the fount of salvation.

And thus the response to those three objections is plain. For the first objection proceeds from what is insufficient; the second indeed is dissolved through a defect of likeness;

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he adds: *We are said to be justified through the death of Christ, because through faith in his death we are cleansed from sins.* For this seems false, because there are many articles besides[^p412-3] the ar-

…for it is not alike concerning faith and charity and the other virtues; but[^p413-1] that which was asked in the third place is manifest.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *We had fallen into the prince of this world, who seduced Adam and began to possess us as his bondservants.* For this seems false, because «fraud and deceit ought to protect no one[^p413-2]»: therefore if the devil deceived man, it seems that he ought not to have lordship over him. — Likewise, the devil had no right in us: therefore it does not seem that he possessed us by any right[^p413-3]. — Likewise, we were the servants of God: therefore it was not in our power to make ourselves servants of the devil. If therefore neither does God make us servants of the devil, nor could *we* make ourselves so, nor could the *devil* subjugate us; the word of the aforesaid authority does not seem to be true.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt man was justly held; but the devil held and possessed him by no just title, since he was a possessor in bad faith; but God, who is a just judge, by his just judgment permitted this. For it was just that he who had voluntarily subjected himself to the suggestion *through fault,* should be involuntarily subjected to the same *through punishment*[^p413-4].

As for what he objects, that the devil could not possess, because he had no right; it must be said that this does not hold, because many possess by an unjust title, of whom the devil is the prince and leader, who is the head of fraud and malice. Nor did fraud and deceit protect him, because he held him for his own evil, just as thieves and robbers for a time possess the things which they steal.

To that which is objected, that man could not make himself a servant, since he was constituted under another's jurisdiction; it must be said that God had left man *in the hand of his own counsel*[^p413-5], and just as he permitted him to be able to bring himself into the servitude of sin, so also he permitted him to be able to lead himself into the servitude of the devil.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Whence he is truly called the redeemer of the world.* For this seems false, since no one buys what is his own; if therefore God had not lost dominion over men, it seems that the redemption of man did not pertain to him. — Likewise I ask: from whom and through whom did he redeem? If you say that he redeemed from the devil; but on the contrary: he pays a price to him from whom he redeems; but he redeemed us by the price of his blood[^p413-6]: therefore it seems that he paid the price of his blood to the devil. If you say that he redeemed from God; on the contrary: no one redeems or buys anything from himself[^p413-7].

**I respond:** It must be said that man *had been sold, that he might do evil in the sight of the Lord*[^p413-8], and had made himself a servant of sin and of punishment; and in all these he was held by the authority of the divine sentence and justice. And therefore the price of redemption had to be offered to him who had suffered the loss and the injury; and since this is God, therefore Christ, in offering his blood to God, redeemed us from the servitude of the devil, of sin, and of punishment, so that the hand of mercy redeemed man from the hand of severity[^p413-9] and of justice. For man had passed through his own fault from one hand to the other. — And by this the response to the objections is plain[^p413-10].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The Father and the Holy Spirit are called redeemer on account of the use of power.* For if God had power from eternity, it seems that from eternity he was our redeemer. — Likewise, Augustine[^p413-11] says that in our redemption

power was not to be used, but rather justice: therefore that reasoning does not seem to be rightly assigned.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the redemption there was both a use of *power* and a use of *humility;* but the use of *humility* appeared in the beginning, the use of *power* appeared at the end. For he conquered death and the author of death by suffering and by rising again[^p414-1]; and although the passion of *infirmity* is attributed to Christ alone, nevertheless the operation of power is owed to the whole Trinity. And therefore the Master says that the whole Trinity is redeemer by the use of power.

To that which is objected, that power was in God from eternity; it must be said that the Master does not say that he was redeemer from *power,* but from the *use of power;* and this indeed he did not have from eternity, but from time[^p414-2].

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *He is called redeemer according to his humanity; because in it he took up those Sacraments which are the cause of our redemption.* But *on the contrary:* penance and confirmation and extreme unction make for our redemption; and yet Christ did not take them up in himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that *sacraments* are here called not those which are signs and vessels in which grace is conferred, as are the seven Sacraments of the Church, but *sacraments* are here called *sacred mysteries* or *sacred*[^p414-3] *secrets,* which are ordained to our redemption, such as Christ's incarnation, nativity, passion, and resurrection.

---

la: Sub textu deest indicatio fontis; cfr. de hoc dubio Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: No source-indication is given beneath the text; cf. on this doubt Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cfr. supra a. I. q. I, et de ipso dubio Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, art. I, q. I, and on this very doubt Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Edd. post.

en: Later editions [read thus].

la: Hic c. I: *Morte quippe sua uno verissimo sacrificio, quidquid culparum erat... Christus exstinxit.* — Paulo inferius pro *sufficientia et distinctio* edd. *sufficiens distinctio.*

en: Here, c. 1: *For by his death, by one most true sacrifice, Christ extinguished whatever of faults there was...* — A little below, for *sufficiency and distinction* the editions read *sufficient distinction.*

la: Art. I. q. I. in corp.

en: Art. I, q. I, in the body [of the response].

la: Edd. verba male sic permutarunt: *excitatio,* in quantum credita, et *directio,* in quantum amata.

en: The editions have wrongly transposed the words thus: *stirring up,* inasmuch as believed, and *direction,* inasmuch as loved.

la: Pro *vero* codd. F G H I L N U V Z aa *enim.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic n. 2; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: For *vero* (truly) the codices F G H I L N U V Z aa read *enim* (for). — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here n. 2; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vide II. Decretal. Gregor. tit. 14. c. 2. *Ex litteris,* et IV. tit. 11. c. 2. *Si vir.* Cfr. ibid. I. tit. 3. c. 20. *Super litteris.*

en: See Gregory's Decretals, Bk. II, tit. 14, c. 2, *Ex litteris,* and Bk. IV, tit. 11, c. 2, *Si vir.* Cf. ibid. Bk. I, tit. 3, c. 20, *Super litteris.*

la: Vide supra pag. 403, nota 6. — Pro *possederit* permulti codd. et edd. 1. 2 *possedit,* cod. G *possidet.*

en: See above, p. 403, note 6. — For *possederit* (had possessed) very many codices and editions 1 and 2 read *possedit* (possessed), codex G *possidet* (possesses).

