title: Dist. 39, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 880 -->

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Advertendum est, quod iusiurandum tres habet comites: veritatem, iustitiam et iudicium.* Videtur enim, quod ibi sit superfluitas. Quicumque enim iurat cum iudicio discretionis, vere et iuste iurat: ergo ex quo ponitur ibi iudicium, superfluit veritas et iustitia. — Item, cum omnia opera nostra debeant fieri cum

<!-- page 881 -->

discretione et rectitudine et veritate, quaeritur: quare potius iuramentum dicitur habere tres comites quam aliud verbum nostrum[^1] et factum?

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: penes quid accipitur numerus istorum trium comitum?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iuramentum comparatur ad tria, videlicet ad *iurantem*, a quo procedit, ad *rem*, de qua fit, et ad *causam*, pro qua. Secundum comparationem ad eum, a quo egreditur, debetur sibi *iudicium;* secundum comparationem ad rem, de qua fit, debetur sibi *veritas*, ut sit adaequatio rei et sermonis[^2]. Secundum vero comparationem ad causam, pro qua fit, debetur sibi *iustitia*, ut pro iusta causa fiat. Et quoniam omne iuramentum habet istas tres comparationes, ideo omne rectum iuramentum habet istos tres comites. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod ubi est unum, videlicet iudicium, ibi sunt reliqua, ergo alia sunt superflua; dicendum, quod illa ratio non valet. Deficit enim talis modus loquendi in his quae se habent per *connexionem;* quia enim virtutes connexae sunt, si una habetur, habentur et omnes; et tamen non sequitur, quod si una habetur, quod ceterae superfluant[^3]. — Alibi etiam deficit, videlicet cum aliqua se habent per *additionem.* Posito enim posteriori, ponitur et prius, sicut posita rationali potentia in homine, ponitur sensibilis et vegetabilis[^4]; et tamen, ex quo rationalis habetur, non propter hoc aliae superfluunt. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est. Quoddam enim iuramentum fit *iuste*, quod tamen non fit *vere;* et aliquod fit *iuste* et *vere*, et tamen non *discrete*, quia sine praemeditatione. Et ideo ratio illa non valet.

Ad illud, quod quaeritur: quare magis iuramentum habet istos comites quam alius actus noster? dicendum, quod hoc est, quia iuramentum est in assertione nostri sermonis; sermo autem noster dubietatem habet, secundum quod dicitur Sapientiae nono[^5]: *Cogitationes mortalium timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae.* Ideo ad hoc, quod sermo noster per divinam Veritatem confirmetur directe et

<!-- page 882 -->

convenienter, indiget comitibus ipsum regentibus, ne inveniatur dissimilis Veritati invocatae[^6].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *magis tenetur qui iurat per Deum, quam qui iurat per creaturas, vel per Evangelium.* Et rationem huius assignat, quia tanto firmius[^7] est iuramentum, quanto sanctius est illud, per quod iuratur. **Sed contra:** iurans per creaturam non iurat nisi per Deum, quia non intendit invocare creaturam testem, sed Creatorem: si ergo idem est utrobique, per quod iurat[^8], ergo eadem est obligatio et uniformis: ergo unum non est maius altero. — Item, quanto solemnius est iuramentum, tanto transgrediens est infamior, et tanto obligatio maior; sed cum maiori solemnitate consuevit fieri iuramentum, quod fit per Evangelium, quam quod fit per Deum: ergo etc. — Item, maius est contemnere plura bona quam unum; sed qui iurat per creaturam, si peierat, contemnit Creatorem simul et creaturam; qui vero iurat per Deum et peierat contemnit alterum tantum[^9]: ergo iuramentum, quod fit per creaturam, est magis obligatorium quam iuramentum, quod fit per Deum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod responsio Magistri et confirmatio Chrysostomi[^10] regulariter vera est, quia, quanto sanctius est per quod iuratur, tanto iuramentum est magis obligatorium; et hoc dico *ceteris paribus*, ubi solemnitas observatur. Unde, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, magis obligatorium est iuramentum, quod fit per Deum[^11], quam quod fit per creaturam.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod iurando per creaturam iurat homo per Deum; dicendum, quod cum quis iurat per creaturam, intentio fertur ad Deum, sed hoc tantum *habitualiter*[^12]; cum vero quis iurat per Deum, non tantum fertur *habitualiter*, sed etiam *actualiter.* Et quia amplior est conversio *actualis* quam *habitualis*, hinc est, quod secundum ipsam maior attenditur obligatio, et maioris culpae est ipsa transgressio.

Ad illud, quod obiicitur de iuramento facto per Evangelium, quod est solemnius; responderi potest dupliciter: primo, quia non tantum fit iuramentum per Evangelia, sed per Evangelia Dei; ita quod non tantummodo conversio fit ad ipsum *habitualis* ratione sui effectus, sed etiam *actualis* in se et ad assumtam humanitatem et ad propalatam veritatem; et ideo tale iuramentum rationabiliter debet fieri cum maiori solemnitate et ampliorem inducit obligationem. — Alio modo potest dici, quod hoc accidit propter solemnitatem superadditam, quam omnes in forma illa observant.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus est contemnere duo quam unum; dicendum, quod creatura comparatione Creatoris nihil est, unde quasi nihil addit supra divinam excellentiam[^13], et per hoc nec contemptus eius super contemptum Dei. *Praeterea*, non adeo contemnitur Deus in creatura, sicut contemnitur in se ipso.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *iurare per Deum, hoc est adhibere testem Deum.* Si enim hoc verum est, tunc videtur, quod forma ista iurandi: *Deus mihi testis est*, et *iuro per Deum*, non sint diversae formae iurandi.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: cum aliquando iuremus per hanc praepositionem *per*, aliquando per hanc praepositionem *in*, secundum quod dicit Apostolus ad Romanos nono[^14]: *Veritatem dico in Christo Iesu et non mentior*, quae sit inter has differentia. — Item, quaeritur: cum in veteri Testamento iuraretur hoc modo: *Vivit Dominus, et hoc mihi faciat et hoc addat*[^15], in primitiva vero Ecclesia hoc modo: *Testis est mihi Deus*, et in tempore moderno iuretur per Deum; unde veniat ista formarum differentia secundum diversa tempora.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in forma iuramenti introducitur ipsa Veritas in testimonium. Et hoc potest esse multipliciter: aut in quantum tenet rationem *principiantis*[^16], et sic iuratur *per Deum*, ita quod *per* importat habitudinem principii; aut in quantum importat habitudinem *principiantis* et *cognoscentis*, et sic est ista forma: *Testis est mihi Deus*, sive *scit Deus*[^17], quod idem est; aut in quantum importat habitudinem *retribuentis* respectu bonorum, et sic iuratur: *Vivit Deus*, qui vitam aliis tribuit; aut in quantum importat habitudinem *retribuentis* respectu malorum, et sic iuratur hac forma: *Hoc faciat mihi Deus et hoc addat.* — Et quoniam ipsa Veritas nunc manifeste adducitur ad confirmationem veritatis[^18] tanquam omnis veritatis principium et exemplar; hinc est, quod in nova Lege dupliciter iuratur. Et quia tempore primitivae Ecclesiae Veritas nondum erat manifesta, sed indigebat maiori evidentia; hinc est, quod tenebatur tunc ista forma: *Testis est mihi Deus.* Quia vero in veteri Testamento consideratur[^19] divina Veritas ut vindicans et ulciscens, quia sub ratione severitatis et aequitatis; hinc est, quod duplicem formam in veteri Testamento servabant, scilicet *vivit Deus*, et *hoc faciat mihi Deus et hoc addat.* — Et ex hoc patet praedictarum differentiarum distinctio et sufficientia et usus earum secundum diversa tempora.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quae differentia importatur per hanc praepositionem *per*, et per hanc praepositionem *in?* dicendum, quod *per* magis dicit ipsam Veritatem sub ratione testificantis et principiantis, haec autem praepositio *in* importat habitudinem[^20] divinae Veritatis sub ratione testificantis et exemplantis. Unde secundum rem idem est iurare *in Deo* et *per Deum* et dicere: *Testis est mihi Deus*, licet sit differentia ex parte *modi dicendi*[^21].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sine dubitatione minus malum est per deos falsos iurare veraciter, quam per Deum verum fallaciter.* **Sed contra:** maius peccatum est idololatria quam periurium, sive verum, sive falsum est; idololatra[^22] in iurando committit idololatriam, quia idolum veneratur per ipsum iurando: ergo qui iurat verum per falsos deos magis peccat, quam qui iurat falsum per verum Deum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in iuramento illo, quo quis iurat[^23] per falsos deos, duo sunt, videlicet illud quod asseritur, et illud, per quod asseritur. Respiciendo illud quod asseritur, sic est minus malum, et sic loquitur Augustinus[^24], quia ex illa parte asseritur verum, et ex alia parte falsum. Respiciendo vero ad illud, per quod iuratur, maius malum est iurare verum per falsos deos, quam falsum per verum Deum; et secundum istam viam procedit obiectio[^25].

