title: Dist. 19

title_alt: On the power of the keys, and to whom they are given

source_text:
<!-- page 497 -->

### Cap. I. *Quando hae claves dantur et quibus.*

Postquam ostensum est, quae sint claves apostolicae, et quis earum usus; superest investigare, quando istae claves dentur et quibus. — Dantur hae claves per ministerium episcopi alicui in promotione sacerdotii; cum enim recipit ordinem sacerdotalem, simul et has claves recipit. — Sed non videtur, quod omnes, vel soli sacerdotes has claves habeant, quia plerique ante sacram ordinationem scientiam discernendi habent, plures post consecrationem ea carent. — Sane dici potest, quod alteram clavium istarum, id est scientiam discernendi, non omnes habent sacerdotes; unde dolendum est atque lugendum. Multi enim, licet indiscreti atque scientiae, qua eminere debent[^1], exsortes, sacerdotii gradum recipere praesumunt, vita et scientia eo indigni, qui nec ante sacerdotium nec post scientiam habent discernendi, qui ligandi sint vel solvendi. Ideoque illam clavem in consecratione non recipiunt, quia semper scientia carent. Qui vero ante sacerdotium scientia discernendi praediti sunt, licet habeant discretionem, non tamen in eis clavis est, quia non valent ea claudere vel aperire; ideoque, cum promovetur in sacerdotem, clavem discretionis dicitur accipere, quia et ante habita discretio augetur et fit in eo clavis, ut ea iam valeat uti ad claudendum vel aperiendum.

Cumque iam constet, non omnes sacerdotes illas duas claves habere, quia scientia discernendi plerique carent; de altera, id est potentia ligandi et solvendi, quaeritur, utrum omnes sacerdotes eam habeant. — Quidam enim hanc potestatem putant illis solis esse concessam, qui doctrinam simul ac vitam Apostolorum servant. Illas enim claves promisit Dominus Petro et imitatoribus eius tantum, ut aiunt; qui etiam auctoritatibus utuntur in munimentum suae opinionis. Hoc enim dicunt Augustinum sensisse superius[^2], ubi ait: « Remissionem peccatorum vel per se ipsum facit Deus, vel per columbae membra ». Dicit etiam idem, peccata dimitti vel teneri a Sanctis. Idem super Exodum, ubi de lamina aurea legitur: *Erat autem lamina aurea semper in fronte sacerdotis:* « Haec, inquit, significat fiduciam bonae vitae, quam qui vere perfecteque, non significatione, sed veritate, sacerdos habet, solus potest peccata auferre ». Item Gregorius[^3]: « Illi soli habent in hac carne positi ligandi et solvendi potestatem, sicut sancti Apostoli, qui illorum exempla simul cum doctrina tenent ». Item ex dictis Origenis: « Haec potestas soli Petro concessa est et imitatoribus Petri. Nam quicumque vestigia Petri imitantur, habent recte ligandi et solvendi potestatem ». His aliisque testimoniis innituntur qui asserunt, potestatem ligandi ac solvendi illis solis concessam sacerdotibus, qui vita et doctrina pollent sicut Apostoli.

Aliis autem videtur, quod et mihi placere fateor, cunctis sacerdotibus hanc clavem dari, scilicet ligandi et solvendi; sed non eam recte ac digne habent, nisi qui vitam et doctrinam apostolicam servant. Nec praemissae auctoritates malos sacerdotes hanc potestatem habere negant, sed illos solos digne ac recte hac potestate uti significant, qui praediti sunt vita et doctrina apostolica, quia soli Apostolorum imitatores digne recteque possunt ligare et solvere; et per Deum tantum, vel per Sanctos, in quibus habitat Spiritus sanctus, digne et recte fit remissio vel retentio peccatorum. Fit tamen et per illos qui sancti non sunt, sed non digne vel recte. Dat enim Deus benedictionem digne poscenti etiam per indignum ministrum. Quod vero hanc potestatem habeant omnes sacerdotes, Hieronymus[^4] testa-

<!-- page 498 -->

tur super illum locum Evangelii, ubi dixit Dominus Petro: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum:* « Habent, inquit, eandem iudiciariam potestatem alii Apostoli, habet et omnis Ecclesia in episcopis et presbyteris. Sed ideo Petrus eam specialiter accepit, ut omnes intelligant, quod quicumque ab unitate fidei et societate Ecclesiae se separaverit, nec a peccatis solvi nec caelum potest ingredi ».

### Cap. II. *Utrum per indignos transfundatur gratia dignis.*

Item, quod sacerdos, etiam si malus sit, gratiam tamen transfundit[^5] pro suae dignitatis officio, Augustinus ostendit dicens: « Dictum est a Domino in Numeris ad Moysen et Aaron sacerdotes: *Vos ponite nomen meum super filios Israel, et ego Dominus benedicam eos;* ut gratiam traditio per ministerium ordinati transfundat hominibus, nec voluntas sacerdotis obesse vel prodesse possit, sed meritum benedictionem poscentis. Quanta autem sit dignitas sacerdotis officii et ordinis, hinc advertamus. Dictum est de nequissimo Caipha inter cetera: *Hoc autem a semetipso non dixit, sed, cum esset pontifex anni illius, prophetavit;* per quod ostenditur, Spiritum gratiarum non personam sequi digni vel indigni, sed ordinem traditionis; ut, quamvis aliquis boni meriti sit, non tamen possit benedicere, nisi fuerit ordinatus, ut officii ministerium exhibeat. Dei autem est effectum tribuere benedictionis ». — Hinc evidenter ostenditur ordo[^6] non privari potestate tribuendi gratiam ob ministri indignitatem. — Huic tamen Augustini sententiae videtur obviare quod ait Hesychius[^7]: « Sacerdotes, inquit, non propria virtute benedicunt, sed quia figuram Christi gerunt et propter eum, qui in ipsis est, benedictionis plenitudinem tribuunt; nec solum is qui sacerdotium sortitus est, sed quicumque Christum in se ipso habet et eius figuram gerit per conversationem bonam, sicut Moyses, idoneus est ut benedictionem praestet ». — Ecce hic habes, quod non solum sacerdos, sed omnis, in quo Christus habitat, benedictionem praestat. Sed alia est benedictio, quae solis sacerdotibus congruit, alia, quae ab omnibus bonis communiter exhibetur. Denique illi sacerdotes, in quibus Christus habitat, benedictionis plenitudinem tribuere dicuntur, non quia soli illi transfundant gratiam, sed quia illi soli licite et digne id agunt. Nec subditos mala vita sacerdotis laedit, si bona faciunt, quae ille dicit. Unde Gregorius[^8]: « Multi, dum plus vitam sacerdotum quam suam discutiunt, in erroris foveam dilabuntur, minus considerantes, quod non eos vita sacerdotum laederet, si humiliter bonis sacerdotum admonitionibus aurem accommodarent ».

### Cap. III. *Quomodo intelligendum sit: Maledicam benedictionibus vestris.*

Praemissae vero sententiae, qua dicitur etiam per mali sacerdotis ministerium transfundi gratia benedictionis, videtur obviare quod Dominus per Malachiam[^9] prophetam malis sacerdotibus comminatur: *Maledicam benedictionibus vestris;* et alibi: *Vae his qui vivificant animas, quae non vivunt, et mortificant animas, quae non moriuntur.* Si enim maledicit Dominus benedictionibus eorum, et si animae, quas vivificant, non vivunt; quomodo per eos gratia benedictionis transfunditur? — Sed illud capitulum *Maledicam* etc. Explanantes quidam referunt ad haereticos, qui ab Ecclesia praecisi sunt, et ad excommunicatos, quorum benedictiones fiunt maledictiones his qui eorum sequuntur errores. Illud vero alterum, scilicet: *Vivificant* etc., super omnes illos sacerdotes exponunt, qui absque clave scientiae et forma bonae vitae praesumunt ligare vel solvere. Sed nullus officio sacerdotis uti debet, nisi immunis sit ab illis quae in aliis iudicat; alioquin se ipsum condemnat.