la: Sic August., XIII. de Trin. c. 12. n. 16; verba eius videsis infra d. XX. lit. Magistri, c. 2. Similiter Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 7: *Quamvis enim homo iuste a diabolo torqueretur, ipse tamen illum iniuste torquebat. Homo namque meruerat, ut puniretur, nec illo ullo convenientius, quam ab illo cui consenserat, ut peccaret. Diaboli vero meritum nullum erat, ut puniret; immo hoc tanto faciebat iniustius, quanto non ad hoc amore iustitiae trahebatur, sed instinctu malitiae impellebatur* etc. Cfr. Iren., V. de Haeres. c. 1. n. 1. et c. 2. n. 1; Bernard., Capitula haeres. Petri Abaelardi, n. 4, et Tract. de errorib. Abael. (alias Epist. 190.), c. 6, ubi Abaelardi sententia refellitur, quod Christus non incarnatus esset, ut hominem liberaret de potestate satanae. — In principio solut. post *sed diabolus nullo* codd. IL aa inserunt *modo,* et mox post *Iustum enim* cod. W subiungit *iudicium.* Subinde pro *eidem* (cod. O *eidem etiam) involuntarie* edd. *eidem in voluntate.* Aliquanto inferius pro *qui est caput* codd. A K *quia est caput.*

en: Thus Augustine, *On the Trinity* Bk. XIII, c. 12, n. 16; you may see his words below, d. XX, the Master's text, c. 2. Similarly Anselm, *Why God Became Man* Bk. I, c. 7: *For although man was justly tormented by the devil, yet the devil tormented him unjustly. For man had deserved to be punished, nor [could he be punished] by any more fittingly than by him to whom he had consented in sinning. But the devil had no merit such that he should punish; indeed he did this all the more unjustly, in that he was drawn to it not by love of justice but driven by the instinct of malice,* etc. Cf. Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* Bk. V, c. 1, n. 1, and c. 2, n. 1; Bernard, *Chapters against the Heresies of Peter Abelard,* n. 4, and *Treatise on the Errors of Abelard* (otherwise Epistle 190), c. 6, where Abelard's opinion is refuted, that Christ was not incarnate in order to free man from the power of Satan. — At the beginning of the solution, after *but the devil by no [title]* the codices IL aa insert *manner,* and soon after *For it was just* codex W subjoins *judgment.* Thereafter for *to the same* (codex O *to the same also) involuntarily* the editions read *to the same in [his] will.* Somewhat below, for *who is the head* the codices A K read *because it is the head.*

la: Eccli. 13, 14. Cfr. Serm. 103. (alias 47. de Tempore, in Appendice serm. August. n. 3. seqq. — Proxime post edd. omittunt *sicut ei permittebat... peccati,* et subinde post *sic* voculam *quoque etiam.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Ecclus. 13:14. Cf. Sermon 103 (otherwise 47, On the Seasons, in the Appendix of Augustine's sermons), n. 3 ff. — Just after [this] the editions omit *just as he permitted him... of sin,* and thereupon after *so* [omit] the little word *also.* — Cf. on this doubt Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cfr. I. Petr. 1, 18. seq., et Apoc. 5, 9. — Mox pro *pretium* non pauci codd. *per pretium.*

en: Cf. 1 Pet. 1:18 f., and Rev. 5:9. — Soon, for *price* not a few codices read *by a price.*

la: His similes obiectiones etiam Sociniani fecerunt (cfr. Socinus, lib. de Christo Salvatore) contendentes, redemptionem per Christum factam non fuisse nisi metaphoricam.

en: Objections similar to these the Socinians also made (cf. Socinus, the book *On Christ the Savior*), contending that the redemption made through Christ was nothing but metaphorical.

la: Libr. III. Reg. 21, 25. — Subinde pro *fecerat* codd. ILOU aa *faceret,* cod. G *fecerit.*

en: 3 Kings (1 Kings) 21:25. — Thereupon for *had done* the codices ILOU aa read *might do,* codex G *has done.*

la: Pro *severitatis* codd. A K O Y *servitutis,* et pro *iustitiae* cod. Y *miseriae.*

en: For *of severity* the codices A K O Y read *of servitude,* and for *of justice* codex Y *of misery.*

la: Cfr. Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 23; nec non S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 1. quaestiunc. I; Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I.

en: Cf. Anselm, *Why God Became Man* Bk. I, c. 23; also St. Thomas, here q. I, a. 1, little-question I; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. I.

la: Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 13. n. 17: *Non autem diabolus potentia Dei, sed iustitia superandus fuit.*

en: *On the Trinity* Bk. XIII, c. 13, n. 17: *But the devil was to be overcome not by the power of God, but by his justice.*

la: Cfr. August., XIII. de Trin. c. 14. n. 18, de quo vide lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 3. — Subinde cum codd. A K verbo *licet* praefigimus *et,* ac mox edd. omittunt *debetur.*

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* Bk. XIII, c. 14, n. 18, on which see the Master's text, d. XX, c. 3. — Thereupon, with codices A K, we prefix *and* to the word *although,* and soon the editions omit *is owed.*

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 30. per totam. — De hoc dubio cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 8.

en: See Bk. I of the Sentences, d. 30, throughout. — On this doubt cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 8.

la: Pro *sacra* edd. *facta.* Proxime ante pro *sacra mysteria* codd. V Z *pura mysteria.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: For *sacred* the editions read *made.* Just before, for *sacred mysteries* the codices V Z read *pure mysteries.* — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol3` pp. 412–414, PDF 434–436; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 28692–28831). Per the Vol III (= Vol II) override, the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout (the OCR cascade-fragments the two-column dubia and every footer). English is a fresh literal translation. Dubia carry **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`).