english:
<!-- page 880 -->

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says: *It must be noted that an oath has three companions: truth, justice, and judgment.* For it seems that there is a redundancy here. For whoever swears with the judgment of discretion swears truly and justly: therefore, given that judgment is set down there, truth and justice are superfluous. — Likewise, since all our works ought to be done with

<!-- page 881 -->

discretion and rectitude and truth, it is asked: why rather is an oath said to have three companions than any other word[^1] and deed of ours?

In connection with this it is asked: with respect to what is the number of these three companions taken?

**I respond:** It must be said that an oath is compared to three things, namely to the *one swearing*, from whom it proceeds, to the *thing* about which it is made, and to the *cause* for which it is made. According to its comparison to him from whom it issues, *judgment* is owed to it; according to its comparison to the thing about which it is made, *truth* is owed to it, that there may be a conformity of the thing and the speech[^2]. But according to its comparison to the cause for which it is made, *justice* is owed to it, that it may be made for a just cause. And since every oath has these three comparisons, therefore every right oath has these three companions. — And by this is made plain the answer to that which is asked last.

But to that which is objected, that where one is present, namely judgment, there are the rest, and therefore the others are superfluous; it must be said that that reasoning is invalid. For such a manner of speaking fails in things that are related by *connection;* for since the virtues are connected, if one is had, all are had; and yet it does not follow that, if one is had, the rest are superfluous[^3]. — In another case too it fails, namely when some things are related by *addition.* For when the posterior is posited, the prior is posited too, just as, when the rational power is posited in man, the sensible and the vegetable are posited[^4]; and yet, from the fact that the rational is had, the others are not on that account superfluous. So too it must be understood in the matter at hand. For a certain oath is made *justly*, which nevertheless is not made *truly;* and another is made *justly* and *truly*, and yet not *discreetly*, because without premeditation. And therefore that reasoning is invalid.

To that which is asked: why does an oath rather have these companions than any other act of ours? it must be said that this is because an oath is in the assertion of our speech; but our speech has uncertainty, according to what is said in Wisdom 9[^5]: *The thoughts of mortals are fearful, and our foresight is uncertain.* Therefore, in order that our speech may be confirmed by the divine Truth directly and

<!-- page 882 -->

fittingly, it needs companions governing it, lest it be found unlike the Truth invoked[^6].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *he is more bound who swears by God than he who swears by creatures, or by the Gospel.* And he assigns the reason for this, that an oath is the firmer[^7] in proportion as that by which one swears is the holier. **On the contrary:** one swearing by a creature swears only by God, since he does not intend to invoke the creature as witness, but the Creator: if therefore that by which one swears is the same in both cases[^8], then the obligation is the same and uniform: therefore one is not greater than the other. — Likewise, the more solemn an oath is, the more infamous is the transgressor, and the greater the obligation; but an oath which is made by the Gospel is wont to be made with greater solemnity than one which is made by God: therefore etc. — Likewise, it is greater to despise many goods than one; but he who swears by a creature, if he perjures himself, despises the Creator and the creature together; whereas he who swears by God and perjures himself despises one only[^9]: therefore an oath which is made by a creature is more obligatory than an oath which is made by God.

**I respond:** It must be said that the answer of the Master and the confirmation of Chrysostom[^10] is generally true, because the holier that is by which one swears, the more obligatory is the oath; and I say this *all else being equal*, where solemnity is observed. Hence, as Chrysostom says, more obligatory is the oath which is made by God[^11] than that which is made by a creature.

But to that which is objected, that in swearing by a creature a man swears by God; it must be said that when one swears by a creature, the intention is borne to God, but only *habitually*[^12]; whereas when one swears by God, it is borne not only *habitually*, but also *actually.* And since the *actual* turning is fuller than the *habitual*, hence it is that according to it a greater obligation is reckoned, and the transgression itself is of greater fault.

To that which is objected concerning the oath made by the Gospel, which is more solemn; it can be answered in two ways: first, because an oath is made not only by the Gospels, but by the Gospels of God; so that not only is a *habitual* turning made to him by reason of its effect, but also an *actual* one in itself and toward the assumed humanity and toward the manifested truth; and therefore such an oath ought reasonably to be made with greater solemnity and induces a fuller obligation. — In another way it can be said that this happens on account of the superadded solemnity which all observe in that form.

To that which is objected, that it is greater to despise two than one; it must be said that a creature in comparison with the Creator is nothing, whence it adds, as it were, nothing above the divine excellence[^13], and through this neither does contempt of it exceed contempt of God. *Furthermore*, God is not despised in a creature so much as he is despised in himself.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *to swear by God is to call God to witness.* For if this is true, then it seems that this form of swearing: *God is my witness*, and *I swear by God*, are not different forms of swearing.

In connection with this it is asked: since we sometimes swear by this preposition *by*, sometimes by this preposition *in*, according to what the Apostle says to the Romans 9[^14]: *I speak the truth in Christ Jesus and I do not lie*, what is the difference between these. — Likewise, it is asked: since in the Old Testament one swore in this manner: *The Lord lives, and may he do this to me and add this*[^15], but in the primitive Church in this manner: *God is my witness*, and in the present time one swears by God; whence comes this difference of forms according to the diverse times.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the form of an oath the very Truth is introduced into testimony. And this can be in many ways: either insofar as it holds the character of *originating principle*[^16], and thus one swears *by God*, so that *by* imports the relation of a principle; or insofar as it imports the relation of *originating principle* and of *knower*, and thus is that form: *God is my witness*, or *God knows*[^17], which is the same; or insofar as it imports the relation of *rewarder* with respect to goods, and thus one swears: *God lives*, who gives life to others; or insofar as it imports the relation of *rewarder* with respect to evils, and thus one swears with this form: *May God do this to me and add this.* — And since the very Truth is now manifestly brought forward for the confirmation of truth[^18] as the principle and exemplar of all truth; hence it is that in the new Law one swears in two ways. And because in the time of the primitive Church the Truth was not yet manifest, but needed greater evidence; hence it is that there was then held that form: *God is my witness.* But because in the Old Testament the divine Truth is considered[^19] as avenging and punishing, since under the aspect of severity and equity; hence it is that they kept a twofold form in the Old Testament, namely *God lives*, and *may God do this to me and add this.* — And from this is plain the distinction of the aforesaid differences and their sufficiency and their use according to the diverse times.

To that which is asked: what difference is imported by this preposition *by*, and by this preposition *in?* it must be said that *by* rather expresses the very Truth under the aspect of one testifying and originating, but this preposition *in* imports the relation[^20] of the divine Truth under the aspect of one testifying and exemplifying. Hence in reality it is the same to swear *in God* and *by God* and to say: *God is my witness*, although there is a difference on the part of the *manner of speaking*[^21].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Without doubt it is a lesser evil to swear truthfully by false gods than to swear deceitfully by the true God.* **On the contrary:** idolatry is a greater sin than perjury, whether it be true or false; the idolater[^22] in swearing commits idolatry, since he venerates the idol by the very act of swearing by it: therefore he who swears truly by false gods sins more than he who swears falsely by the true God.