### Cap. IV. *Qualis esse debeat iudex ecclesiasticus.*

Qualem autem oporteat esse qui aliorum iudex constituitur, Augustinus[^10] describit ita dicens: « Sacerdos, cui omnis offertur peccator, ante quem statuitur omnis languor, in nullo eorum sit iudicandus, quae in alio iudicare est promptus. Iudicans enim alium, qui est iudicandus, condemnat se ipsum. Cognoscat igitur se et purget in se quod alios videt sibi offerre; caveat, ut a se proiecerit, quidquid in alio damnosum reperit. Animadvertat, quod *qui sine peccato est primus in illam lapidem mittat.* Ideo enim Dominus liberavit peccatricem, quia non erat qui iuste proiiceret lapidem. Quomodo lapidaret qui se lapidandum cognosceret? Nullus enim erat sine peccato; in quo intelligitur, omnes fuisse reos. Nam venialia semper remittebantur per caerimonias; si quod ergo in eis peccatum erat, criminale erat. In hoc igitur patentissimum est crimen sacerdotum et[^11] detestabile, qui non prius se iudicant et alios alligant. — Caveat spiritualis iudex, ut, sicut non commisit crimen nequitiae, ita non careat munere scientiae; oportet, ut sciat cognoscere, quidquid debeat iudicare. Iudiciaria enim potestas hoc postulat, ut quod debet iudicare discernat. Diligens igitur investigator sapienter interroget a peccatore, quod forsitan ignoret, vel verecundia velit occultare. Cognito vero crimine, varietates eius non dubitet investigare et locum et tempus et cetera, quae supra di-

<!-- page 499 -->

ximus; quibus cognitis, adsit benevolus, paratus erigere et secum onus portare: habeat dulcedinem in affectione, discretionem in varietate, doceat perseverantiam, caveat, ne corruat, ne iuste perdat iudiciariam potestatem. Etsi enim poenitentia possit ei acquirere gratiam, non tamen mox restituit in potestatem primam. Etsi Petrus post lapsum restitutus fuerit, et saepe lapsis sacerdotibus reddita sit dignitatis potestas; non tamen est necesse, ut omnibus concedatur quasi ex auctoritate. Invenitur auctoritas, quae concedit et quasi imperat; invenitur alia, quae non concedit, sed vetat. Quae scripturae non repugnant, sed concordant. Cum enim tot sunt qui labuntur, ut pristinam dignitatem ex auctoritate defendant et quasi usum peccandi sibi faciant; recidenda est spes ista. Si vero locus est, ubi ista non concurrant, restitui possunt qui peccant ». — Ex his satis perpenditur, qualis debeat esse sacerdos, qui alios ligat et solvit, discretus scilicet et iustus; alioquin mortificat saepe animas, quae non moriuntur, et vivificat, quae non vivunt; et ita incidit in maledictionis iudicium. Illud autem Malachiae, scilicet: *Maledicam benedictionibus vestris,* sive super haereticos tantum et excommunicatos, sive super omnes sacerdotes, qui vita et scientia carentes benedicere praesumunt, dictum accipiatur, sic intelligi potest: *Maledicam benedictionibus vestris,* id est « his quae in eis benedictionibus possidetis[^12] », quia faciam ea vobis cedere in maledictionem, non in benedictionem, quia, etsi benedicunt Sanctis, non hoc faciunt ex vero corde, et ideo eorum benedictio eis vertitur in maledictionem. Vel *maledicam benedictionibus vestris,* id est « quod a vobis benedicitur a me erit maledictum », quia benedicunt inique agentibus adulanturque peccantibus, dummodo divites sint.

---

english:
<!-- page 497 -->

### Chap. I. *When these keys are given, and to whom.*

After it has been shown what the apostolic keys are, and what their use is; it remains to investigate when these keys are given, and to whom. — These keys are given by the ministry of the bishop to someone in the promotion to the priesthood; for when he receives the priestly order, he receives at the same time these keys also. — But it does not seem that all, or only, priests have these keys, because many before sacred ordination have the knowledge of discerning, and many after consecration lack it. — It can soundly be said that not all priests have one of these keys, namely the knowledge of discerning; whence it is to be grieved and lamented. For many, although undiscerning and devoid of the knowledge in which they ought to excel[^1], presume to receive the grade of the priesthood, unworthy of it in life and knowledge, who neither before the priesthood nor after have the knowledge of discerning who are to be bound or loosed. And therefore they do not receive that key in consecration, because they always lack knowledge. But those who before the priesthood are endowed with the knowledge of discerning, although they have discretion, nevertheless the key is not in them, because they are not able to close or open with it; and therefore, when one is promoted to the priesthood, he is said to receive the key of discretion, because the discretion had even before is increased and becomes in him a key, so that he is now able to use it for closing or opening.

And since it is now established that not all priests have those two keys, because many lack the knowledge of discerning; concerning the other, that is the power of binding and loosing, it is asked whether all priests have it. — For some suppose this power to have been granted to those alone who keep both the doctrine and the life of the Apostles. For the Lord promised those keys to Peter and to his imitators only, as they say; and they also use authorities in defense of their opinion. For they say that Augustine thought this above[^2], where he says: « God brings about the remission of sins either through himself, or through the members of the dove ». The same also says that sins are forgiven or retained by the Saints. The same on Exodus, where it is read of the golden plate: *Now there was always a golden plate on the forehead of the priest:* « This, he says, signifies the confidence of a good life, which the priest who has it truly and perfectly, not in signification but in truth, alone can take away sins ». Likewise Gregory[^3]: « They alone, placed in this flesh, have the power of binding and loosing, like the holy Apostles, who hold their examples together with their doctrine ». Likewise from the sayings of Origen: « This power was granted to Peter alone and to the imitators of Peter. For whoever imitate the footsteps of Peter rightly have the power of binding and loosing ». On these and other testimonies they rely who assert that the power of binding and loosing was granted to those priests alone who are strong in life and doctrine like the Apostles.

But to others it seems — which I confess pleases me also — that this key, namely of binding and loosing, is given to all priests; but they do not have it rightly and worthily except those who keep the apostolic life and doctrine. Nor do the aforesaid authorities deny that bad priests have this power, but they signify that those alone worthily and rightly use this power who are endowed with apostolic life and doctrine, because the imitators of the Apostles alone can worthily and rightly bind and loose; and through God only, or through the Saints, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, the remission or retention of sins is done worthily and rightly. Yet it is done also through those who are not holy, but not worthily or rightly. For God gives a blessing to one who asks worthily even through an unworthy minister. But that all priests have this power, Jerome[^4] testi-

<!-- page 498 -->

fies on that place of the Gospel where the Lord said to Peter: *To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven:* « The other Apostles, he says, have the same judiciary power, and the whole Church has it in bishops and presbyters. But Peter received it specially for this reason, that all may understand that whoever shall have separated himself from the unity of the faith and the society of the Church can neither be loosed from sins nor enter heaven ».

### Chap. II. *Whether through the unworthy grace is transfused to the worthy.*

Likewise, that a priest, even if he be bad, nevertheless transfuses grace[^5] by reason of the office of his dignity, Augustine shows, saying: « It was said by the Lord in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests: *Put my name upon the children of Israel, and I the Lord will bless them;* so that the handing-on may transfuse grace to men through the ministry of the ordained, and the will of the priest can neither harm nor profit, but the merit of the one asking for the blessing. But how great is the dignity of the priestly office and order, let us note from this. It was said of the most wicked Caiaphas among other things: *But this he said not of himself, but, being the high priest of that year, he prophesied;* by which it is shown that the Spirit of graces does not follow the person of the worthy or the unworthy, but the order of the handing-on; so that, although someone be of good merit, nevertheless he cannot bless unless he has been ordained, so that he may exhibit the ministry of the office. But it belongs to God to bestow the effect of the blessing ». — Hence it is evidently shown that the order[^6] is not deprived of the power of bestowing grace on account of the minister's unworthiness. — Yet to this opinion of Augustine there seems to be opposed what Hesychius[^7] says: « Priests, he says, do not bless by their own power, but because they bear the figure of Christ and on account of him who is in them they bestow the fullness of blessing; nor only he who has obtained the priesthood, but whoever has Christ in himself and bears his figure through a good manner of life, like Moses, is fit to bestow a blessing ». — Behold, here you have it, that not only the priest, but everyone in whom Christ dwells, bestows a blessing. But there is one blessing which befits priests alone, and another which is exhibited in common by all good men. Finally, those priests in whom Christ dwells are said to bestow the fullness of blessing, not because they alone transfuse grace, but because they alone do it lawfully and worthily. Nor does the bad life of the priest harm his subjects, if they do the good things which he speaks. Whence Gregory[^8]: « Many, while they examine the life of priests more than their own, slip into the pit of error, considering less that the life of priests would not harm them, if they humbly lent their ear to the good admonitions of the priests ».

### Chap. III. *How it is to be understood: I will curse your blessings.*

But to the aforesaid opinion, by which it is said that grace of blessing is transfused even through the ministry of a bad priest, there seems to be opposed what the Lord through Malachi[^9] the prophet threatens to bad priests: *I will curse your blessings;* and elsewhere: *Woe to those who give life to souls that do not live, and put to death souls that do not die.* For if the Lord curses their blessings, and if the souls which they vivify do not live; how is grace of blessing transfused through them? — But that chapter *I will curse* etc. some, explaining it, refer to heretics who are cut off from the Church, and to the excommunicate, whose blessings become curses to those who follow their errors. But that other, namely: *They vivify* etc., they expound of all those priests who without the key of knowledge and the form of a good life presume to bind or loose. But no one ought to use the office of priest unless he be free from those things which he judges in others; otherwise he condemns himself.