**Dubia count.** This block holds **6 dubia (DUB. I–VI)**, all "circa litteram Magistri":
- DUB. I — *A peccatis per eius mortem soluti sumus* (the threefold rationale of justification by the passion).
- DUB. II — *Dicimur per mortem Christi iustificari, quia per fidem mortis eius a peccatis mundamur.*
- DUB. III — *Incideramus in principem huius saeculi* (the devil's title over fallen man).
- DUB. IV — *Unde ipse vere dicitur mundi redemptor* (from whom and through whom the redemption).
- DUB. V — *Redemptor dicitur Pater et Spiritus sanctus propter usum potestatis.*
- DUB. VI — *Redemptor dicitur secundum humanitatem* (sense of *sacramenta* = sacred mysteries).

**Page-split map (apparatus restarts per printed page):**
- **p. 412** — DUB. I (full, both columns), DUB. II (opener). Footers nn. **1–6** (`[^p412-1..6]`). Body markers present on this page: 1, 2, 3, 6 (footers 4 and 5 are the Master's-text and cross-reference notes keyed to DUB. I's *Notandum / Ad quaest. incidentem* marginalia; rendered with no body anchor per Quaracchi). Picked up from the d19-a2-q2 hand-off exactly as forwarded.
- **p. 413** — DUB. II (tail), DUB. III (full), DUB. IV (full), DUB. V (opener). Footers nn. **1–11** (`[^p413-1..11]`). Body markers on this page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 (footers 5 and 10 are cross-reference/variant notes with no body anchor).
- **p. 414** — DUB. V (Respondeo), DUB. VI (full). Dubia footers nn. **1–3** (`[^p414-1..3]`); the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footer block below them on p. 414 belongs to **DISTINCTIO XX** (the Master's text / littera), not to this chunk.

**Apparatus total: 20 entries** (6 + 11 + 3).

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (from d19-a2-q2):* the full p. 412 footer block, nn. 1–6, was forwarded as the dubia's own property (the q2 portion of p. 412 had no footers to hand off). Captured here verbatim. The top of p. 412 L/R columns (the a2-q2 scholion tails — "II. Ariani…" and "III. Alex. Hal.…") belongs to a2-q2 and was NOT re-captured here.
- *Forwarded (to d20-littera):* **DISTINCTIO XX** begins at **raw line 28832** (`DISTINCTIO XX.`), printed **p. 414** (PDF 436), Cap. I *Quod alio modo potuit liberare.* The seam is clean: the dubia close at DUB. VI's *…sicut Christi incarnatio, nativitas, passio et resurrectio* (p. 414 R, top column) and the DISTINCTIO XX littera opens fresh with Cap. I in the lower/left columns — no grammatical splice across the boundary. The p. 414 `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footers (1 *Augustinus, XIII. de Trin. c.10 n.13…*, etc.) are d.20 littera property. Offset reminder: **pdf = printed + 22.**

**With this promotion DISTINCTIO XIX is COMPLETE** (all 9 chunks Tier-2).

**[?] flags:** none — the 450 dpi bands were fully legible across pp. 412–414.

**J4 Class B — orphaned apparatus repair (2026-07-17).** Four defs (`p412-4`, `p412-5`, `p413-5`, `p413-10`) had no body anchor in either language. Re-read the 450 dpi PDF column bands (p. 412 L/R, p. 413 L/R) per the Vol II/III override; all four are placed on direct visual confirmation of the printed superscript numeral, keyed on content per Trap 1 (never by position):
- `[^p412-4]` → anchored on **Magister** in DUB. I's "*Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Magister⁴ assignet adhuc tertiam rationem…*" (p. 412 R). The def's "Hic c. I: *Morte quippe sua…*" cites the Master's forthcoming quotation, and its "Paulo inferius" variant note matches *sufficientia et distinctio* later in the same sentence — both point to the *Magister* anchor, not the quotation itself.
- `[^p412-5]` → anchored on **superius** in "*…reducuntur ad illas tres, quae superius⁵ dictae sunt*" (p. 412 R). Def reads "Art. I. q. I. in corp." — a bare cross-reference glossing exactly what "superius" (above) points to.
- `[^p413-10]` → anchored on **obiecta** at the close of DUB. IV's Respondeo, "*Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta¹⁰.*" (p. 413 R), mirrored in English at the corresponding sentence-final position ("…the response to the objections is plain[^p413-10]."), matching the established corpus pattern for this exact construction (cf. `[^p412-2]` at DUB. I's parallel "responsio ad illas tres obiectiones²").
- `[^p413-5]` → this one also required correcting a **pre-existing mislabel**, discovered while placing it. The PDF shows footnote-1 superscript on "*illud vero¹ quod tertio quaerebatur*" (DUB. II tail, p. 413 L top) — matching def `p413-1`'s content ("Pro *vero* codd… *enim.*") exactly — while the marker previously typed `[^p413-1]` sat instead on "*in manu consilii sui*" in DUB. III's Respondeo (p. 413 L), which the PDF shows carries superscript **5**, matching def `p413-5`'s content ("Eccli. 13,14…" + "Proxime post edd. omittunt *sicut ei permittebat… peccati*" — the clause immediately following "sui"). Fix: added `[^p413-1]` at *vero*/"but" (previously unanchored — this is why the classifier didn't flag `p413-1` even though it was misplaced) and relabeled the existing marker at *sui*/"his own counsel" from `[^p413-1]` to `[^p413-5]`, in both languages. No prose, wording, or apparatus text was changed — only the two marker labels.

All four now anchor correctly in both Latin and English; verified with the standard J4 §6 classifier (see session report).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 20

title_alt: Distinctio XX — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 414 -->

### DISTINCTIO XX.

### Cap. I. *Quod alio modo potuit liberare.*

Si vero quaeritur, utrum alio modo posset Deus hominem liberare quam per mortem Christi; «dicimus, et alium modum fuisse possibilem Deo, cuius potestati cuncta subiacent; sed nostrae miseriae sanandae convenientiorem modum alium non fuisse nec esse oportuisse. Quid enim mentes nostras tantum erigit et ab immortalitatis desperatione liberat, quam quod tanti nos fecit Deus, ut Dei Filius immutabiliter bonus, in se manens quod erat, et a nobis accipiens quod non erat, dignatus nostrum inire consortium, ut mala nostra moriendo perferret[^p414-1]»?