**I respond:** It must be said that in that oath by which someone swears[^23] by false gods there are two things, namely that which is asserted, and that by which it is asserted. Regarding that which is asserted, in this way it is a lesser evil, and thus Augustine speaks[^24], because on that side the truth is asserted, and on the other side falsehood. But regarding that by which one swears, it is a greater evil to swear truly by false gods than falsely by the true God; and along this path the objection proceeds[^25].

la: Edd. omittunt *nostrum*, pro quo non pauci codd. *verum.* Mox pro *et factum* codd. A K N V *et falsum.* Inferius pro *accipitur* Vat. cum pauci codd. *accipiatur.*

en: The editions omit *of ours*, for which not a few codices read *true.* Shortly, for *and deed* codices A K N V read *and falsehood.* Below, for *is taken* the Vatican edition with a few codices reads *let it be taken.*

la: Cfr. dist. praeced. q. I. in corp. — Mox pro *pro qua* edd. et non pauci codd. *de qua.*

en: Cf. the preceding distinction, q. I, in the body. — Shortly, for *for which* the editions and not a few codices read *about which.*

la: Vide supra d. 36. q. I. seqq.

en: See above, d. 36, q. I and following.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 31. (c. 3.): *Similiter autem se habent ei quod est de figuris, et quae circa animam sunt. Semper enim in eo quod est consequenter, est potentia quod prius est, et in figuris et in animatis, ut in quadrato quidem triangulus est, in sensitivo autem vegetativum etc.* — Superius pro *Alibi* codd. W Z *Aliter*, et pro *additionem* codd. K aa *adiectionem*, codd. G H I T V *adductionem.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 31 (c. 3): "It holds similarly with that which pertains to figures and the things that are about the soul. For always in that which comes consequently there is potentially that which is prior, both in figures and in living things, as in the square there is the triangle, and in the sensitive the vegetative, etc." — Above, for *In another case* codices W Z read *Otherwise*, and for *addition* codices K aa read *adjection*, codices G H I T V *adduction.*

la: Vers. 11. — Aliquanto superius post *istos* codd. \ N subiungunt *tres.* Inferius pro *divinam Veritatem*, quod exhibent codd. X Y bb, codd. \ \\ *Dei misericordiam et veritatem*, alii codd. et edd. *divinam voluntatem.*

en: Verse 11. — Somewhat above, after *these* codices \ N subjoin *three.* Below, for *the divine Truth*, which codices X Y bb give, codices \ \\ read *the mercy and truth of God*, other codices and editions *the divine will.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 31. m. 1. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3.

en: Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 31, m. 1, a. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 2; St. Thomas, here a. 2, little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 3.

la: Edd. *minus*, quae etiam mox omittunt *quanto... iuratur.* — Ratio Magistri invenitur hic c. 8. in fine.

en: The editions read *less*, which also shortly omit *in proportion as ... one swears.* — The Master's reasoning is found here, c. 8, at the end.

la: Respicitur illud Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2: *Ubi unum propter alterum, utrobique tantum unum.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Inferius edd. obiectionem seq. cum hac coniungentes substituunt *et* pro *Item.*

en: Reference is to that of Aristotle, *Topics* III, c. 2: "Where one thing is on account of another, in both cases there is only one." Cf. vol. II, p. 639, note 2. — Below, the editions, joining the following objection with this one, substitute *and* for *Likewise.*

la: Cfr. Gratian., C. *Moveat te*, c. 22. q. I. § 3: *Dupliciter enim reus est qui per creaturas iurat mendaciter* etc.

en: Cf. Gratian, C. *Moveat te*, c. 22, q. I, § 3: "For he who swears by creatures deceitfully is guilty in two ways," etc.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6.

la: Cod. F *Creatorem*, Vat., verbis male transpositis, *creaturam*, et mox *per Deum* pro *per creaturam.*

en: Codex F reads *the Creator*, the Vatican edition, with the words wrongly transposed, *the creature*, and shortly *by God* for *by a creature.*

la: Edd. hic et in seqq. *habitudinaliter.*

en: The editions here and in what follows read *relationally.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. dub. 3. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 31. m. 3. a. 3. § 2; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 9, dub. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 31, m. 3, a. 3, § 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 2.

la: Vers. I.

en: Verse I.

la: Iud. 8, 19; I. Reg. 14, 44. et III. 2, 23, ubi Vulgata bis *haec* pro *hoc.* Seq. textus est Rom. 1, 9.

en: Judges 8:19; 1 Kings 14:44 and 3 Kings 2:23, where the Vulgate twice reads *these* for *this.* The following text is Rom. 1:9.

la: Ita codd. A K X Z bb, alii cum edd. *praecipientis*, sed contra subnexa. Idem recurrit paulo inferius, dum circa finem dubii fere omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2 exhibent *principiantis.*

en: So codices A K X Z bb; others with the editions read *of one commanding*, but contrary to what follows. The same recurs a little below, when toward the end of the doubt nearly all codices and editions 1, 2 give *of one originating.*

la: Epist. II. Cor. 12, 2. et 3. Cfr. ibid. 11, 31.

en: Epistle 2 Cor. 12:2 and 3. Cf. ibid. 11:31.

la: Edd. omittunt *veritatis.*

en: The editions omit *of truth.*

la: Edd. *considerabatur.* Inferius pro *vivit Deus* cod. A *vivit Dominus.*

en: The editions read *was considered.* Below, for *God lives* codex A reads *the Lord lives.*

la: Edd. *habitum.* Paulo superius pro *importatur* cod. X *importetur.*

en: The editions read *the having.* A little above, for *is imported* codex X reads *let it be imported.*

la: Vide de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 31. m. 3. a. I. seqq.; S. Thom., hic a. I; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. I.

en: See on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 31, m. 3, a. I and following; St. Thomas, here a. I; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. I.

la: Codd. D O bb subnectunt *autem*, edd. praemittunt *et*, quae etiam paulo inferius pro *ergo qui* substituunt *ergo si.*

en: Codices D O bb subjoin *however*, the editions prefix *and*, which also a little below substitute *therefore if* for *therefore he who.*

la: Cod. A *iurat verum.*

en: Codex A reads *swears truly.*

la: In ipso textu huius dubii.

en: In the very text of this doubt.

la: Codd., excepto cod. A, et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *obiectio*, pro quo Vat. *ratio.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 31. m. 3. a. 2. § 3; B. Albert., hic a. 6. ad 3; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The codices, except codex A, and editions 1, 2 omit *the objection*, for which the Vatican edition reads *the reason.* — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 31, m. 3, a. 2, § 3; Bl. Albert, here a. 6, ad 3; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 61080–61233; printed pp. 880–882 (PDF pp. 902–904, offset pdf = printed + 22). Bound forward at `DISTINCTIO XL.` (raw 61234, top of p.883). The chunk holds exactly four dubia (Dub. I–IV); Dub. V/VI in the raw at 61254+ belong to d.40 and are excluded.
- **Page span correction:** the dispatch brief named pp.880–881, but the dubia in fact run 880→882. The dubia OPEN at the bottom of p.880 (beneath the preceding a3-q3 tail, which closes at "…debet in hoc casu obedire⁹"); the Dub. I statement carries no footnote markers on p.880. Dub. I resolution + Dub. II are on p.881; Dub. II tail + Dub. III + Dub. IV are on p.882. d.40 begins at the top of p.883.
- **Footer-split map (per-page restart, renumbered continuous):**
  - **p.880** — footers 1–9 belong wholly to the preceding chunk (a3-q3); the Dub. I opener here bears no markers. NONE of p.880's footers are dubia apparatus.
  - **p.881** — Left-column footers 1–5, Right-column footers 6–12 → continuous [^1]–[^12].
  - **p.882** — Left-column footers 1–7, Right-column footers 8–13 → continuous [^13]–[^25].
  - Ground-truthed footer-opener count = 25 (12 + 13), vs. the dispatch heuristic estimate of ~23.
- **Footer hand-offs:** picked up NOTHING from a3-q3 (it closed at its own p.880 n.9 and forwarded nothing); forwards NOTHING — d.40 starts a fresh footer band at p.883.
- **`has_scholion: false`** — verified body-only. The only "scholion" string in the range is the apparatus redirect *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.* (a3-q3's p.880 footer n.9, not part of this chunk).
- **Apparatus count = 25, marker pairing complete.** p.881 footers 1–12 → [^1]–[^12]; p.882 footers 1–13 → [^13]–[^25]. Every printed footer opener was ground-truthed on the 450 dpi bands; no OCR opener was collapsed. The two trailing notes on p.882 ([^24] *In ipso textu huius dubii*, [^25] the *obiectio/ratio* variant + cross-references) are distinct printed entries.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All footers resolved cleanly against the 450 dpi PDF bands; no illegible spots remain in this chunk.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 40

title_alt: De duobus praeceptis duplicem concupiscentiam prohibentibus, ac de Legis et Evangelii distantia

title_alt: On the two precepts forbidding a twofold concupiscence, and on the difference between the Law and the Gospel