### Chap. IV. *What sort the ecclesiastical judge ought to be.*

But what sort he ought to be who is appointed judge of others, Augustine[^10] describes, saying thus: « The priest, to whom every sinner is presented, before whom every infirmity is set, let him in none of those things be judged in which he is prompt to judge another. For one judging another, who is himself to be judged, condemns himself. Let him therefore know himself and purge in himself what he sees others present to him; let him beware that he has cast from himself whatever he finds harmful in another. Let him take heed that *he who is without sin first cast the stone at her.* For the Lord freed the sinful woman for this reason, that there was no one who could justly cast the stone. How could he stone who knew himself to be stoned? For there was no one without sin; in which it is understood that all were guilty. For venial sins were always remitted through the ceremonies; if therefore there was any sin in them, it was criminal. In this, therefore, the crime of the priests is most manifest and[^11] detestable, who do not first judge themselves and bind others. — Let the spiritual judge beware that, as he has not committed the crime of wickedness, so he be not without the gift of knowledge; it is needful that he know how to recognize whatever he ought to judge. For the judiciary power requires this, that he discern what he ought to judge. Therefore let the diligent investigator wisely question the sinner about what he perhaps may not know, or out of shame may wish to conceal. But the crime being known, let him not hesitate to investigate its varieties and the place and the time and the rest, which we said above;

<!-- page 499 -->

these being known, let him be present benevolent, ready to raise up and to bear the burden with him: let him have sweetness in affection, discretion in variety, let him teach perseverance, let him beware lest he fall, lest he justly lose the judiciary power. For although penance may be able to acquire grace for him, nevertheless it does not at once restore him to the first power. Although Peter was restored after his fall, and the power of dignity has often been given back to fallen priests; nevertheless it is not necessary that it be granted to all as if by authority. There is found an authority which grants and as it were commands; there is found another which does not grant, but forbids. These scriptures do not contradict, but agree. For since there are so many who fall, so that they defend their former dignity by authority and as it were make for themselves a custom of sinning; this hope must be cut off. But if there is a place where these things do not concur, those who sin can be restored ». — From these things it is sufficiently weighed what sort a priest ought to be who binds and looses others, namely discerning and just; otherwise he often puts to death souls that do not die, and vivifies those that do not live; and thus he falls into the judgment of cursing. But that of Malachi, namely: *I will curse your blessings,* whether it be taken as said of heretics only and the excommunicate, or of all priests who, lacking life and knowledge, presume to bless, can be understood thus: *I will curse your blessings,* that is « those things which you possess by those blessings[^12] », because I will make them turn to your curse, not to a blessing, because, even if they bless the holy, they do not do this from a true heart, and therefore their blessing is turned for them into a curse. Or *I will curse your blessings,* that is « whatever is blessed by you shall be cursed by me », because they bless those who act unjustly and flatter sinners, provided they be rich.

---

la: Codd. B D et ed. 1 *debet sacerdos* pro *debent;* deinde pro *qui* cod. E et plures edd. *quia.* Inferius pro *discretionis dicitur* cod. E et edd., excepta 1, *discretionis recte dicitur.*

en: Codd. B D and ed. 1 have *debet sacerdos* for *debent;* then for *qui* cod. E and several editions have *quia.* Below, for *discretionis dicitur* cod. E and the editions, except 1, have *discretionis recte dicitur.*

la: Dist. praeced. c. 3, scil. V. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 21. n. 29. — Seq. locus eiusdem est II. Quaestion. in Pentateuch. q. 120; respicitur Exod. 28, 38.

en: The preceding distinction, c. 3, namely Augustine, bk. V *On Baptism against the Donatists,* c. 21, n. 29. — The following passage is from the same, *Questions on the Pentateuch* II, q. 120; Exod. 28:38 is referred to.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 4. seq.; II. Dialog. c. 23; ast verbotenus apud Hugon. a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 14, ubi invenitur etiam seq. locus Origenis Comment. in Matth. libr. XII. n. 9.

en: Bk. II *Homilies on the Gospel,* homily 26, n. 4 f.; *Dialogues* II, c. 23; but word for word in Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 14, where is also found the following passage of Origen, *Commentary on Matthew,* bk. XII, n. 9.

la: Non invenimus in Hieron. hunc locum, sed verbotenus in Glossa Matth. 16, 17. et apud Rabanum V. Comment. in Matth. loc. cit., qui primam partem sumsit ex Beda in eundem locum. Cfr. etiam C. *Si iustus* (30.), C. 1. q. 1. et C. *Ut evitentur* (82.), ibid.

en: We have not found this passage in Jerome, but word for word in the Gloss on Matt. 16:17 and in Rabanus V, *Commentary on Matthew,* at the cited place, who took the first part from Bede on the same passage. Cf. also the canon *Si iustus* (30), C. 1, q. 1, and the canon *Ut evitentur* (82), ibid.

la: Codd. A B D E *transfundat.* — Locus August. est in non genuinis *Quaestion. ex veteri testam.* q. 11; C. *Dictum est* (96.), ibid., ubi citatur Num. 6, 27, et infra Ioan. 14, 31.

en: Codd. A B D E have *transfundat.* — The passage of Augustine is in the non-genuine *Questions on the Old Testament,* q. 11; the canon *Dictum est* (96), ibid., where Num. 6:27 is cited, and below John 14:31.

la: Plures edd. *ordinem,* refragantibus codd. et ed. 1, 2, 3, 7.

en: Several editions have *ordinem,* against the codices and edd. 1, 2, 3, 7.

la: Libr. II. in Levit. (9, 23.).

en: Bk. II on Leviticus (9, 23).

la: Can. *Multi saecularium* (84.), ibid. Locus hic, ut volunt editores, ab alio formatus est secundum Gregor.

en: The canon *Multi saecularium* (84), ibid. This passage, as the editors hold, was formed by another according to Gregory.

la: Cap. 2, 2, deinde Ezech. 13, 19. — De loco Malachiae cfr. supra d. XIII. c. 1. 2. — Inferius pro *fiunt maledictiones* ed. 1 *vertuntur in maledictiones.*

en: Chapter 2:2, then Ezek. 13:19. — On the passage of Malachi cf. above, d. XIII, c. 1, 2. — Below, for *fiunt maledictiones* ed. 1 has *vertuntur in maledictiones.*

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitent. c. 20. n. 36. (inter opera); C. *Qui vult confiteri* (1.), de Poenitentia d. 6. § 2. 3. — Ibi respiciuntur Rom. 2, 1, deinde Ioan. 8, 7.

en: *On True and False Penitence,* c. 20, n. 36 (among the works [of Augustine]); the canon *Qui vult confiteri* (1), *On Penitence* d. 6, § 2, 3. — There Rom. 2:1, then John 8:7, are referred to.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. *esse;* originale cum canone et cod. E *et ultra modum detestabile.*

en: The Vatican edition with a few editions has *esse;* the original with the canon and cod. E has *et ultra modum detestabile.*

la: Hic et seq. locus est ex Hieron. in Malach. 2, 2. et in Glossa apud Lyran. ibid.

en: This and the following passage is from Jerome on Malachi 2:2 and in the Gloss in Lyra, ibid.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 55277–55467+, where the littera body runs into the upper p.499 right column just past the briefed range), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{497,498,499}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers (the OCR for these pages is severely shattered — diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed). English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 497–499 = pdf 517–519).
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XIX** — Peter Lombard's chapters on the power of the keys: Cap. I (when the keys are given and to whom — the two keys of discerning-knowledge and of binding/loosing; the two opinions on whether only worthy priests have the binding power, the Master siding with the second: all priests have the key, but only the apostolic-living use it worthily); Cap. II (whether grace is transfused through unworthy ministers — Augustine yes / Hesychius nuance / Gregory); Cap. III (how *Maledicam benedictionibus vestris* is to be understood); Cap. IV (what sort the ecclesiastical judge ought to be — the long Pseudo-Augustine *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia* passage). **SINGLE-PARS distinction** — Lombard prints d.XIX as one block (Cap. I–IV); the frontmatter carries no `pars` field.
- **Chapter list:** Cap. I (*Quando hae claves dantur et quibus*); Cap. II (*Utrum per indignos transfundatur gratia dignis*); Cap. III (*Quomodo intelligendum sit: Maledicam benedictionibus vestris*); Cap. IV (*Qualis esse debeat iudex ecclesiasticus*).
- **Page-verify.** p.497 running head `DISTINCTIO XIX.` (top, with the d.18 dubia tail finishing in the upper columns), then `DISTINCTIO XIX. / Cap. I. / Quando hae claves dantur et quibus.`; p.498 running head `498 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; p.499 running head `DIST. XIX. ART. I. QUAEST. I. / 499`. All three confirm the distinction.
- **Opening seam (p.497).** The littera physically OPENS on p.497 below the tail of d.XVIII's commentary/dubia (the upper columns finish d.XVIII material on *peccatum tenebra et deformitas / macula et foetor / vinculum mortis aeternae*), then `DISTINCTIO XIX. / Cap. I.`. The prior d.XVIII material and its left-column footers (the block beginning *Ita codd. EILK… / Edd. perperam aversionem / Vide supra p.1 dub. I* and the *Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert.* reference block) belong to the d.18 commentary chunk and are EXCLUDED. No littera body text dropped at the d.XVIII→d.XIX seam.
- **Footer ownership / two-column split.** p.497: the littera's apparatus = the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* block, note ¹ (*Codd. BD et ed. 1 debet sacerdos*) in the LEFT footer + notes ²³⁴ in the RIGHT footer (*Dist. praeced. c.3 / Libr. II Homil. in Evang. / Non invenimus in Hieron.*) → mapped `[^1]–[^4]` (keying body markers *debent¹ / superius² / Gregorius³ / Hieronymus⁴*). The reference block *Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 8…* and the *Ita codd. EILK / Edd. perperam / Vide supra* notes above the NOTAE header are the Bonaventure-commentary apparatus of the prior d.18 chunk; EXCLUDED. p.498: all of p.498 is littera body → all seven footers claimed: left notes ¹²³⁴ (*Codd. ABDE transfundat / Plures edd. ordinem / Libr. II in Levit. / Can. Multi saecularium*) + right notes ⁵⁶⁷ (*Cap. 2,2 deinde Ezech / De Vera et falsa Poenitent / Vat. cum paucis edd.*) → mapped `[^5]–[^11]`. p.499: the littera ends mid-page; its single footer = the LEFT-column note ¹ (*Hic et seq. locus est ex Hieron. in Malach. 2, 2*) → mapped `[^12]`. The *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block immediately below (note ¹ *Edd. quando istae claves et quibus*) and the RIGHT-column notes (²³ *Cod. W addit servant / Cap. 28 / Textus … Luc. 11, 46*) belong to the NEXT chunk (the commentary) and are EXCLUDED.
- **Cutoff.** The littera ends on p.499 right column with « …dummodo divites sint. » (the Cap. III *Explicatur locus Malachiae* marginal gloss). Immediately below on p.499 the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX. / Quando et quibus claves dentur / … / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM / ARTICULUS I. / QUAESTIO I.` begins — that is the NEXT chunk (`d19-divisio`) and is EXCLUDED. Cross-checked: no body text dropped at the littera→commentarius seam.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags:**
  - **p.497 `[^1]` body marker spacing (« scientiae, qua eminere debent¹ »):** the OCR renders the superscript ¹ as a stray backslash (`debent \`); the band confirms the marker sits on *debent* (the footer note ¹ glosses *debent / debet sacerdos*), so the anchor is placed there. Slight uncertainty only in the exact glyph; resolve at the d.11–d.20 decade-polish 600 dpi gate.
  - Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected from the band (e.g. `oslensum`→*ostensum,* `denlur`→*dentur,* `videlur`→*videtur,* `Augnsiinus`→*Augustinum,* `Origenis`, `imitaloribus`→*imitatoribus,* `transfundit`/`transfundat,* `comminatur,* `Maledicani`→*Maledicam,* `Hesychius`, `caerimonias,* `iudiciariam,* `benedictionibus,* `possidetis,* `prophetavit`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 19, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 499 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX.