### Cap. II. *Quare isto modo potius.*

Est et alia ratio, quare isto potius modo quam alio liberare voluit: «quia sic et *iustitia* superatur diabolus, non *potentia*[^p414-2]». «Et quomodo id factum sit, explicabo, ut potero». «Quadam *iustitia* Dei in potestatem diaboli traditum est genus humanum, peccato primi hominis in omnes originaliter transeunte et illius debito omnes obligante; unde omnes homines ab origine sunt sub principe diabolo. Unde Apostolus[^p414-3]: *Eramus natura filii irae*, natura, scilicet ut est depravata peccato, non ut est recta creata ab initio. Modus autem ille, quo traditus est homo in diaboli potestatem, non ita debet intelligi, tanquam Deus hoc *fecerit* aut *fieri iusserit*, sed quod tantum *permiserit*, iuste tamen. Illo enim deserente, peccantem peccati auctor illico invasit. Non tamen Deus *continuit in ira sua miserationes suas* nec hominem a lege suae potestatis amisit, cum in diaboli potestate esse permisit, quia nec diabolus a potestate Dei est alienus, sicut nec a bonitate. Nam qualicumque vita diabolus vel homo non subsisteret, nisi per eum qui vivificat omnia». Non ergo Deus hominem deseruit, ut non se illi exhiberet Deum, sed inter mala poenalia etiam malis multa praestitit bona; et tandem hominem, quem commissio peccatorum diabolo subdidit, remissio peccatorum, per sanguinem Christi data, a diabolo eruit, ut sic *iustitia* vinceretur diabolus, non *potentia*.

### Cap. III. *Qua iustitia sit victus diabolus.*

«Sed qua *iustitia*? Iesu Christi. Et quomodo victus est ea? Quia in eo nihil dignum morte inveniens, occidit eum tamen. Et utique iustum est, ut debitores, quos tenebat, liberi dimittantur, in eum credentes, quem sine ullo debito occidit[^p414-4]». «Ideo autem *potentia* vincere noluit, quia diabolus vitio perversitatis suae amator est *potentiae* et desertor oppugnatorque *iustitiae*; in quo homines magis eum imitantur, qui, neglecta vel etiam perosa *iustitia*, *potentiae* magis student eiusque vel adeptione laetantur, vel cupiditate inflammantur. Ideoque placuit Deo, ut non *potentia*, sed

<!-- page 415 -->

*iustitia* vincens, hominem erueret, in quo homo eum imitari disceret». «Post vero in resurrectione secula est potentia, quia revixit mortuus, nunquam postea moriturus». «Sed nonne iure aequissimo vinceretur diabolus, si *potentia* tantum Christus cum illo agere voluisset? Utique, sed postposuit Christus quod *potuit*, ut prius ageret quod *oportuit*». — *Iustitia* ergo humilitatis hominem liberavit, quem sola *potentia* aequissime liberare potuit.

### Cap. IV. *De causa inter Deum et hominem et diabolum.*

«Si enim tres illi in causam venirent, scilicet Deus, homo et diabolus, diabolus et homo quid adversus Deum dicerent, non haberent. Diabolus enim de iniuria convinceretur, quia servum eius, scilicet hominem, et fraudulenter abduxit et violenter tenuit. Homo etiam iniurius[^p415-1] Deo convinceretur, quia praecepta eius contempsit et se alieno dominio mancipavit. De hominis etiam iniuria convinceretur diabolus, quia illum et prius fallaci promissione decepit et post mala inferendo laesit. Iniuste igitur diabolus, quantum ad se, tenebat hominem, sed homo iuste tenebatur; quia diabolus nunquam meruit potestatem habere super hominem, sed homo meruit per culpam pati diaboli tyrannidem[^p415-2]». Si igitur Deus, qui utrique praeerat, *potentia* hominem liberare vellet, sola iussionis virtute hominem poterat rectissime liberare, sed ob causam praemissam *iustitia humilitatis* uti voluit. Qui dum in carne mortali crucifixus est, iustificati sumus, id est per remissionem peccatorum eruti de potestate diaboli, et ita a Christo *iustitia* diabolus victus est, non *potentia*. Quomodo autem in eius sanguine nobis peccata sint dimissa, supra[^p415-3] expositum est.

### Cap. V. *De traditione Christi facta a Iuda, a Deo, a Iudaeis.*

Christus ergo est sacerdos, idemque hostia et pretium[^p415-4] nostrae reconciliationis, qui se in ara crucis non diabolo, sed Deo-Trinitati obtulit pro omnibus quantum ad pretii sufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quantum ad efficientiam, quia praedestinatis tantum salutem effecit. De quo et legitur, quod sit traditus a Patre, et quod se ipsum tradidit, et quod Iudas eum tradidit, et Iudaei. Ipse se tradidit, quia sponte ad passionem accessit; et Pater eum tradidit, quia voluntate Patris, immo totius Trinitatis passus est; *Iudas* tradidit prodendo, et *Iudaei* instigando. — Et fuit actus Iudae et Iudaeorum malus, et actus Christi vel Patris bonus; opus Christi et Patris bonum, quia bona Patris et Filii voluntas; malum fuit opus Iudae et Iudaeorum, quia mala fuit intentio. Diversa fuerunt ibi facta sive opera, id est diversi actus, et una res sive factum, scilicet passio ipsa. Ideoque[^p415-5] doctores aliquando uniunt in facto illo Patrem, Filium, Iudam, Iudaeum; aliquando disiungunt. Respicientes enim ad passionem, unum opus illorum dicunt; attendentes *intentiones* et *actus*, facta diversa discernunt. Unde Augustinus[^p415-6]: «Facta est, inquit, traditio a Patre, facta est traditio a Filio, facta est traditio a Iuda: una res facta est. Quid ergo discernit inter eos? Quia hoc fecit Pater et Filius in caritate, Iudas vero in proditione. Videtis, quia non *quid* faciat homo, sed *qua voluntate*, considerandum est. In eodem facto invenimus Deum, quo Iudam; Deum benedicimus, Iudam detestamur; quia Deus cogitavit salutem nostram, Iudas cogitavit pretium, quo vendidit Dominum, Filius pretium, quod dedit pro nobis. Diversa ergo intentio diversa facta facit, cum tamen sit una res diversis». — Ecce unam rem dicit ibi fuisse et diversa facta, quia una ibi fuit passio, sed diversi actus; et actus quidem Iudae ac Iudaeorum mali, quibus operati sunt Christi passionem, quae bonum est et opus Dei est.