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
### DISTINCTIO XL.

### Cap. I. *Quare Lex dicitur comprimere manum, non animum.*

Dubia 1. 2. Sextum praeceptum est[^1]: *Non desiderabis uxorem proximi tui.* — Septimum est: *Non concupisces domum proximi tui, non servum, non ancillam* etc. — Difficultas. Sed videtur praeceptum de non concupiscendis rebus proximi unum cum eo esse, quo dicitur: *Non furaberis*; et praeceptum de non concupiscenda uxore unum esse cum eo quo dicitur: *Non moechaberis*. «Poterat enim praeceptum non furandi in illa generalitate intelligi, ubi de non concupiscenda re proximi praecipitur; et in eo quod dictum est: *Non moechaberis*, poterat illud intelligi: *Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui*. Solvitur. Sed in illis duobus praeceptis non moechandi et non furandi ipsa opera notata sunt et prohibita, in his vero extremis ipsa concupiscentia[^2]». Multum ergo differunt illa ab istis. Unde illi praecepto non moechandi fit superadditio in Evangelio, ubi omnis concupiscentia moechandi prohibetur. — De differentia Legis et Evangelii. Sed cum hic prohibetur concupiscentia alienae uxoris et alienae rei; quare dicitur Lex comprimere manum et non animum, Evangelium vero et manum et animum? Illud de Lege dicitur secundum *caerimonialia*, non secundum *moralia*; vel quia in Lege non est generalis prohibitio omnis mortiferae concupiscentiae, ut in Evangelio.

### Cap. II. *Quid sit littera occidens.*

Si vero quaeritur, quam dicat Apostolus[^3] litteram occidentem; «ea certe est Decalogus, qui non dicitur littera occidens, eo quod mala sit Lex, sed quia, prohibens peccatum, auget concupiscentiam et addit praevaricationem, nisi liberet gratia», quae gratia non sic abundabat in Lege, ut in Evangelio; vel secundum eorum carnalem intelligentiam. Lex ergo bona est, et tamen occidit sine gratia, cum sit *virtus peccati*[^4]; quae iubet quod sine gratia impleri non potest. Gratia autem deerat, et ideo littera occidens erat.

### Cap. III. *De Legis et Evangelii distantia.*

Distat autem Evangelii littera a Legis littera; quia diversa sunt *promissa*: ibi terrena, hic caelestia promittit[^5]; diversa etiam *Sacramenta*, quia illa tantum significabant, haec conferunt gratiam; *praecepta* etiam diversa quantum ad *caerimonialia*; nam quantum ad *moralia* sunt eadem, sed plenius in Evangelio continentur[^6]. — Epilogus. Audistis decem chordas Psalterii utrique sexui impositas, quae caritate tangendae sunt, ut vitiorum ferae occidantur[^7].

EXPLICIT LIBER TERTIUS SENTENTIARUM.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XL.

### Chap. I. *Why the Law is said to compress the hand, not the mind.*

Doubts 1, 2. The sixth precept is[^1]: *Thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's wife.* — The seventh is: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor servant, nor handmaid,* etc. — Difficulty. But it seems that the precept about not coveting the goods of one's neighbor is one with that in which it is said: *Thou shalt not steal*; and that the precept about not coveting [another's] wife is one with that in which it is said: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*. «For the precept of not stealing could be understood in that generality where it is enjoined that one not covet a neighbor's thing; and in that which was said, *Thou shalt not commit adultery*, that could be understood: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife*. It is resolved. But in those two precepts of not committing adultery and not stealing, the very deeds are marked and forbidden, whereas in these last two it is the concupiscence itself[^2]». Therefore those differ much from these. Hence to that precept of not committing adultery there is made an addition in the Gospel, where all concupiscence of committing adultery is forbidden. — On the difference between the Law and the Gospel. But since here the concupiscence of another's wife and of another's thing is forbidden, why is the Law said to compress the hand and not the mind, but the Gospel both the hand and the mind? That is said of the Law according to the *ceremonial* precepts, not according to the *moral* ones; or because in the Law there is not a general prohibition of every deadly concupiscence, as there is in the Gospel.

### Chap. II. *What the letter that kills is.*

But if it is asked what letter the Apostle[^3] calls the one that kills: «it is certainly the Decalogue, which is not called the killing letter on the ground that the Law is evil, but because, forbidding sin, it increases concupiscence and adds transgression, unless grace sets free», which grace did not so abound in the Law as in the Gospel; or [it is so called] according to their carnal understanding. The Law therefore is good, and yet it kills without grace, since it is *the strength of sin*[^4]; for it commands what without grace cannot be fulfilled. But grace was lacking, and so it was a letter that kills.

### Chap. III. *On the difference between the Law and the Gospel.*

But the letter of the Gospel differs from the letter of the Law; for the *promises* are diverse: there it promises earthly things, here heavenly[^5]; the *Sacraments* also are diverse, because those only signified, these confer grace; the *precepts* too are diverse as regards the *ceremonial* ones; for as regards the *moral* ones they are the same, but are more fully contained in the Gospel[^6]. — Epilogue. You have heard of the ten strings of the Psaltery laid upon both sexes, which are to be touched with charity, that the beasts of the vices may be slain[^7].

HERE ENDS THE THIRD BOOK OF THE SENTENCES.

---

la: Cfr. August., II. Quaestion. in Pentateuch, q. 71. n. a. Scripturae locus est Deuter. 5, 21.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Questions on the Pentateuch*, Book II, q. 71, n. a. The scriptural passage is Deuteronomy 5:21.

la: August., loc. cit. De seqq. cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 6. — Pro *hic prohibetur* edd., exceptis 1, 8, *hic prohibentur*.

en: Augustine, in the place cited. On what follows cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum*, tract 4, c. 6. — For *hic prohibetur* the editions, except 1 and 8, [read] *hic prohibentur*.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 3, 6. — Locus seq. est August., de Spiritu et lit. c. 4. n. 6; II. contra Adversar. Legis et Proph. c. 7. n. 25; et Glossa loc. cit. — Pro *abundabat* multae edd. et cod. B *abundat*; deinde codd. A C D E et edd. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 omittunt verba *vel secundum… intelligentiam*.

en: Second Epistle to the Corinthians 3:6. — The following passage is from Augustine, *On the Spirit and the Letter*, c. 4, n. 6; *Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets*, Book II, c. 7, n. 25; and the Gloss at the place cited. — For *abundabat* many editions and codex B [read] *abundat*; further, codices A C D E and editions 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 omit the words *vel secundum… intelligentiam*.

la: Epist. I. ad Cor. 15, 56: *Virtus peccati Lex.*

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:56: *The strength of sin is the Law.*

la: Solae edd., exceptis 1, 8, *promittuntur.*

en: Only the editions, except 1 and 8, [read] *promittuntur* [they are promised].

la: Quae praecedunt habet August., Enarrat. in Ps. 73. n. 2.