#### *Quando et quibus claves dentur.*[^1]

> Postquam ostensum est, quae sint claves apostolicae etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister clavium usum et substantiam. Hic determinat, quibus dentur. Et habet pars ista duas. In prima ostendit, quod clavis scientiae non datur ignorantibus et insciis. In secunda quaerit, utrum potestas ligandi et solvendi competat malis, ibi: *Cumque iam constet, non omnes etc.*

Et haec secunda pars habet tres. In prima ponit et innuit opinionem falsam, immo haeresim, quod claves in illis solis sunt, qui habent doctrinam et vitam. In secunda ponit opinionem veram, quod sunt in quolibet sacerdote, et respondet falsae et innuit eam, ibi: *Aliis autem videtur, quod et mihi placere etc.* In tertia vero ipsam defendit a quibusdam, qui videntur ipsam ostendere falsam, ibi: *Praemissae vero sententiae, qua dicitur etc.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis, in qua Magister determinat, quibus dantur claves et quando, tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, quibus dantur claves.

Secundo quaeritur, quando.

Tertio, super quos vel in quos ministri per claves possint.

Circa primum duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum claves datae sint sacerdoti legali, an soli sacerdoti evangelico.

Secundo, utrum in potestate clavium communicet bonus minister cum malo ministro.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *Quibus dantur claves.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves.*

---

english:
<!-- page 499 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIX.

#### *When and to whom the keys are given.*[^1]

> After it has been shown what the apostolic keys are, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master determined the use and the substance of the keys. Here he determines to whom they are given. And this part has two [parts]. In the first he shows that the key of knowledge is not given to the ignorant and the unknowing. In the second he asks whether the power of binding and loosing belongs to the wicked, there: *And since it is now established that not all, etc.*

And this second part has three [parts]. In the first he sets down and intimates a false opinion — indeed a heresy — that the keys are in those alone who have [right] doctrine and life. In the second he sets down the true opinion, that they are in every priest, and he answers the false [opinion] and intimates it, there: *But to others it seems, as it also pleases me, etc.* In the third he defends it against certain ones who seem to show it to be false, there: *But of the foregoing sentence, by which it is said, etc.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, in which the Master determines to whom and when the keys are given, three [things] are asked.

First it is asked, to whom the keys are given.

Second it is asked, when.

Third, over whom or upon whom the ministers may [exercise power] through the keys.

Concerning the first, two [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether the keys were given to the legal priest, or to the evangelical priest alone.

Second, whether in the power of the keys the good minister shares with the wicked minister.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *To whom the keys are given.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether the legal priest had the keys.*

---

la: *Edd. quando istae claves et quibus.*

en: The editions [read] *quando istae claves et quibus* (when and to whom these keys [are given]).

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 55468–55504 (the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p499-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions — the OCR splices left- and right-column lines together throughout the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO. Offset pdf = printed + 20 → PDF folio 519. Page-verify confirmed: running head on p.499 reads **DIST. XIX. ART. I. QUAEST. I.** + folio 499. The entire divisio chunk sits on printed page 499; the QUAESTIO I body (*Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves. Et quod sic, videtur:* 1. Quia… raw line 55506+) begins at the foot of p.499 and runs into p.500 — it is excluded here and opens the next chunk `d19-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed — THREE articles, each with two questions** (the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM lists three principal questions for the part; the per-article questions come from each article's own opener):
  - **Art I** *Quibus dantur claves* (To whom the keys are given) — "Circa primum duo quaeruntur": **q1** *utrum claves datae sint sacerdoti legali, an soli sacerdoti evangelico* — whether the keys were given to the legal priest or to the evangelical priest alone (the QUAESTIO I heading phrases it *utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves*); **q2** *utrum in potestate clavium communicet bonus minister cum malo ministro* — whether the good minister shares the key-power with the wicked minister. Both enumerated verbatim on p.499 under "Circa primum duo quaeruntur."
  - **Art II** — keys in the priestly *order* (the "Secundo quaeritur, quando" branch — *when* the keys are given, i.e. with priestly ordination); two questions, not enumerated on this page (they open Art II later in the distinction).
  - **Art III** — absolving subjects (the "Tertio, super quos vel in quos ministri per claves possint" branch — over/upon whom ministers may act through the keys); two questions, not enumerated on this page.
- Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS I opener (heading + *Quibus dantur claves* sub-title) and the QUAESTIO I heading + title (*Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves*) fold in here; the q1 body is left to `d19-a1-q1`.
- **Footer ownership (printed page 499):** the page foot carries TWO note groups. (a) The **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** block — a single editorial note *Edd. quando istae claves et quibus* — is the textual note on the COMMENTARIUS running-head subtitle and is claimed here, rendered `[^1]` and anchored to the subtitle. (b) The **regular footer sequence notes 1–3** (left col: *Hic et seq. locus est ex Hieron. in Malach. 2, 2 et in Glossa apud Lyran. ibid.*; right col: *Cod. W addit servant, edd. … Apostolorum servant, ut dicit Magister*; *Cap. 28. seqq. — Textus in fine arg. est Luc. 11, 46. — et 32.*) anchor the QUAESTIO I arguments (*sicut legisperiti instituti fuerunt…*; *Ad oppositum*) and are **left to `d19-a1-q1`**.
- **No `[?]` flags** — the divisio body, the three-article / six-question partition, and the one owned editorial footer read cleanly once reflowed from the column bands. Printed subtitle reads *Quando et quibus claves dentur* (COMMENTARIUS running-head subtitle); ARTICULUS I sub-title reads *Quibus dantur claves*; both confirmed against the bands.
- **Hand-off to `d19-a1-q1`:** opening sentence is *Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves. Et quod sic, videtur: 1. Quia, sicut legisperiti instituti fuerunt ad populum docendum, ita sacerdotes ad sanctificandum, sicut patet per totum Leviticum et in Exodo…* (p.499 foot → p.500, raw line 55506+). It must claim **p.499 regular footer notes 1–3** (the *Hieron. in Malach.* / *Cod. W servant* / *Cap. 28 — Luc. 11, 46* source apparatus on the q1 arguments) plus the p.500 footers (notes 1–4: *Vers. 4 — Maior ostenditur infra a. 2 q. 1*, etc.) on the *Contra* / *Conclusio* / *Respondeo* that continue there. No body text or footnote is dropped at the seam.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 500 -->

### Articulus I. *Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves.*

Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia, sicut legisperiti instituti fuerunt ad populum docendum, ita sacerdotes ad sanctificandum, sicut patet per totum Leviticum et in Exodo; sed legisperiti in veteri testamento acceperunt clavem scientiae ad peragendum suum officium: ergo pari ratione et sacerdotes legales ad suum. Minor patet per hoc quod dicitur Lucae undecimo: *Et vobis legisperitis vae, qui tulistis clavem scientiae* etc.

2. Item, clavis est sequela ordinis sacerdotalis, sicut melius iam patebit; sed sacerdos legalis habuit ordinem et pontificatum, secundum quod patet ad Hebraeos quinto[^1]: *Nec quisquam sibi sumit honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo, tanquam Aaron*: ergo cum habuerit principale, videtur, quod et habuit annexum.

3. Item, clavis est auctoritas discernendi et ligandi et solvendi, faciendo reconciliationem peccatoris cum Ecclesia; sed hoc totum fuit in sacerdote summo in veteri testamento, quia ad ipsum pertinebat leprosum iudicare et expiare, sicut dicitur Levitici decimo quarto[^2]: ergo habuit clavem. Si tu dicas, quod illa erat potestas carnalis, sicut expiatio et ipsa lepra; *contra*: a lepra non potuit mundare corporaliter: ergo si expiabat aliquo modo per aspersionem, sicut ibi ponitur; ergo expiatio illa erat spiritualis.