### Cap. VI. *Utrum Christi passio sit opus Dei, vel Iudaeorum.*

*Passio* ergo Christi et *opus Iudaeorum* dicitur, quia ex actibus eorum provenit, et opus Dei, quia eo auctore, id est eo volente, fuit. Unde Augustinus[^p415-7]: «Nemo aufert animam Christi ab eo, quia *potestatem* habet *ponendi* eam et *sumendi*; ecce habes auctorem operis. *Ponet animam*; ecce habes opus auctoris. Et ut generaliter concludam, quoties in carne Christus aliquid patitur, opus auctoris est; quia enim[^p415-8] sua voluntate, non alio cogente, perpetitur, ipse auctor est operis». — Cum autem passio Christi opus Dei sit, ideo bonum, eamque operati sint Iudas et Iudaei; quaeritur, an concedendum sit, eos operatos ibi esse bonum. Hic distinguendum est: potest enim dici, quod operati sunt bonum, quia ex actibus eorum bonum provenit, id est passio Christi; et item, quod operati non sunt bonum, sed malum, quia actio eorum non fuit bona, sed mala.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XX.

### Chap. I. *That he could have liberated in another way.*

But if it is asked whether God could liberate man in some other way than through the death of Christ, «we say that another way too was possible for God, to whose power all things are subject; but that for the healing of our misery no other more fitting way was, nor ought to have been. For what so raises our minds and frees them from despair of immortality as that God made so much of us, that the Son of God, immutably good, remaining in himself what he was, and taking from us what he was not, deigned to enter into fellowship with us, so as to bear our evils by dying[^p414-1]»?

### Chap. II. *Why rather in this way.*

There is also another reason why he willed to liberate in this way rather than another: «because thus the devil too is overcome by *justice*, not by *power*[^p414-2]». «And how this was done, I will explain as I am able». «By a certain *justice* of God the human race was handed over into the power of the devil, since the sin of the first man passes originally into all and binds all by his debt; whence all men are from their origin under the devil as their prince. Whence the Apostle[^p414-3]: *We were by nature children of wrath*, by nature, that is, as it is depraved by sin, not as it is rightly created from the beginning. But that manner in which man was handed over into the power of the devil must not be so understood as though God *did* this or *commanded* it to be done, but that he only *permitted* it, yet justly. For, when he deserted him, the author of sin straightway invaded the sinner. Yet God did not *withhold his mercies in his anger*, nor did he lose man from the law of his power when he permitted him to be in the devil's power, since neither is the devil estranged from the power of God, just as not from his goodness. For with whatever life the devil or man might be, he would not subsist save through him who gives life to all things». God therefore did not desert man so as not to show himself God to him, but amid the penal evils he also bestowed many goods even on the wicked; and at last man, whom the commission of sins had subjected to the devil, the remission of sins, given through the blood of Christ, snatched away from the devil, so that thus the devil might be overcome by *justice*, not by *power*.

### Chap. III. *By what justice the devil was overcome.*

«But by what *justice*? That of Jesus Christ. And how was he overcome by it? Because, finding in him nothing worthy of death, he nevertheless slew him. And it is altogether just that the debtors whom he held should be set free, believing in him whom he slew without any debt[^p414-4]». «But he willed not to conquer by *power*, because the devil, by the vice of his perversity, is a lover of *power* and a deserter and assailant of *justice*; wherein men the more imitate him who, justice being neglected or even hated, are the more zealous for *power* and rejoice either in its attainment or are inflamed with desire of it. And therefore it pleased God that, not by *power*, but

by *justice* prevailing, he should rescue man, wherein man might learn to imitate him». «But afterwards in the resurrection there was power, since he who had died rose again, never thereafter to die». «But would not the devil have been overcome by a most just right, if Christ had willed to deal with him by *power* alone? Indeed; but Christ set aside what he *could* do, so as first to do what he *ought*». — *Justice* therefore of humility liberated man, whom *power* alone could most justly have liberated.

### Chap. IV. *On the case between God and man and the devil.*

«For if those three should come into court, namely God, man, and the devil, the devil and man would have nothing to say against God. For the devil would be convicted of injury, because he both fraudulently led away God's servant, that is, man, and held him by violence. Man too would be convicted as injurious[^p415-1] to God, because he despised his precepts and bound himself over to an alien dominion. The devil too would be convicted of injury to man, because he both first deceived him by a deceitful promise and afterward harmed him by inflicting evils. Unjustly, therefore, as regards himself, did the devil hold man, but man was justly held; because the devil never merited to have power over man, but man merited through his fault to suffer the devil's tyranny[^p415-2]». If therefore God, who presided over both, willed to liberate man by *power*, he could most rightly have liberated man by the virtue of his command alone, but for the reason set forth he willed to use the *justice of humility*. Who, while he was crucified in mortal flesh, we were justified, that is, through the remission of sins snatched from the power of the devil; and thus by Christ the devil was overcome by *justice*, not by *power*. But how in his blood our sins were remitted has been explained above[^p415-3].