en: What precedes is found in Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm 73*, n. 2.

la: August., Serm. 9. (alias 96. de Temp.) c. 9. n. 13.

en: Augustine, *Sermon 9* (otherwise 96, *On the Season*), c. 9, n. 13.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF of printed p.883 (Vol III PDF-priority inversion); the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 61234–61302) is heavily two-column-bled and was used only to confirm footnote-marker spacing. The genuine d.40 littera begins at *Cap. I. … Sextum praeceptum est* — the `Dub. V.` / `Dub. VI.` fragments printed in the top-left column of p.883 are a column-bleed tail of the d.39 dubia and were excluded.
- **Page span.** The entire littera (DISTINCTIO XL head, Cap. I–III, EXPLICIT) and all 7 of its footnotes print on printed page **883** (left and right columns). Printed page **884** holds only the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XL` (the divisio's own band) and so contributes no littera body or apparatus; it is listed in `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` for boundary completeness only. Running head "883" sits just above the DISTINCTIO XL head; footer "884 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III" sits just above the COMMENTARIUS.
- **Apparatus split.** All 7 littera footnotes come from the single `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footer band on p.883, numbered continuously 1–7 (left footer: nn. 1–2; right footer: nn. 3–7). No per-page restart applies — the littera occupies only one printed page. Continuous numbering confirmed; markers pair N/N across Latin body, English body, and apparatus defs.
- **Footer hand-offs.** d.40 opens fresh — the closing d.39-dubia chunk forwarded nothing to this littera (the Dub.V/VI column-bleed at p.883 top-left is part of d.39's own apparatus). This littera forwards nothing to the d.40 divisio: the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XL` at p.884 starts the divisio's own page band.
- **[?] flags.** None. Pages 883–884 are 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. 40, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XL — De distinctione duorum praeceptorum, in quibus prohibetur duplex concupiscentia

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XL — On the distinction of the two precepts, in which a twofold concupiscence is forbidden

source_text:
<!-- page 884 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XL.
### *De distinctione duorum praeceptorum, in quibus prohibetur duplex concupiscentia, in comparatione ad Legis et Evangelii differentiam.*

*Sextum praeceptum est etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister de distinctione mandatorum Decalogi quantum ad praecepta primae tabulae et quantum ad praecepta secundae, quae attenduntur circa opera exteriora, et de obliquitatibus, quae habent cum eis oppositionem et repugnantiam. In hac vero tertia parte determinat de distinctione duorum praeceptorum, in quibus prohibet Dominus duplicem concupiscentiam, in comparatione ad Legis et Evangelii differentiam. Dividitur autem ista pars in tres particulas. In prima ponit praedictorum mandatorum distinctionem. In secunda vero, quia in praedictis mandatis Lex vetus videtur convenire cum nova, inquirit Legis et Evangelii differentiam, ibi: *Sed cum hic prohibeatur concupiscentia alienae uxoris etc.* In tertia vero breviter decem mandata praedeterminata epilogat, ibi: *Audistis decem psalterii chordas etc.* Partium autem subdivisio et sententia satis manifesta est in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de differentia novae Legis et veteris, circa quam tria quaeruntur secundum triplicem differentiam, quae consuevit assignari.

*Primo* quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem.

*Secundo* de differentia, quae assignatur penes effectum.

*Tertio* vero de differentia, quae assignatur penes exercitium sive onus annexum.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.
### *De differentia novae Legis et veteris.*

english:
<!-- page 884 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XL.
### *On the distinction of the two precepts, in which a twofold concupiscence is forbidden, in comparison to the difference between the Law and the Gospel.*

*The sixth precept is, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master determined concerning the distinction of the commandments of the Decalogue as to the precepts of the first table and as to the precepts of the second, which regard outward works, and concerning the perversities which have opposition and repugnance to them. But in this third part he determines concerning the distinction of the two precepts, in which the Lord forbids a twofold concupiscence, in comparison to the difference between the Law and the Gospel. Now this part is divided into three particulars. In the first he sets forth the distinction of the aforesaid commandments. But in the second, because in the aforesaid commandments the old Law seems to agree with the new, he inquires into the difference between the Law and the Gospel, there: *But since here the concupiscence of another's wife is forbidden, etc.* But in the third he briefly recapitulates the ten commandments already determined, there: *You have heard the ten strings of the psaltery, etc.* Now the subdivision and meaning of the parts is sufficiently manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part there falls here a question concerning the difference between the new Law and the old, about which three things are asked according to the threefold difference which is wont to be assigned.

*First*, it is asked concerning the difference which is assigned with respect to the root.

*Second*, concerning the difference which is assigned with respect to the effect.

*Third*, concerning the difference which is assigned with respect to the exercise, or the burden attached.

### SOLE ARTICLE.
### *On the difference between the new Law and the old.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed **p.884** (PDF 906; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` 61303–61335). Running head `884 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` confirmed at raw 61299, immediately above the COMMENTARIUS header (trust running-head TEXT over OCR'd digits). Vol III two-column; PDF-priority inversion applies, but the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO/TRACTATIO band is clean and the PDF read confirmed the OCR 1:1 after silent OCR-garble correction (`raan-/mandatorum` → *mandatorum*; `alten-duntur` → *attenduntur*; `obliquitalibus` → *obliquitatibus*; `delerminat` → *determinat*; `prohibel` → *prohibet*; `concupiscentiarn` → *concupiscentiam*; `Parlium` → *Partium*; `aulem` → *autem*; `differenlia/differentiam` normalized; `assignalur/assigna-tur` → *assignatur*).

**ARTICULUS UNICUS folds into the divisio.** Per the locked Vol III convention (no standalone `aN-divisio` chunk for a single-article distinction), the divisio chunk carries the COMMENTARIUS, the DIVISIO TEXTUS, the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the listing of the 3 questions), and the **ARTICULUS UNICUS** header *De differentia novae Legis et veteris* (raw 61331–61333). The chunk is **bounded forward** at `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 61336, title *De differentia utriusque Legis penes radicem*) — that QUAESTIO I header/title and its body (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem…*, raw 61338) are **a1-q1**, NOT part of this chunk.

**Page span.** The divisio sits wholly on **p.884** (PDF 906): it opens at the head of p.884's lower text (the COMMENTARIUS header below the d40-littera's NOTAE band, beneath running head `884 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`) and closes with the ARTICULUS UNICUS header. The QUAESTIO I body begins on the same page (p.884) but is the next chunk; the running head `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I.` (raw 61415, OCR-mangled "883") sits within a1-q1's body where it runs onto p.885. The divisio itself does not run onto p.885.

**Apparatus = none.** `has_apparatus: false`. Walking the raw footers page by page: the footer block at raw 61289–61298 is the **d40-littera's** *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* band (Cfr. Augusl. II. Quaesllon. in Pentateuch q. 71 … Hugo de S. Vict. … through n.7 Aug., Serm. 9 de Temp.), which closed the littera and forwarded nothing to the COMMENTARIUS. The COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO/TRACTATIO/ARTICULUS-UNICUS band carries **no footnote markers in its body** (verified against the L-0/L-1/R-0/R-1 column bands — no superscripts anywhere in the divisio text). The footnotes printed lower on p.884 (the L-2/R-2 footer band: nn.1 *Codd. R W Y aa subnectunt et interiora*; 2 *Contra Adimant. c. 17. n. 2…*; 3 *Vers. 15*; 4 *Libr. XIV. de Civ. Dei c. 7. n. 2…*; 5 *Cfr. supra pag. 555…*; 6 *Cod. U sit.*) all key to the **QUAESTIO I body** markers (*ad invicem¹*, *Augustinus²*, *octavo³*, *Augustinus⁴*, *spes⁵*, *essetc⁶*) and therefore belong to **a1-q1**.

**Footer hand-off.** Picked up NOTHING from d40-littera (its *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* band closed above the COMMENTARIUS and forwarded nothing). **FORWARD the entire p.884 footer band (nn.1–6) to a1-q1** — those notes key to the QUAESTIO I body markers and open a1-q1's own per-page apparatus sequence. d40-divisio holds no footer notes of its own.