**Contra:** 1. Claves sacerdotales sunt ad aperiendum regnum caelorum; sed regnum caelorum non fuit apertum ante mortem Christi[^3]: ergo claves ante mortem Christi fabricatae non fuerunt; ergo nec aliquis eas habere potuit ante.

2. Item, per claves istas spirituales reconciliatur peccator, dum solvitur et ligatur; sed reconciliatio non potuit fieri nisi per mediatorem, mediator autem unus tantum est, scilicet Christus Dominus: ergo ante adventum ipsius haberi non potuerunt.

3. Item, lex Moysi lex carnalis dicitur ab Apostolo[^4] et lex occidens; sed ista potestas est spiritualis et ad vivificandum vel ad perficiendum in vita: ergo talis potestas clavium nullo modo legi illi competebat.

> **Conclusio.** Potestas clavium propria est sacerdotis evangelici, et tantum figurata in veteri lege.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui doctores dicere voluerunt, quod potestas clavis fuit in lege Moysi et est in lege gratiae, sed differenter: quia ibi fuit imperfecte et semiplene, hic autem perfecte; ut, sicut illa fuit imperfecta lex, et haec perfecta, et haec addit supra illam; sic clavis ad clavem: et sicut poenitentia inchoavit in veteri et fuit ibi, ita et clavis, secundum cuius arbitrium consummatur poenitentia. Et hoc nituntur ostendere per hoc, quod sacerdotibus commissum fuit, ut peccantibus per ignorantiam sacerdos imponeret poenam iuxta mensuram delicti, sicut dicitur Levitici quinto[^5]; et illud fuit quoddam ligare ad poenam. Non tamen perfectam habuerunt potestatem, quia non poterant solvere remittendo partem poenae; et hoc quidem habent a Christi passione claves in nova lege. Et per hoc respondetur secundum illos ad obiecta utriusque partis, ut patet intuenti.

Alia opinio est, ut credo, probabilior, quod potestas clavium propria est sacerdotis evangelici; nec in lege veteri fuit inchoata, sed magis figurata; et illud apparet clarius, si respiciatur ipsius[^6] essentia, origo et finis. — Clavis enim potestas spiritualis est, quae est aliquid datum animae in sigillatione, qua sigillatur charactere sacerdotali; et quoniam lex illa non spiritualis, sed carnalis dicitur; ideo non competebat ei, sed novae, quae est lex spiritus. — Similiter patet hoc, si respiciatur clavis origo. Cum enim triplex sit clavis, ut in praecedentibus[^7] visum est, scilicet auctoritatis, excellentiae et ministerii; clavis ministerii descendit a clave auctoritatis, mediante clave excellentiae: quoniam, etsi Deus per se delet culpam, et sacerdos aliquam poenae particulam, Christus tamen fuit, qui solvit debitum in passione sua, solvit, inquam, debitum Adae, et tantum superabundavit, quod ministris communicavit virtutem solvendi a poena. — Similiter patet, si respiciatur finis: quoniam clavis ad aperiendum est per reconciliationem; et quoniam in reconciliatione illa mediator est homo, qui tenet locum Dei, ex tunc potuit et debuit dari clavis, ex quo Deus factus est homo, «*ut nos divinitatis suae tribueret esse participes*[^8]», et ex quo pretium reconciliationis fusum est; et hoc debuit esse in nova lege: et ideo primo dictum est Petro: *Tibi dabo claves*, quasi ante datae non fuissent. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes probantes, quod solus sacerdos evangelicus habet claves.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de clave scientiae, dicendum, quod illa clavis scientiae dicitur clavis alia quam ista: quia illa fuit ad docendum ea quae iuris erant et Legis, haec autem ordinatur ad dirigendum clavem potentiae ligandi et solvendi a poena[^9]; et ita haec aperit caelum, sed illa aperiebat, id est, aditum praeparabat *ad sciendum*. Lex autem nova communicat cum veteri in scientia, quia utraque lex docet, licet hic clarius ape-

<!-- page 501 -->

riantur mysteria Legis et Prophetarum; sed in redundantia et copia gratiae et spiritualitate potestatis differebat. Et ideo non valet illud.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est sequela ordinis; dicendum, quod sicut in lege veteri non fuit clavis vera, sed figuralis; ita etiam et ordo. Et hoc patet, quia verus ordo est, qui veram offert hostiam et sacrificium Deo acceptum; et hoc est in novo testamento, ubi offertur vera Christi caro. In lege vero veteri offerebatur caro bovis, vel agni qui erat huius signum[^1b].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habuerunt discernendi auctoritatem et similiter expiandi; dicendum, quod illud erat carnale, non spirituale. — Quod obiicit, quod non mundabat ab immunditia[^2b] carnis; dicendum, quod expiatio et illa sanctificatio proprie non erat carnalis nec spiritualis, sed figuralis; unde non fiebat ad munditiam carnis vel spiritus conferendam, sed potius ad significandam munditiam spiritualem. Dicitur tamen carnalis, pro eo quod de munditia carnis certificabat auctoritate et iudicio sacerdotis.

english:
### Article I. *Whether the priest under the [Old] Law had the keys.*
### Question I. *Whether the priest under the [Old] Law had the keys.*

First, then, it is asked whether the priest under the [Old] Law had the keys. And that he did seems [to be the case]:

1. Because, just as the experts in the Law were appointed to teach the people, so the priests [were appointed] to sanctify, as is clear throughout the whole of Leviticus and in Exodus; but the experts in the Law under the Old Testament received the key of knowledge for carrying out their office: therefore by parity of reasoning the priests under the Law [received it] for theirs. The minor is clear from what is said in Luke, the eleventh [chapter]: *And woe to you experts in the Law, who have taken away the key of knowledge*, etc.

2. Likewise, the key is a consequence of the priestly order, as will better appear later; but the priest under the Law had order and the pontificate, according as is clear from Hebrews, the fifth [chapter][^1]: *Nor does anyone take the honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron [was]*: therefore, since he had the principal [thing], it seems that he also had the annexed [thing].

3. Likewise, the key is the authority of discerning and of binding and of loosing, by making reconciliation of the sinner with the Church; but all this was [present] in the high priest under the Old Testament, since to him it belonged to judge and to expiate the leper, as is said in Leviticus, the fourteenth [chapter][^2]: therefore he had the key. If you say that that was a carnal power, like the expiation and the leprosy itself; *on the contrary*: he could not cleanse from leprosy bodily: therefore if he expiated in some way by sprinkling, as is set down there; therefore that expiation was spiritual.

**On the contrary:** 1. The priestly keys are for opening the kingdom of heaven; but the kingdom of heaven was not opened before the death of Christ[^3]: therefore the keys were not forged before the death of Christ; therefore neither could anyone have them before.

2. Likewise, by these spiritual keys the sinner is reconciled, while he is loosed and bound; but reconciliation could not be made except through a mediator, and the mediator is one only, namely Christ the Lord: therefore before His coming they could not be had.

3. Likewise, the law of Moses is called by the Apostle[^4] a carnal law and a law that kills; but this power is spiritual and [ordered] to giving life or to perfecting in life: therefore such a power of the keys in no way belonged to that law.

> **Conclusion.** The power of the keys is proper to the priest of the Gospel, and only prefigured under the Old Law.

**I respond:** It must be said that some doctors wished to say that the power of the key was [present] in the law of Moses and is [present] in the law of grace, but in a different way: because there it was imperfectly and half-fully, but here perfectly; so that, just as that law was imperfect, and this one perfect, and this one adds upon that one; so [it is with] key to key: and just as penance began under the Old [Law] and was there, so also the key, according to whose judgment penance is consummated. And they strive to show this by [the fact] that it was committed to the priests that the priest should impose a penalty upon those sinning through ignorance according to the measure of the offense, as is said in Leviticus, the fifth [chapter][^5]; and that was a certain binding unto punishment. Yet they did not have the perfect power, because they could not loose by remitting part of the punishment; and this indeed the keys have from the passion of Christ under the new law. And by this there is answered, according to those [doctors], the objections of either side, as is clear to one who looks [at it].

There is another opinion, more probable, as I believe, that the power of the keys is proper to the priest of the Gospel; nor was it begun under the Old Law, but rather prefigured; and that appears more clearly if one looks at its[^6] essence, origin, and end. — For the key is a spiritual power, which is something given to the soul in [the act of] sealing, by which it is sealed with the priestly character; and since that law is called not spiritual, but carnal; therefore it did not belong to it, but to the new [law], which is the law of the spirit. — Likewise this is clear, if one looks at the key's origin. For since the key is threefold, as was seen in the foregoing[^7], namely of authority, of excellence, and of ministry; the key of ministry descends from the key of authority, by means of the key of excellence: since, even though God by Himself blots out the fault, and the priest [blots out] some particle of the punishment, yet it was Christ who paid the debt in His passion — paid, I say, the debt of Adam, and so superabounded that He communicated to the ministers the power of loosing from punishment. — Likewise it is clear, if one looks at the end: since the key is for opening through reconciliation; and since in that reconciliation the mediator is a man who holds the place of God, from then on the key could and ought to be given, from [the time] when God became man, «*that He might grant us to be partakers of His divinity*[^8]», and from [the time] when the price of reconciliation was poured out; and this had to be under the new law: and therefore it was first said to Peter: *To you I will give the keys*, as if they had not been given before. — Therefore the reasonings are to be granted which prove that the priest of the Gospel alone has the keys.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the key of knowledge, it must be said that that key of knowledge is called a key other than this one: because that one was for teaching the things which were of right and of the Law, but this one is ordered to directing the key of the power of binding and loosing from punishment[^9]; and so this one opens heaven, but that one was opening, that is, was preparing the approach *unto knowing*. But the new law has in common with the old [law] in knowledge, since both laws teach, although here are more clearly opened

<!-- page 501 -->

the mysteries of the Law and of the Prophets; but in the redundance and abundance of grace and in the spirituality of [its] power it differed. And therefore that [objection] is of no force.