### Chap. V. *On the betrayal of Christ done by Judas, by God, by the Jews.*

Christ therefore is priest, and likewise victim and price[^p415-4] of our reconciliation, who offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the God-Trinity for all as to the sufficiency of the price, but for the elect only as to the efficacy, since he wrought salvation only for the predestined. Of whom it is also read that he was handed over by the Father, and that he handed over himself, and that Judas handed him over, and the Jews. He himself handed himself over, because he came willingly to the passion; and the Father handed him over, because by the will of the Father, indeed of the whole Trinity, he suffered; *Judas* handed him over by betraying, and the *Jews* by inciting. — And the act of Judas and the Jews was evil, and the act of Christ or of the Father good; the work of Christ and of the Father was good, because the will of the Father and of the Son was good; the work of Judas and the Jews was evil, because the intention was evil. There were there diverse deeds or works, that is, diverse acts, and one thing or fact, namely the passion itself. And therefore[^p415-5] the doctors sometimes unite in that fact the Father, the Son, Judas, the Jew; sometimes they distinguish them. For looking to the passion, they call it one work of theirs; attending to the *intentions* and *acts*, they discern diverse deeds. Whence Augustine[^p415-6]: «There was made, he says, a betrayal by the Father, there was made a betrayal by the Son, there was made a betrayal by Judas: one thing was done. What then distinguishes among them? That the Father and the Son did this in charity, but Judas in betrayal. You see that it is not *what* a man does, but *with what will*, that is to be considered. In the same deed we find God as we find Judas; we bless God, we detest Judas; because God thought of our salvation, Judas thought of the price for which he sold the Lord, the Son of the price which he gave for us. Diverse intention therefore makes diverse deeds, although it be one thing in diverse persons». — Behold, he says that there was there one thing and diverse deeds, because there was there one passion, but diverse acts; and the acts indeed of Judas and the Jews were evil, by which they wrought the passion of Christ, which is good and is the work of God.

### Chap. VI. *Whether the passion of Christ is the work of God, or of the Jews.*

The *passion* therefore of Christ is called both the *work of the Jews*, because it came about from their acts, and the work of God, because it was by him as author, that is, by his willing it. Whence Augustine[^p415-7]: «No one takes away Christ's soul from him, because he has the *power* of *laying it down* and of *taking it up*; behold, you have the author of the work. *He will lay down his soul*; behold, you have the work of the author. And, to conclude generally, as often as Christ in the flesh suffers anything, it is the work of the author; for since[^p415-8] by his own will, no other compelling, he undergoes it, he himself is the author of the work». — But since the passion of Christ is the work of God, and therefore good, and Judas and the Jews wrought it; it is asked whether it is to be granted that they wrought good there. Here a distinction must be made: for it can be said that they wrought good, because from their acts good came about, that is, the passion of Christ; and likewise, that they did not work good, but evil, because their action was not good, but evil.

---

la: Cfr. August., XIII. de Trin. c. 14. n. 18, de quo vide lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 3. — Subinde cum codd. A K verbo *licet* praefigimus *et*, ac mox edd. omittunt *debetur*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 14, n. 18, concerning which see the text of the Master, d. XX, c. 3. — Next, with codices A K we prefix to the word *licet* the word *et*, and shortly after the editions omit *debetur*.

en: See I Sent. d. 30 throughout. — On this doubt cf. Blessed Albert, here a. 8.

la: Eph. 2, 3; seq. locus Scripturae est Ps. 76, 10. (Vulgata: *aut continebit in ira sua* etc.) — Paulo superius ante *deserente* codd. et cd. 1 omittunt *enim*, refragante etiam originali. Deinde post *potestatis* Vat. cum edd. 2, 6, 8 *emisit* pro *amisit*, refragante etiam originali.

en: Eph. 2, 3; the following scriptural passage is Ps. 76, 10. (Vulgate: *or will he withhold his mercies in his anger* etc.) — A little above, before *deserente* the codices and ed. 1 omit *enim*, the original also disagreeing. Then after *potestatis* the Vatican edition with edd. 2, 6, 8 reads *emisit* for *amisit*, the original also disagreeing.

la: August., XIII. de Trin. c. 14. n. 18. Verba *nihil dignum morte inveniens* respiciunt Luc. 23, 15. Seq. locus ibid. c. 13. n. 17; tertius ibid. c. 14. n. 18; quartus ibid. parum superius.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 14, n. 18. The words *finding nothing worthy of death* refer to Luke 23, 15. The next passage is ibid. c. 13, n. 17; the third ibid. c. 14, n. 18; the fourth ibid. a little above.

la: Edd. 1, 5 *iniuriosus*.

en: Editions 1, 5 read *iniuriosus*.

la: Ita Hugo a S. Vict., l. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 4. — Paulo inferius ante *rectissime* pro *poterat* Vat. cum cod. E et pluribus edd. *potuit*.

en: So Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*, bk. VIII, c. 4. — A little below, before *rectissime*, in place of *poterat* the Vatican edition with codex E and several editions reads *potuit*.

la: Dist. XIX. c. 1.

en: Dist. XIX, c. 1.

la: Cfr. Ps. 109, 4; Hebr. 9, 26; Rom. 5, 9. Inferius respicitur Rom. 8, 32; Isai. 53, 7; Gal. 2, 20; Eph. 5, 2; Matth. 26, 25. 47; 27, 18. — Quoad sequentia cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 93. n. 28, et lit. Magistri, l. Sent. d. XLVIII. c. 2.

en: Cf. Ps. 109, 4; Heb. 9, 26; Rom. 5, 9. Below there is reference to Rom. 8, 32; Isa. 53, 7; Gal. 2, 20; Eph. 5, 2; Matt. 26, 25. 47; 27, 18. — As to what follows cf. Augustine, *Enarration on Ps. 93*, n. 28, and the text of the Master, I Sent. d. XLVIII, c. 2.

la: Codd. et cd. 1 *Ideo*. Deinde pro *Iudaeum* Vat. et edd. 1, 5, 8 *Iudaeos*.

en: The codices and ed. 1 read *Ideo*. Then for *Iudaeum* the Vatican edition and edd. 1, 5, 8 read *Iudaeos*.