**`has_scholion: false`** — no SCHOLION header in the divisio range (grep-verified raw 61303–61335; no SCHOLI/SOHOLI/SCHOLIOK variant).

**No `[?]` flags** — p.884 fully legible at 450 dpi.

---

### ⭐ VERBATIM TRACTATIO QUESTION FRAMING (for a1-q* alignment checks)

d.40 is the **LAST distinction of Book III** and has a **single-article (ARTICULUS UNICUS)** frame. The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM states: *"Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de differentia novae Legis et veteris, circa quam tria quaeruntur secundum triplicem differentiam, quae consuevit assignari."* → **THREE questions** under the sole article (*De differentia novae Legis et veteris*):

> 1. *Primo quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem.* → **a1-q1 (NEXT)** (`QUAESTIO I.` raw 61336, title *De differentia utriusque Legis penes radicem*; body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem…* raw 61338)
> 2. *Secundo de differentia, quae assignatur penes effectum.* → **a1-q2**
> 3. *Tertio vero de differentia, quae assignatur penes exercitium sive onus annexum.* → **a1-q3**

**Resolved d.40 slate:** littera(✅) · divisio(✅ this) · a1-q1 · a1-q2 · a1-q3 · dubia.


title: Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 884 -->

### Quaestio I. *De differentia utriusque Legis penes radicem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem. Assignatur autem haec differentia penes radicem secundum Augustinum, quod Lex vetus radicabatur in timore, et Lex nova in amore. Unde Augustinus[^2] dicit, quod «brevis est differentia Legis et Evangelii: timor et amor». Et cum ex multis locis Scripturae possit ista differentia trahi, maxime accipitur ex Epistola ad Romanos octavo[^3], ubi dicit Apostolus: *Non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed spiritum adoptionis.*

Sed contra hoc obiicitur multipliciter:

1. Primo contra distinctionem ipsarum radicum. «Omnis enim timor, sicut dicit Augustinus[^4], ex amore procedit»: ergo si amor est radix timoris, unum ad alterum habet reduci: ergo non habent ad invicem distingui[^1].

2. Item, cum sint aliae affectiones animae, videlicet gaudium et dolor et spes[^5]; videtur, quod si penes has affectiones duplex Lex distinguitur, quod pari ratione penes alias distingui deberet: ergo videtur, quod si penes alias non distinguitur, nec penes istas.

3. Item, si istae duae Leges distinguuntur penes istas duas radices; cum lex naturae sit ab istis duabus distincta, videtur, quod necessaria esset[^6] tertia radix praeter istas duas. Aut si lex naturae non habet diversam radicem observantiae a Lege

<!-- page 885 -->

Moysi, videtur, quod nec penes hoc differat Lex Moysi a Lege Evangelii.

4. Item, Deuteronomii sexto[^7] dicitur: *Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota mente tua* etc.; et ad Philippenses secundo dicitur in Lege nova: *Cum metu et tremore salutem vestram operamini.* Si ergo amor praecipitur in veteri, et timor in Lege nova; videtur, quod secundum hoc non attendatur istarum Legum differentia.

5. Item, in utraque Lege fiunt promissiones et comminationes; sed promissiones attrahunt ad amorem, comminationes vero incutiunt[^8] timorem: igitur timor et amor conveniunt utrique: ergo penes haec non distinguuntur ab invicem.

6. Item, graviores comminationes fiunt in Lege nova quam in Lege veteri; quia ibi puniebatur homo poena temporali, hic autem comminatur Deus poenam aeternam[^9]: si ergo maior comminatio est inductiva maioris timoris, videtur, quod timor magis deberet Legi novae quam veteri appropriari: videtur igitur, quod penes has duas radices non recte assignetur differentia Legis veteris et novae, tum per comparationem ipsarum radicum *ad invicem*, tum per comparationem ad *ipsas Leges*.

### Conclusio.

> Lex vetus recte dicitur lex timoris, et Lex nova lex amoris.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod cum comparamus has Leges ad invicem, hoc potest esse dupliciter: vel secundum statum *communem*, vel habito respectu ad statum *specialis personae*. Si habito respectu ad statum specialis personae, sic penes haec duo non est differentia. Nam multi in Lege evangelica ducuntur spiritu timoris, multi etiam in Lege veteri ducebantur spiritu amoris. — Si vero comparemus has Leges ad invicem, habito respectu ad statum communem; sic, quia Lex Moysaica respiciebat statum *imperfectionis*, quia neminem *ad perfectum adduxit Lex*, secundum quod dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos[^10]; Evangelium vero respicit statum *perfectionis*, secundum quod dicitur Matthaei quinto: *Estote perfecti, sicut Pater vester caelestis perfectus est*;

<!-- page 886 → running head: DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 885 -->

et imperfectorum est duci spiritu timoris, perfectorum vero spiritu amoris: hinc est, quod secundum statum communem penes haec duo habet harum duarum Legum differentia assignari.

Signum autem huius differentiae deprehenditur in modo ferendi hanc duplicem Legem: quia Lex vetus data fuit cum clamore magno et timore, secundum quod dicitur Exodi decimo nono[^11], ita quod populus non audebat appropinquare; Lex autem Evangelii data est cum magna benignitate et dulcedine, quoniam ipse *Rex regum*, in medio discipulorum sedens, docebat eos dicens: *Beati pauperes spiritu* etc., secundum quod scribitur Matthaei quinto[^12]. Et hic diversus *modus* ferendi Legem insinuat nobis diversitatem huius duplicis *radicis* in observando, quae his duabus Legibus competebat propter diversam qualitatem personarum et status earum, ob quam oportebat diversimode manuduci. Unde sicut videmus in disciplinalibus, quod ad homines persuadibiles utendum est syllogismo *ostensivo*, qui ducit directe ad verum; ad homines vero contentiosos utendum est syllogismo *per impossibile*, qui ducit ad manifeste falsum, ut per illud reducat ad verum[^13]: sic, quia in tempore Legis veteris erant homines durae cervicis et ad malum proni, Dominus proposuit comminationes et taxavit etiam graves poenas, ut per hoc incuteret eis timorem, per quem a malo revocarentur et ad bonum stimularentur; sed postmodum, apparente *benignitate et humanitate Salvatoris nostri Dei*[^14], coeperunt homines esse persuadibiles: et ideo proposuit eis Dominus magnas et multas promissiones, per quarum amorem et desiderium alliceret eos ad faciendum bonum. Et propterea Lex vetus dicitur lex timoris, Lex Evangelii dicitur lex amoris, secundum testimonium Apostoli et beati Augustini.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod timor radicatur in amore; dicendum, quod duplex est amor, scilicet quo amatur Deus in quantum *bonus*, et quo amatur in quantum *beneficus*. Ex primo amore oritur timor *filialis*, qui timet patrem offendere, propter hoc quod eum diligit. Ex secundo oritur timor *poenae*, quo quis timet beneficia perdere et mala poenae incurrere[^15]. Primus amor et timor convenit Legi evangelicae, secundus vero amor et timor convenit Legi Moysaicae; et quoniam primus amor competit statui perfectionis, in quo regnat amor, secundus vero statui imperfectionis, in quo regnat timor: hinc est, quod licet utrobique sit amor et timor, Lex Evangelii dicitur magis observari ex amore quam ex timore, Lex vero Moysi e contrario.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aliae sunt animae affectiones; dicendum, quod etsi aliae sint, tamen istae duae sufficiunt, pro eo quod omnes aliae ad istas duas possunt reduci. Omnis enim affectio aut est respectu boni, aut respectu mali; et si respectu boni, reducitur ad amorem; si respectu mali, reducitur ad timorem. Unde istae duae affectiones dicuntur tenere principatum inter alias, quia maxime habent rationem motivi, una inclinando ad bonum, altera in retrahendo a malo; et propterea magis competit eis ratio radicis quam affectionibus aliis[^16]. Et *si tu obiicias*, quod tunc non deberet esse nisi una radix, quia timor reducitur ad amorem; dicendum, quod *duae* dicuntur secundum *immediatam* comparationem ad suum motivum et ad actus *immediatos*, qui ab eis habent ortum. Unde ubi est radix timoris, verum est, quod est radix amoris; sed alicuius est radix immediata ipse timor, cuius non est amor ita immediate[^17].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de lege naturae, quod deberet habere tertiam radicem; dicendum, quod lex *naturae* partim conveniebat cum lege *gratiae*, partim cum lege *scripta*: quantum ad *libertatem* cum lege *gratiae* conveniebat, quantum vero ad *imperfectionem* et obscuritatem cum lege *scripta*: et ideo secundum diversas conditiones reduci habet ad ista duo motiva, nec oportuit, quod habeat radicem tertiam[^18].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in utraque Lege praecipitur timor et amor; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen Lex vetus principaliter habet[^19] oculum ad timorem, Lex vero nova principaliter ad amorem; illud autem tenet in lege rationem radicis, quod principaliter movet in mandatis eius observandis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod utrobique fiebant comminationes et promissiones; dicendum, quod in Lege veteri fiebant promissiones temporales, secundum quod dicitur Isaiae primo[^20]: *Si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis*; in Lege autem nova promissiones aeternae, quibus Dominus promittit semetipsum nobis in praemium. — Similiter et de comminationibus intelligendum est. Et quoniam illae comminationes et promissiones primae competebant statui imperfectionis; ideo abundantius generabant affectum timoris quam amoris; sed e contra est de promissionibus et comminationibus Legis novae. Ideo ratio illa non valet.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maiores comminationes fiunt in Lege nova; responderi potest dupliciter: primo, quia homo carnalis et sensualis[^21] magis exterretur, cum comminatur sibi poena in praesenti quam in futuro. Sicut multi latrones magis timent furari propter patibulum et suspendium quam propter infernale supplicium. Unde etsi maior sit comminatio, non tamen ita movet, quia non est adeo nota[^22]. — Alio modo potest dici, quod in Lege nova non tantum est magna comminatio poenae, sed etiam abundans collatio gratiae[^23], quae quidem parit amorem et confidentiam. In Lege vero veteri comminatio poenae erat, nec erat tanta collatio gratiae; ideo magis eos spiritus timoris agitabat, non propter comminationem maioris supplicii solum, sed propter comminationem supplicii et defectum adiutorii, quod consistit in desiderio boni et gratia Spiritus sancti.