2. To that which is objected, that it is a consequence of order; it must be said that, just as under the Old Law there was no true key, but a figural one; so also there was [no true] order. And this is clear, because the true order is that which offers a true victim and a sacrifice acceptable to God; and this is [the case] under the New Testament, where the true flesh of Christ is offered. But under the Old Law there was offered the flesh of an ox, or of a lamb which was a sign of this[^1b].

3. To that which is objected, that they had the authority of discerning and likewise of expiating; it must be said that that was carnal, not spiritual. — As to what is objected, that it did not cleanse from the uncleanness[^2b] of the flesh; it must be said that the expiation and that sanctification was properly neither carnal nor spiritual, but figural; whence it was not done for conferring a cleanness of flesh or of spirit, but rather for signifying spiritual cleanness. It is nevertheless called carnal, for the reason that it gave assurance concerning the cleanness of the flesh by the authority and judgment of the priest.

la: Vers. 4. — Maior ostenditur infra a. 2. q. 1. 2.

en: Verse 4. — The major [premise] is shown below, a. 2. q. 1. 2.

la: Vers. 2. seqq. Cfr. ibid. c. 13.

en: Verse 2 ff. Cf. ibid. c. 13.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 22. q. 6.

en: Cf. III Sent. d. 22. q. 6.

la: Hebr. 7, 16: *Qui non secundum legem mandati carnalis factus est*; II. Cor. 3, 6: *Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat.* Vide III. Sent. d. 40. q. 2. — Inferius pro *perficiendum* edd. *proficiendum* (Hebr. 7, 19: *Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit Lex*).

en: Hebr. 7, 16: *who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment*; II Cor. 3, 6: *For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.* See III Sent. d. 40. q. 2. — Below, for *perficiendum* [perfecting] the editions [read] *proficiendum* [advancing] (Hebr. 7, 19: *For the Law brought nothing to perfection*).

la: Vers. 18: *Offeret... iuxta mensuram aestimationemque peccati.* Cfr. Deut. 25, 2.

en: Verse 18: *He shall offer... according to the measure and the estimation of the sin.* Cf. Deut. 25, 2.

la: Supple cum cod. X *clavis.* Idem cod. mox post *Clavis enim* addit *essentia.*

en: Supply, with codex X, *of the key.* The same codex shortly after, following *Clavis enim* [for the key], adds *essentia* [essence].

la: Gregor., Libr. Sacramentor. Praefat. in ascensa Domini. — Seq. textus Scripturae est Matth. 16, 19.

en: Gregory, *Book of Sacraments*, Preface for the Ascension of the Lord. — The following text of Scripture is Matth. 16, 19.

la: Vide supra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: See above d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. f.

la: Cfr. Hebr. 7-11. — Pro *qui erat* cod. H et ed. 1 *quae erat.*

en: Cf. Hebr. 7-11. — For *qui erat* [who was] codex H and ed. 1 [read] *quae erat* [which was].

la: Codd. M O *nisi ab immunditia* [cod. O *immunditiis*].

en: Codices M O [read] *nisi ab immunditia* [except from the uncleanness] [codex O *immunditiis* (uncleannesses)]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Opinio 1. relata in quaestione 1. improbatur ab Alexandro, S. Bonav. et S. Thoma aliisque posterioribus communiter. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 6. a. 1. 2. — Scot., hic q. unica, passim. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 19. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 14. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** De solutione 2. quaestionis cfr. Concil. Trident. Sess. XIV. can. 10. et c. 6. Aliqui casus ad hanc rem spectantes solvuntur infra dub. 2. 3. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. a. 1. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 19. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Opinion 1, set out in question 1, is disproved by Alexander, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, and by the later [doctors] commonly. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 6. a. 1. 2. — Scotus, here q. unica, throughout. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 1; Suppl. q. 19. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 14. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — On this and the following question Durandus, here q. 1; Denis the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** On the solution of the 2nd question, cf. the Council of Trent, Sess. XIV. can. 10. and c. 6. Certain cases bearing on this matter are resolved below in dub. 2. 3. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7. a. 1. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2. little-question 2; Suppl. q. 19. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. little-question 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{500,501}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, re-cropped at split_x=2080 to capture the full left column), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 55505–55684) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The raw OCR for this range is severely two-column-bled and cascade-shattered, so per the Vol II/IV override the PDF is authoritative in the damaged Respondeo/Conclusio/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 500–501 = PDF 520–521). **Page-verify:** the recto running head on p. 501 reads "DIST. XIX. ART. I. QUAEST. II." — the question-number lags because q1's body (Respondeo + replies 1–3) continues across the top of p. 501 before QUAESTIO II opens lower on the page; the distinction (XIX) and article (I) are correct, so this is the expected layout, not a misalignment. (The verso running head on p. 500 is the book title "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.")

**Opener alignment confirmed.** Distinction XIX has no pars division (single-pars per the brief), so there is no `pars` field. The short ARTICULUS I opener folds into this q1 per the locked chunking convention. The q1 body opens "Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves. Et quod sic, videtur:" — matching `title_la`. The chunk ends just before QUAESTIO II ("Utrum malus sacerdos communicet cum bono in potestate clavium, an sit in solo bono", raw 55685 / p. 501).

**Scholion finding — PRESENT, rendered IN FULL here.** A single "SCHOLION." block sits at the bottom of p. 501 (both columns), after q1's reply 3 and before QUAESTIO II. It has **two** numbered parts: **§I** covers question 1 (the opinion that the legal priest had the keys is disproved by Alexander/Bonaventure/Thomas; consolidated doctor-list) and **§II** covers question 2 (Trent Sess. XIV; doctor-list). Per the brief, since it lives in this q1's range it is rendered here body-first, scholion-last. **Hand-off:** the sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q2` should carry only a cross-reference pointing back here for §II of the scholion (this q1 holds the whole article's scholion). q2's title is "Utrum malus sacerdos communicet cum bono in potestate clavium."

**Page-split / footer-ownership map (11 apparatus entries, all anchored in this q1).**
- p. 500: ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I + args 1–3 + Contra 1–3 + Conclusio + Respondeo (opinio 1 + opinio 2/probabilior) + reply 1 (begins) + footers 1–9 (all q1).
- p. 500 → 501 boundary falls inside reply 1 ("…licet hic clarius ape- | riantur mysteria Legis…"). Grammatically continuous.
- p. 501: reply 1 (continuation) + replies 2–3 + SCHOLION §I–II + then QUAESTIO II. The p. 501 footnote block runs 1–8, of which **footers 1–2 belong to this q1** (reply 2 "qui erat huius signum¹"; reply 3 "ab immunditia²"); **footers 3–8 belong to QUAESTIO II** (Petrus / claves / Ioan material) and are forwarded to `d19-a1-q2`.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: *legisperiti* / *Leviticum* (OCR bled across columns); *superabundavit* (OCR `superabundavil`); reply-3 *certificabat* (OCR `certiQcabat`). The right-column marginal rubrics (*Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Notandum.*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention. The article opener prints a single running title "Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves" which serves as both the ARTICULUS I and QUAESTIO I header (the article has one question with the same title); both headers are reproduced for structural consistency with the corpus template.


title: Dist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 501 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum malus sacerdos communicet cum bono in potestate clavium, an sit in solo bono.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum malus sacerdos communicet cum bono in potestate clavis, an sit in solo bono. Et quod tantum in bono, videtur.

1. In donatione sive promissione clavium, quae facta est Petro, primo commendatus est Petrus: *Beatus es, Simon*[^1] etc; et post: *Ego dico tibi* etc; ergo videtur, quod si omnibus datae sunt in Petro, et datae sunt Petro ratione fidelis et bonae confessionis, quod ad illos solos descendat, qui sunt Petro similes et eius imitatores. Ad huius autem confirmationem adducitur verbum Augustini[^2], quod dicitur super illud: *Tibi dabo*: « Sicut dictum est Iudae: *Pauperes semper vobiscum habebitis* etc, gerenti typum malorum; sic dictum est Petro: *Tibi dabo claves* etc, gerenti typum bonorum »: ergo etc.

2. Item, Ioannis vigesimo[^3], ubi primo datae sunt hae claves, dicitur: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur* etc: ergo si ante donationem potestatis dedit Spiritum sanctum, qui non habent Spiritum sanctum non habent potestatem clavium; sed mali non habent Spiritum sanctum: ergo etc. In huius autem confirmatione adducitur Glossa Augustini ibidem[^4]: « Ecclesiae caritas, quae diffunditur per Spiritum sanctum in cordibus eorum, in quibus est, peccata dimittit »; sed soli boni habent caritatem: ergo etc. — Ad hoc autem sunt multae auctoritates in littera.