la: In Epist. I. Ioan. (4, 4.) tr. 7, n. 7. In quo textu post *Quid ergo* codd. A B C E *discrevit* pro *discernit*; deinde post *in caritate* edd. 1, 8 addunt *ex caritate*. Vat. in fine post *diversis* addit *intentionibus*.

en: *On the First Epistle of John* (4, 4), tr. 7, n. 7. In which text, after *Quid ergo*, codices A B C E read *discrevit* for *discernit*; then after *in caritate* edd. 1, 8 add *ex caritate*. The Vatican edition at the end, after *diversis*, adds *intentionibus*.

la: De Unitate Trinit. contr. Felician. c. 14. (inter opera August., sed probabilius et communiter attribuitur Vigilio). — In isto loco respicitur Ioan. 10, 18. — Paulo superius ante *volente* codd. omittunt *eo*.

en: *On the Unity of the Trinity against Felician*, c. 14 (among the works of Augustine, but more probably and commonly attributed to Vigilius). — In this place there is reference to John 10, 18. — A little above, before *volente*, the codices omit *eo*.

la: Sola Vat. *Sed quia*, cd. 8 *Quia vero*, originale *Sed quia id ipsum, sua potestate, non alio cogente* etc. Nos sequimur codd. et ceteras edd.

en: The Vatican edition alone reads *Sed quia*, ed. 8 *Quia vero*, the original *Sed quia id ipsum, sua potestate, non alio cogente* etc. We follow the codices and the other editions.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.414–415 (PDF 436–437; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 28832–28953). This is the Master's littera for Distinctio XX (Lombard's text, Cap. I–VI), printed at the head of the distinction above Bonaventure's commentary; it is NOT a quaestio. Confirmed: Cap. I opens *Quod alio modo potuit liberare* (raw 28832, p.414), and the chunk closes at the end of Cap. VI (*…non fuit bona, sed mala*, raw 28937, p.415) immediately before the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XX / DIVISIO TEXTUS (raw 28957, p.416).

**Page-split map.** p.414 = Cap. I (*Si vero quaeritur… perferret*[^p414-1]), Cap. II (*Quare isto modo potius* … *iustitia vinceretur diabolus, non potentia*), and the opening of Cap. III (*Qua iustitia sit victus diabolus* … *ut non potentia, sed* —). Body break `<!-- page 415 -->` falls mid-sentence in Cap. III at *…ut non potentia, sed | iustitia vincens…*. p.415 = remainder of Cap. III, Cap. IV (*De causa inter Deum et hominem et diabolum*), Cap. V (*De traditione Christi facta a Iuda, a Deo, a Iudaeis*), and Cap. VI (*Utrum Christi passio sit opus Dei, vel Iudaeorum*). The page is laid out in two columns, with the d.19-dubia tail occupying the upper portion of p.414 alongside the start of the littera; reflowed column-by-column (L then R) per the Vol II/III PDF-priority discipline.

**Apparatus per-page restart.** p.414 carries the *Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum* footer block: nn. 1–4 (`[^p414-1..4]`), keyed to body markers in Cap. I (¹), Cap. II (²), Cap. II/III (³ on *Apostolus*), and Cap. III (⁴ on *occidit*). Note 1 sits in the p.414 left-column footer under the *Notae* header; nn. 2–4 sit in the p.414 right-column footer. (The three numbered notes physically printed above the *Notae* header on p.414 belong to **d.19 Dub. VI**, not to this littera, and were consumed by the d19-dubia chunk.) p.415 carries nn. 1–8 (`[^p415-1..8]`), keyed to markers in Cap. IV (¹, ²), Cap. IV (³ on *supra*), Cap. V (⁴ on *pretium*; ⁵ on *Ideoque*; ⁶ on *Unde Augustinus*), and Cap. VI (⁷ on *Unde Augustinus*; ⁸ on *quia enim*). Total 12 entries.

**Hand-offs picked up.** The p.414 *Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum* footer block (forwarded from d19-dubia, which held only p.414 Dub.-portion nn. 1–3) is consumed here in full as the littera's p.414 apparatus (n. 1 from the L-column footer; nn. 2–4 from the R-column footer). The d.19→d.20 seam is clean: Dub. VI closes at *…sicut Christi incarnatio, nativitas, passio et resurrectio* (p.414 R, top) and DISTINCTIO XX opens fresh with Cap. I — no grammatical splice.

**Hand-off forwarded (to d20-divisio).** The COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XX / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM begins at **raw line 28957**, printed **p.416** (PDF 438). The p.416 running head appears in the OCR at raw 28954; no footers from p.416 migrate to this littera (the littera closes at the foot of p.415). The d20-divisio chunk picks up beginning at p.416.

**[?] flags.** None — pp.414–415 fully legible at 450 dpi.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 20, Divisio Textus

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 416 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XX.
### *De Christi passionis congruentia.*

*Si vero quaeritur, utrum alio modo etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de passionis efficacia. In hac vero parte agit de passionis congruentia. Dividitur autem ista pars in duas partes. In quarum prima comparat passionem Christi ad causam, propter quam passus est. In secunda vero comparat ipsam ad causam, a qua fuit passio in ipso, ibi: *Christus ergo sacerdos, idemque hostia* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes, in quarum prima ostendit, quod modus iste redimendi, scilicet per passionem, valde fuit congruus et rationabilis, ostendens, quare isto modo, scilicet per passionem, genus humanum redimere voluit. In secunda parte ostendit, quod alio modo, si voluisset, redimere potuit, ibi: *Si enim illi tres in causam veniant* etc.

Similiter secunda pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima inquirit, a quo sit passio Christi, ostendens, quod traditus fuit a Patre, a se ipso, a Iuda et a Iudaeis. In secunda vero inquirit[^p416-1], utrum fuerit bona, vel mala, ibi: *Et fuit actus Iudae et Iudaeorum malus, actus vero Christi et Patris bonus.* Sive, ut melius dicatur, inquirit causarum illarum differentiam penes bonitatem et malitiam. Subdivisiones autem partium manifestae sunt in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de congruentia nostrae redemptionis factae per passionem Christi. Et circa hoc sex dubitabilia possunt quaeri.