english:
<!-- page 884 -->

### Question I. *On the difference of the two Laws with respect to the root.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked concerning the difference which is assigned with respect to the root. Now this difference is assigned with respect to the root according to Augustine, namely that the old Law was rooted in fear, and the new Law in love. Hence Augustine[^2] says that «the difference between the Law and the Gospel is brief: fear and love». And although this difference may be drawn from many places of Scripture, it is taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Romans, chapter eight[^3], where the Apostle says: *You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit of adoption.*

But against this it is objected in many ways:

1. First, against the distinction of the roots themselves. For «every fear, as Augustine says[^4], proceeds from love»: therefore if love is the root of fear, the one must be reduced to the other: therefore they are not distinguished from one another[^1].

2. Likewise, since there are other affections of the soul, namely joy and grief and hope[^5]; it seems that, if a twofold Law is distinguished with respect to these affections, then by parity of reasoning it ought to be distinguished with respect to the others: therefore it seems that, if it is not distinguished with respect to the others, neither is it with respect to these.

3. Likewise, if these two Laws are distinguished with respect to these two roots; since the law of nature is distinct from these two, it seems that a third root besides these two would be necessary[^6]. Or if the law of nature does not have a root of observance different from the Law of

<!-- page 885 -->

Moses, it seems that the Law of Moses does not differ from the Law of the Gospel with respect to this either.

4. Likewise, in Deuteronomy chapter six[^7] it is said: *You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole mind* etc.; and to the Philippians, chapter two, it is said in the new Law: *Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.* If therefore love is commanded in the old, and fear in the new Law; it seems that on this account the difference of these Laws is not to be regarded.

5. Likewise, in each Law promises and threats are made; but promises draw toward love, whereas threats strike[^8] fear: therefore fear and love belong to both: therefore they are not distinguished from one another with respect to these.

6. Likewise, graver threats are made in the new Law than in the old; for there a man was punished with a temporal penalty, but here God threatens an eternal penalty[^9]: if therefore a greater threat is inductive of greater fear, it seems that fear ought rather to be appropriated to the new Law than to the old: it seems therefore that with respect to these two roots the difference of the old and the new Law is not rightly assigned, both by the comparison of the roots themselves *to one another*, and by the comparison to *the Laws themselves*.

### Conclusion.

> The old Law is rightly called the law of fear, and the new Law the law of love.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that when we compare these Laws to one another, this can be done in two ways: either according to the *common* state, or having regard to the state *of a special person*. If having regard to the state of a special person, then with respect to these two there is no difference. For many in the evangelical Law are led by the spirit of fear, and many also in the old Law were led by the spirit of love. — But if we compare these Laws to one another, having regard to the common state; then, because the Mosaic Law had regard to the state of *imperfection*, since *the Law brought no one to perfection*, according to what the Apostle says to the Hebrews[^10]; whereas the Gospel has regard to the state of *perfection*, according to what is said in Matthew, chapter five: *Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect*;

<!-- page 886 → running head: DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 885 -->

and it belongs to the imperfect to be led by the spirit of fear, but to the perfect by the spirit of love: hence it is that, according to the common state, the difference of these two Laws is to be assigned with respect to these two.

Now a sign of this difference is detected in the manner of bearing this twofold Law: for the old Law was given with great clamor and fear, according to what is said in Exodus, chapter nineteen[^11], so that the people did not dare to approach; but the Law of the Gospel was given with great kindness and sweetness, since the *King of kings* himself, sitting in the midst of his disciples, taught them, saying: *Blessed are the poor in spirit* etc., according to what is written in Matthew, chapter five[^12]. And this diverse *manner* of bearing the Law intimates to us the diversity of this twofold *root* in observing, which belonged to these two Laws on account of the diverse quality of the persons and of their state, on account of which it was necessary that they be led by the hand in diverse ways. Hence, just as we see in disciplinary matters, that toward persuadable men one must use the *ostensive* syllogism, which leads directly to the true; but toward contentious men one must use the syllogism *through the impossible*, which leads to the manifestly false, so that through it he may lead back to the true[^13]: so, because in the time of the old Law men were of stiff neck and prone to evil, the Lord set forth threats and also fixed heavy penalties, that through this he might strike fear into them, by which they might be called back from evil and stirred to good; but afterward, when the *kindness and humanity of our Savior God*[^14] appeared, men began to be persuadable: and therefore the Lord set forth for them great and many promises, that through love and desire of them he might allure them to do good. And therefore the old Law is called the law of fear, the Law of the Gospel is called the law of love, according to the testimony of the Apostle and of blessed Augustine.

1. To that which is objected on the contrary, that fear is rooted in love; it must be said that love is twofold, namely that by which God is loved insofar as he is *good*, and that by which he is loved insofar as he is *beneficent*. From the first love arises *filial* fear, which fears to offend the father, on account of the fact that it loves him. From the second arises the fear *of punishment*, by which one fears to lose benefits and to incur the evils of punishment[^15]. The first love and fear belong to the evangelical Law, but the second love and fear belong to the Mosaic Law; and since the first love belongs to the state of perfection, in which love reigns, but the second to the state of imperfection, in which fear reigns: hence it is that, although in both there is love and fear, the Law of the Gospel is said to be observed more out of love than out of fear, but the Law of Moses the contrary.