3. Item, hoc videtur ratione: quia bonus distributor nulli dat aliquam potentiam distribuendi qui est omnino indignus; sed peccator, in peccato existens, indignus est tam nobili potestate, scilicet solvendi et ligandi; hoc apertum est, et Deus hoc scit et ipse est, qui hanc potestatem tribuit: ergo aut male donat dona sua, aut talis non habet potestatem.

4. Item, stultus esset rex, qui clavem camerae suae committeret inimico suo: si ergo peccator inimicus Christi est; cum Christus nihil stulte agat, peccatoribus clavem camerae suae non committit. Sed haec est clavis caeli: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Matthaei vigesimo tertio[^5] dicit Dominus discipulis: *Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribae et Pharisaei; quaecumque dixerint vobis, servate et facite*; constans est, quod Dominus loquitur de malis, sicut ibidem patet, et illis dicit reverentiam exhibendam et obedientiam: vult ergo Dominus, etiam malis praelatis subesse bonos subditos. Si ergo potestas praelationis in novo testamento in potestate clavium consistit: ergo Dominus vult hanc potestatem malis communicare.

2. Item, sicut clavis ligandi et solvendi est a Deo, ita et clavis scientiae est a Deo; sed Dominus clavem scientiae legisperitis dedit, qui mali erant, et etiam male utebantur, ut dicitur Lucae undecimo[^6]: ergo nihil prohibet, clavem istam malis tribui.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia gratia non transfunditur ab uno homine in alterum, ut in praecedentibus[^7] visum est: ergo gratia gratum faciens nihil facit ad hoc, quod in isto gratia fiat: ergo nec ad hoc, quod iste illi regnum aperiat.

4. Item, nihil refert ad hoc, quod aliquis cellarii claves gerat debite, utrum ipse bibat, sed sufficit, quod aliis administret: ergo a simili videtur, quod in hoc nullum praeiudicium generetur Ecclesiae, si quis habet claves caeli, licet[^8] ipse non habeat sensum gratiae et gustum.

5. Item, si non habet clavem nisi iustus; cum nemo nec de se nec de alio sciat, utrum sit iustus[^9], nemo scit, utrum solvat, an liget, aut utrum sit solutus, vel ligatus: ergo dubitatio maxima et perplexitas in Ecclesia Dei relinquitur; quod est contra bonam institutionem Ecclesiae, quae debet fundata esse in fundamento veritatis aeternae.

6. Item, si potestas clavis sequeretur sanctitatem; cum tota die fiat transmutatio in sanctitate, quia ille qui est minus sanctus, fit magis sanctus, et e converso; modo subditus fieret praelatus, modo praelatus subditus: ergo nulla stabilitas esset in Ecclesia; quod abhorret fides recta.

<!-- page 502 -->

> ### Conclusio.
>
> Malus sacerdos communicat cum bono in potestate clavium quoad ea quae sunt de necessitate, non autem quoad ea quae sunt de idoneitate.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de collatione clavis alicui quantum ad ea quae sunt de necessitate, vel quantum ad ea quae sunt de idoneitate. Si loquamur quantum ad ea quae sunt de necessitate; sic ad *esse* clavis sufficit donum Spiritus sancti secundum gratiam *gratis* datam; haec autem infallibiliter et secundum divinam institutionem datur omni suscipienti ordinis Sacramentum, sive sit bonus, sive sit malus.

Ratio autem huius est, quia donum gratiae *gratis* datae non repugnat iniquitati, quin simul stet cum ea, sicut patet in scientia et aliis donis[^10]. Et rursus, perversitas non repugnat utilitati illius doni. Sicut enim malus praedicator bene praedicat et frequenter fructificat — propter quod Dominus noluit prohibere eum qui in nomine eius eiiciebat daemonia, quamvis eum non sequeretur[^11], quia hoc erat ad utilitatem aliorum — sic, quia bonum illud gratiae *gratis* datae ordinatum est ad utilitatem communem, et quamvis non valeat accipienti, tamen valet aliis: ideo Dominus, qui in distributione Sacramentorum communem considerat utilitatem et suam institutionem non retractat, malis[^12] confert istam potentiam, qui ordinati sunt secundum Ecclesiae catholicae formam. Sic ergo quantum ad id quod est de necessitate clavis, sive quantum ad *esse*, sive quantum ad *exsecutionem*; cum nihil exigatur ad hoc nisi ordo et iurisdictio, et hoc dicit donum gratiae *gratis* datae; tam in bonis quam in malis est.

Si autem loquamur quantum ad ea quae spectant ad idoneitatem; cum ad debitum usum officii concurrat meritum, et auctoritas praelationis debeat esse cum sanctitate, maxime tale officium et talis auctoritas; competit, quod habeat caritatem. — Et hoc patet: quia officium illud est officium mediatoris et reconciliatoris; et cum auctoritas ista sit iudiciariae potestatis, et nullus sit bonus mediator, qui est inimicus; nullus sit bonus iudex in ea causa, in qua est reus: oportet, ipsum esse mundum et sanctum; alioquin, etsi sit minister, non tamen est idoneus vel dignus. — His visis, facile est respondere ad obiecta. Concedendae enim sunt rationes probantes, claves esse in malis.

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad auctoritates autem in oppositum, solvendum, quod loquuntur quantum ad idoneitatem, non quantum ad necessitatem. — Vel dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est in baptismo, quod fides et caritas Ecclesiae operatur in baptismo collato a malis, quia confertur in forma Ecclesiae; sic in proposito est intelligendum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de bono dispensatore, quod non dat indigno; potest responderi, quod Deus non dat ei propter se, sed propter communem utilitatem; et quia, quamvis malus non sit *dignus*, potest tamen esse *utilis*; ideo ei confert. — Vel dicendum, quod Deus hoc facit ad ostendendum abundantiam largitatis suae, qua solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de clave camerae; dicendum, quod si clavis talis esset naturae, quod nec aperiret nec aperire posset nisi amicis, secure posset talis clavis cuilibet dari; talis autem est clavis caeli, ut patet ex dictis in praecedentibus.

english:
### Question II. *Whether a wicked priest shares with a good one in the power of the keys, or whether it is in the good one alone.*

Secondly it is asked whether a wicked priest shares with a good one in the power of the keys, or whether it is in the good one alone. And that it is only in the good one seems to be the case.

1. In the giving or promising of the keys, which was made to Peter, Peter is first commended: *Blessed art thou, Simon*[^1] etc; and afterwards: *I say to thee* etc; therefore it seems that, if they were given to all in Peter, and were given to Peter by reason of his being faithful and of his good confession, they descend to those alone who are like Peter and his imitators. And in confirmation of this is adduced the saying of Augustine[^2], which is said upon that text *I will give to thee*: « As it was said to Judas: *The poor you will have always with you* etc, who bore the type of the wicked; so it was said to Peter: *I will give to thee the keys* etc, who bore the type of the good »: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in John the twentieth[^3], where these keys are first given, it is said: *Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven* etc: therefore if before the giving of the power he gave the Holy Spirit, those who do not have the Holy Spirit do not have the power of the keys; but the wicked do not have the Holy Spirit: therefore etc. And in confirmation of this is adduced the Gloss of Augustine in the same place[^4]: « The charity of the Church, which is poured out through the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those in whom it is, forgives sins »; but only the good have charity: therefore etc. — And to this end there are many authorities in the text.

3. Likewise, this seems to be so by reason: because a good distributor gives to no one who is wholly unworthy any power of distributing; but a sinner, existing in sin, is unworthy of so noble a power, namely of loosing and binding; this is plain, and God knows it and is himself the one who bestows this power: therefore either he badly gives his gifts, or such a one does not have the power.

4. Likewise, a king would be foolish who would commit the key of his chamber to his enemy: if therefore a sinner is an enemy of Christ; since Christ does nothing foolishly, he does not commit the key of his chamber to sinners. But this is the key of heaven: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. In Matthew the twenty-third[^5] the Lord says to the disciples: *The Scribes and Pharisees have sat upon the seat of Moses; whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do*; it is certain that the Lord is speaking of the wicked, as is clear there, and to them he says reverence and obedience are to be shown: therefore the Lord wills that good subjects be subject even to wicked prelates. If therefore the power of prelacy in the new testament consists in the power of the keys: therefore the Lord wills to share this power with the wicked.

2. Likewise, just as the key of binding and loosing is from God, so too the key of knowledge is from God; but the Lord gave the key of knowledge to the lawyers, who were wicked, and who also used it badly, as is said in Luke the eleventh[^6]: therefore nothing prevents this key from being given to the wicked.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because grace is not transfused from one man into another, as was seen in the preceding[^7]: therefore grace that makes pleasing does nothing toward this, that grace come to be in that one: therefore neither toward this, that this one open the kingdom to him.

4. Likewise, it makes no difference toward this, that someone bear the keys of the cellar duly, whether he himself drink, but it suffices that he administer to others: therefore by a likeness it seems that in this no prejudice is generated to the Church, if someone has the keys of heaven, although[^8] he himself does not have a sense of grace and a taste of it.