Primo enim quaeritur, utrum congruum fuerit, reparari humanam naturam.

Secundo vero quaeritur, utrum magis congruum fuerit, reparari humanam naturam per satisfactionem quam per aliam viam.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum aliqua creatura satisfacere potuerit Deo pro humano genere.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum purus homo possit[^p416-2] satisfacere pro se.

Quinto quaeritur, utrum Deus satisfactionem per mortem Christi debuerit acceptare.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum alio modo genus humanum potuerit liberare.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.
*De congruentia nostrae redemptionis factae per passionem Christi.*

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XX.
### *On the fittingness of Christ's passion.*

*But if it is asked, whether in another way etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the efficacy of the passion. But in this part he treats of the fittingness of the passion. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he compares the passion of Christ to the cause on account of which he suffered. But in the second he compares it to the cause from which the passion was in him, there: *Christ therefore a priest, and the same a victim* etc.

The first part is divided into two parts, in the first of which he shows that this mode of redeeming, namely through the passion, was exceedingly fitting and reasonable, showing why he willed to redeem the human race in this mode, namely through the passion. In the second part he shows that in another way, had he willed, he could have redeemed, there: *For if those three should come into the cause* etc.

Likewise the second part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he inquires from whom the passion of Christ is, showing that he was handed over by the Father, by himself, by Judas, and by the Jews. But in the second he inquires[^p416-1] whether it was good or evil, there: *And the act of Judas and of the Jews was evil, but the act of Christ and of the Father was good.* Or, as it may be better put, he inquires into the difference of those causes with respect to goodness and malice. But the subdivisions of the parts are manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there arises here a question concerning the fittingness of our redemption brought about through the passion of Christ. And concerning this six matters can be inquired into.

First, then, it is asked whether it was fitting that human nature be repaired.

Second, it is asked whether it was more fitting that human nature be repaired through satisfaction than through another way.

Third, it is asked whether any creature could have made satisfaction to God for the human race.

Fourth, it is asked whether a mere man can[^p416-2] make satisfaction for himself.

Fifth, it is asked whether God ought to have accepted satisfaction through the death of Christ.

Sixth and last, it is asked whether he could have freed the human race in another way.

### SINGLE ARTICLE.
*On the fittingness of our redemption brought about through the passion of Christ.*

la: Edd. *In secunda vero agit de differentia causarum passionis Christi, utrum* etc. — Paulo inferius pro *Sive, ut melius* edd. *Sive, ut aliter,* et deinde pro *differentiam* non pauci codd. perperam *dominium.*

en: The editions read: *In the second he treats of the difference of the causes of the passion of Christ, whether* etc. — A little below, in place of *Or, as it may be better put,* the editions have *Or, as it may otherwise be put,* and then in place of *the difference* not a few codices wrongly have *the lordship.*

la: Codd. BCDKL *an potuerit,* codd. FGHINUV *potuit,* sed infra in ipsa quaestione omnes *potuisset.*

en: Codices BCDKL read *whether he could,* codices FGHINUV *he could,* but below in the question itself all read *he had been able.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of vol3 printed p.416 (PDF 438; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 28957–28991). English freshly translated, literal.

**Page-split map.** The entire divisio unit (COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener) sits on a single printed page, p.416. No page break inside the chunk.

**Article/question structure.** DIST. XX has a **single article — ARTICULUS UNICUS** (`De congruentia nostrae redemptionis factae per passionem Christi`), not multiple articles. The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM enumerates **six dubitabilia / quaestiones** under this one article:
- q1 — *Utrum congruum fuerit, reparari humanam naturam* (whether it was fitting that human nature be repaired)
- q2 — *Utrum magis congruum fuerit, reparari humanam naturam per satisfactionem quam per aliam viam* (whether it was more fitting that human nature be repaired through satisfaction than through another way)
- q3 — *Utrum aliqua creatura satisfacere potuerit Deo pro humano genere* (whether any creature could have made satisfaction to God for the human race)
- q4 — *Utrum purus homo possit satisfacere pro se* (whether a mere man can make satisfaction for himself)
- q5 — *Utrum Deus satisfactionem per mortem Christi debuerit acceptare* (whether God ought to have accepted satisfaction through the death of Christ)
- q6 — *Utrum alio modo genus humanum potuerit liberare* (whether he could have freed the human race in another way)

**Matches the skeleton set:** YES. Six questions under one article (a1-q1…q6), and **no ART. II / no a2 chunks** — exactly the d.20 skeleton set (a1-q1/q2/q3/q4/q5/q6). No missing or extra questions. Note that the article is titled UNICUS (single), so the a1-q1…q6 ids are correct but there is only ever one article in this distinction.

**Apparatus / footer split.** p.416 prints four footer notes (nn.1–4) restarting on this page. They split by body anchor:
- n.1 (`inquirit ¹`, in DIVISIO TEXTUS) and n.2 (`possit ²`, in TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) belong to **this divisio** — captured here as `[^p416-1]`, `[^p416-2]`.
- n.3 (`Cur Deus homo ³`) and n.4 (`posteritatem eius ⁴`) sit in the body of QUAESTIO I (which begins below ARTICULUS UNICUS, `Circa primum sic proceditur…`) and **forward to `bon-sent-III-d20-a1-q1`**.

**Hand-offs picked up:** NONE (the d20-littera report confirmed no footers migrate into the divisio; the littera closed at the foot of p.415).

**Hand-off forwarded (to `bon-sent-III-d20-a1-q1`):** ART. I (= ARTICULUS UNICUS) QUAESTIO I begins at **raw line 28992**, printed p.416, opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum congruum fuerit, humanam naturam a Deo reparari.` Migrating footers: **p.416 nn.3–4** belong to q1's body — n.3 (`Cur Deus homo ³`, anchored on the Anselm citation) and n.4 (`posteritatem eius ⁴`), plus q1 will continue onto p.417+ with its own per-page footers.

**[?] flags:** NONE (p.416 fully legible at 450 dpi).