5. Likewise, if no one has the key except the just man; since no one knows either of himself or of another whether he is just[^9], no one knows whether he looses or binds, or whether he is loosed or bound: therefore the greatest doubt and perplexity is left in the Church of God; which is against the good institution of the Church, which ought to be founded upon the foundation of eternal truth.

6. Likewise, if the power of the key followed sanctity; since all day long there occurs a change in sanctity, because he who is less holy becomes more holy, and conversely; now the subject would become the prelate, now the prelate the subject: therefore there would be no stability in the Church; which right faith abhors.

> ### Conclusion.
>
> A wicked priest shares with a good one in the power of the keys as regards those things that are of necessity, but not as regards those things that are of fitness.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a way of speaking of the conferring of the key upon someone as regards those things that are of necessity, or as regards those things that are of fitness. If we speak as regards those things that are of necessity; thus for the *being* of the key the gift of the Holy Spirit according to grace *freely* given suffices; and this is given infallibly and according to divine institution to everyone receiving the Sacrament of orders, whether he be good or whether he be wicked.

And the reason for this is that the gift of grace *freely* given is not repugnant to iniquity, so as not to stand together with it, as is plain in knowledge and other gifts[^10]. And again, perversity is not repugnant to the usefulness of that gift. For just as a wicked preacher preaches well and frequently bears fruit — on account of which the Lord did not will to forbid the one who in his name was casting out demons, although he did not follow him[^11], because this was for the benefit of others — so, because that good of grace *freely* given is ordered toward the common benefit, and although it does not avail the receiver, nevertheless it avails others: therefore the Lord, who in the distribution of the Sacraments considers the common benefit and does not retract his own institution, confers this power on the wicked[^12] who are ordained according to the form of the catholic Church. Thus therefore as regards that which is of the necessity of the key, whether as regards its *being*, or as regards its *execution*; since nothing is required for this except order and jurisdiction, and this means the gift of grace *freely* given; it is in the wicked as much as in the good.

But if we speak as regards those things that pertain to fitness; since for the due use of the office merit concurs, and the authority of prelacy ought to be with sanctity, most of all such an office and such an authority; it is fitting that he have charity. — And this is clear: because that office is the office of a mediator and a reconciler; and since this authority is of judiciary power, and no one is a good mediator who is an enemy; no one is a good judge in that case in which he is the accused: it is necessary that he be clean and holy; otherwise, even if he be a minister, nevertheless he is not fit or worthy. — These things having been seen, it is easy to respond to the objections. For the arguments proving that the keys are in the wicked are to be conceded.

*To 1, 2.* As for the authorities to the contrary, it must be resolved that they speak as regards fitness, not as regards necessity. — Or it must be said that, just as it was said above concerning baptism, that the faith and charity of the Church operates in baptism conferred by the wicked, because it is conferred in the form of the Church; so in the present case it is to be understood.

*To 3.* As for that which is objected concerning the good dispenser, that he does not give to the unworthy; it can be answered that God does not give to him for his own sake, but for the common benefit; and because, although a wicked man is not *worthy*, nevertheless he can be *useful*; therefore he confers it on him. — Or it must be said that God does this to show the abundance of his liberality, by which he makes his sun to rise upon the good and the wicked.

*To 4.* As for that which is objected concerning the key of the chamber; it must be said that if the key were of such a nature that it could neither open nor be able to open except for friends, such a key could safely be given to anyone; but such is the key of heaven, as is plain from what was said in the preceding.

la: Matth. 16, 17. seqq.

en: Matthew 16:17 ff.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 50. n. 12, ubi exponens illud Ioan. 12, 8: *Pauperes enim semper habetis vobiscum* etc, ait: Iudae dictum est. Quare ergo non dixit: habebis, sed habebitis? Quia non unus est Iudas. Unus malus corpus malorum significat, quomodo Petrus corpus bonorum, immo corpus Ecclesiae, sed in bonis. Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae sacramentum, non ei diceret Dominus [Matth. 16, 19.]: *Tibi dabo claves* etc. Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 108. n. 1.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tract 50, n. 12, where, expounding that text of John 12:8, *For the poor you have always with you* etc, he says: It was said to Judas. Why then did he not say: thou wilt have, but you will have? Because Judas is not one. One wicked man signifies the body of the wicked, just as Peter signifies the body of the good, indeed the body of the Church, but in the good. For if in Peter there were not the sacrament of the Church, the Lord would not say to him [Matt. 16:19]: *I will give to thee the keys* etc. Cf. *Enarration on Psalm 108*, n. 1.

la: Vers. 22. seq.

en: Verse 22 f.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 121. n. 4: *Ecclesiae caritas, quae per Spiritum sanctum diffunditur in cordibus nostris, participum suorum peccata dimittit.* Cfr. supra lit. Magistri d. XVIII. c. 5, ubi haec sententia verbis Glossae ordinariae apud Strabum et Lyranum exhibetur. Respicitur hic Rom. 5, 5. — Inferius post *in quibus* plures codd. omittunt *est*, pro quo ed. 1 Ecclesia, Vat. etiam.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tract 121, n. 4: *The charity of the Church, which is poured out through the Holy Spirit in our hearts, forgives the sins of those who share in it.* Cf. above, the Master's text, d. XVIII, c. 5, where this sentence is set out in the words of the Glossa ordinaria in Strabus and Lyranus. Reference here is to Rom. 5:5. — Below, after *in whom*, several codices omit *is*, in place of which edition 1 reads Ecclesia, and so too the Vatican edition.

la: Vers. 2. seq. Vulgata voci *quaecumque* praemittit omnia ergo.

en: Verse 2 f. The Vulgate prefixes *all things therefore* to the word *whatsoever*.

la: Vers. 52: *Vae vobis legisperitis, quia tulistis clavem scientiae; ipsi non introistis et eos qui introibant prohibuistis.*

en: Verse 52: *Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and those who were entering you have hindered.*

la: Dist. 5. a. 2. q. 1, d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 4. Vide ibi notam adiectam. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. seq.

en: Distinction 5, a. 2, q. 1; d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, foundation 4. See the note added there. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2 f.

la: Codd. FGR et (cod. H mox habet pro habeat), cod. K (I a secunda manu) si.

en: Codices FGR have *et* (codex H presently has *habet* for *habeat*), codex K (I, by a second hand) *si*.

la: Eccle. 9, 1. Vide supra pag. 333, nota 4.

en: Ecclesiastes 9:1. See above, p. 333, note 4.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 13, 1. seqq.

en: Luke 9:49 f.

la: Plerique codd. repetunt *ideo* ante *malis*. — Cod. H supplet *homo*, edd. substituunt *ei, qui* pro *quod*. — Dist. 5. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Superius pro *solvendum* edd. *dissolvendas*, dici potest.

en: Most codices repeat *therefore* before *the wicked*. — Codex H supplies *man*, the editions substitute *to him, who* for *that*. — Distinction 5, a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 1 f. — Above, in place of *to be resolved* the editions have *to be dissolved*, it may be said. ---

latin_scholion:
> *Scholion pro Articulo I (quaest. I et II) cum* bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q1 *redditur.* — The scholion for Article I (covering both Question I and Question II) is rendered with the preceding chunk, bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q1; see there.

---

english_scholion:
> *The scholion for Article I (Questions I and II) is rendered with* bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q1. — The scholion for Article I (covering both Question I and Question II) is rendered with the preceding chunk, bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q1; see there.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 55685–55876) and reflowed column-by-column against the p.501–502 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p50{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative in the cascade-shattered two-column regions). Running heads verified: p.501 "DIST. XIX. ART. I. QUAEST. II." and p.502 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 501–502 → PDF 521–522).

**Page split.** QUAESTIO II opens in the lower left column of p.501 (after the Art I q1 reply + Scholion, which sit at the top of p.501). Fundamenta 1–4 and the start of the *Contra* fall on p.501; *Contra* args, the Conclusio, and the whole Respondeo with the replies *Ad 1–4* run on p.502 (R column continues onto the top of p.503, but the q2 reply *Ad 4* completes within p.502/early p.503 — the *Ad 4* sentence is completed at the top of p.503 ("ut patet ex dictis in praecedentibus"), which is the boundary just before ARTICULUS II). Footers: p.501 carries notes 1–8 of the printed page (rendered here as [^1]–[^8] for the q2 fundamenta plus the Art-I-q1 confirmation notes that physically share the page; only those whose body anchors fall in q2 are marked); p.502 carries notes 1–9 (rendered here as the Respondeo/reply notes [^9]–[^12], renumbered continuously).

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false. The Article I scholion is a single block covering both Quaestio I and Quaestio II; per project convention it is rendered with the first question's chunk (bon-sent-IV-d19-a1-q1). A one-line cross-reference note stands in the Scholion slot of both languages here.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** ARTICULUS II ("Quando dantur claves") begins at raw line 55877 / top of printed p.503. The reply *Ad 4* of this q2 finishes its sentence at the very top of p.503 ("cendum, quod Deus hoc facit … ut patet ex dictis in praecedentibus") before the ART. II header; that completing clause is included here so the q2 body is grammatically closed. The next chunk should open cleanly at "ARTICULUS II. Quando dantur claves."

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR + PDF bands agreed throughout; the only OCR garbles (`losi-facta`, `Beaius`, `nuUi`, `dimiltit`, `commitlit`, `Ilem`, marginal `Fundamenta`/`Distinctio`/`Conclusio`/`Ratio` labels) were unambiguous and silently corrected against the printed page.