2. To that which is objected, that there are other affections of the soul; it must be said that, even though there are others, nevertheless these two suffice, for the reason that all the others can be reduced to these two. For every affection is either with respect to good, or with respect to evil; and if with respect to good, it is reduced to love; if with respect to evil, it is reduced to fear. Hence these two affections are said to hold the principate among the others, because they most of all have the character of a motive, the one by inclining to good, the other by drawing back from evil; and therefore the character of a root belongs to them more than to the other affections[^16]. And *if you object* that then there ought to be but one root, since fear is reduced to love; it must be said that they are called *two* according to *immediate* comparison to their motive and to the *immediate* acts which take their origin from them. Hence where there is the root of fear, it is true that there is the root of love; but for something the immediate root is fear itself, of which love is not so immediately [the root][^17].

3. To that which is objected concerning the law of nature, that it ought to have a third root; it must be said that the law *of nature* partly agreed with the law *of grace*, partly with the *written* law: as to *liberty* it agreed with the law *of grace*, but as to *imperfection* and obscurity with the *written* law: and therefore according to its diverse conditions it must be reduced to these two motives, nor was it necessary that it have a third root[^18].

4. To that which is objected, that in each Law fear and love are commanded; it must be said that this is true; but nevertheless the old Law principally has[^19] an eye to fear, the new Law principally to love; and that holds in a law the character of a root, which principally moves in the observing of its commands.

5. To that which is objected, that in both threats and promises were made; it must be said that in the old Law temporal promises were made, according to what is said in Isaiah, chapter one[^20]: *If you are willing and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land*; but in the new Law eternal promises, by which the Lord promises his very self to us as a reward. — Likewise it is to be understood also concerning the threats. And since those threats and promises first belonged to the state of imperfection; therefore they more abundantly generated the affection of fear than of love; but the contrary is the case with the promises and threats of the new Law. Therefore that argument is not valid.

6. To that which is objected, that greater threats are made in the new Law; it can be answered in two ways: first, because a carnal and sensual[^21] man is more terrified when a penalty is threatened to him in the present than in the future. Just as many thieves fear more to steal on account of the gallows and hanging than on account of infernal punishment. Hence, even though the threat be greater, it nevertheless does not move so much, because it is not so well known[^22]. — In another way it can be said that in the new Law there is not only a great threat of punishment, but also an abundant bestowal of grace[^23], which indeed brings forth love and confidence. But in the old Law there was a threat of punishment, nor was there so great a bestowal of grace; therefore the spirit of fear agitated them more, not on account of the threat of a greater punishment alone, but on account of the threat of punishment and the lack of help, which consists in the desire of good and the grace of the Holy Spirit.

la: Codd. R W Y aa subnectunt *et interiora*.

en: Codices R W Y aa append *and the interior [things]*.

la: Contra Adimant. c. 17. n. 2: *Nam haec est brevissima et apertissima differentia duorum Testamentorum, timor et amor; illud ad veterem, hoc ad novum hominem pertinet* etc. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 680, nota 2. — Permulti codd. post *brevis* omittunt *est*.

en: Against Adimantus, c. 17, n. 2: *For this is the briefest and clearest difference of the two Testaments, fear and love; the former pertains to the old man, the latter to the new* etc. Cf. vol. II, p. 680, note 2. — Very many codices omit *est* after *brevis*.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Libr. XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. n. 2. Verba vide supra pag. 338, nota 3. — In fine arg. pro *ad invicem* edd. *ab invicem*.

en: Book XIV of the City of God, c. 7, n. 2. See the words above, p. 338, note 3. — At the end of the argument, for *ad invicem* (to one another) the editions read *ab invicem* (from one another).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 555, nota 7, et pag. 556, nota 5.

en: Cf. above, p. 555, note 7, and p. 556, note 5.

la: Cod. U *sit*.

en: Codex U reads *sit* (subjunctive).

la: Vers. 5. — Seq. textus Scripturae est Phil. 2, 12, ubi pro *salutem vestram* Vulgata *vestram salutem*.

en: Verse 5. — The following text of Scripture is Phil. 2, 12, where for *salutem vestram* the Vulgate reads *vestram salutem*.

la: Edd. *indicunt*, nonnulli codd. perperam *incurrunt*. Paulo inferius pro *conveniunt* codd. K O *communis*.

en: The editions read *indicunt* (announce), some codices wrongly *incurrunt* (incur). A little below, for *conveniunt* codices K O read *communis*.

la: Cfr. Matth. 25, 41; Hebr. 10, 29. — In fine arg. post *aeternam* cod. A addit *etiam*.

en: Cf. Matthew 25, 41; Hebrews 10, 29. — At the end of the argument, after *aeternam* codex A adds *etiam*.

la: Cap. 7, 19: *Nihil enim ad perfectum* etc. — Seq. textus Scripturae est Matth. 5, 48: *Estote ergo vos perfecti, sicut et Pater* etc. — De seq. proposit. cfr. supra litt. Magistri, d. XXXIV. c. I sqq., et ibid. Comment. p. II. per totum.

en: Chapter 7, 19: *For [the Law brought] nothing to perfection* etc. — The following text of Scripture is Matth. 5, 48: *Be therefore perfect, as also your Father* etc. — Concerning the following proposition, cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXXIV, c. I sqq., and there in the Commentary, p. II, throughout.

la: Vers. 16. seqq., codd. allegant c. 20.

en: Verse 16 seqq.; the codices cite c. 20.

la: Vers. 3. — Paulo ante respicitur I. Tim. 6, 15: *Rex regum et dominus dominantium*. — Superius pro *et dulcedine* cod. r *et dilectione*.

en: Verse 3. — A little before, reference is made to 1 Tim. 6, 15: *King of kings and lord of lords*. — Above, for *et dulcedine* codex r reads *et dilectione* (and love).

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. Prior. c. 14; I. Elench. c. 10. (c. 11.), et II. c. 2. (c. 17.). — In seq. proposit. respicitur Act. 7, 51: *Dura cervice... vos semper Spiritui S. resistitis, sicut patres vestri* etc. — Aliquanto superius pro *persuadibiles* Vat. *persuasibiles*; idem recurrit aliquanto infra.

en: Cf. Aristotle, Prior [Analytics] II, c. 14; Elenchi I, c. 10 (c. 11), and II, c. 2 (c. 17). — In the following proposition reference is made to Acts 7, 51: *Stiff-necked... you always resist the Holy Spirit, as your fathers* etc. — Somewhat above, for *persuadibiles* the Vatican reads *persuasibiles*; the same recurs somewhat below.

la: Tit. 3, 4: *Cum autem benignitas et humanitas apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei* etc. — Ioan. 6, 45: *Est scriptum in Prophetis: Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei*.

en: Titus 3, 4: *But when the kindness and humanity of our Savior God appeared* etc. — John 6, 45: *It is written in the Prophets: And they shall all be teachable by God*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 34. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro *qui timet* cod. A *cum timet*. Paulo inferius ex cod. A (cod. aa a secunda manu) supplevimus *primus amor competit statui perfectionis, in quo regnat amor*; alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 legunt falso *et quoniam primus amor* [Vat. recte *secundus amor*] *convenit statui imperfectionis* etc.

en: Cf. above, d. 34, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, for *qui timet* codex A reads *cum timet*. A little below, from codex A (codex aa by a second hand) we have supplied *the first love belongs to the state of perfection, in which love reigns*; the other codices and editions 1, 2 read wrongly *and since the first love* [Vat. rightly *the second love*] *belongs to the state of imperfection* etc.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 79, 17. n. 13: *Itaque, fratres mei, ad omne recte factum amor et timor ducit; ad omne peccatum amor et timor ducit. Ut facias bene, amas Deum et times Deum; ut autem facias male, amas mundum et times mundum* etc.

en: Augustine, Enarrat. in Ps. 79, 17, n. 13: *And so, my brethren, love and fear lead to every right deed; love and fear lead to every sin. That you may do well, you love God and fear God; but that you may do ill, you love the world and fear the world* etc.

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. I. 3. et 4.

en: See above, d. 26, a. 2, q. I, 3 and 4.

la: Cfr. d. 37. a. I. q. 3. — Pro *nec oportuit* codd. A N *nec oportet*, et pro *habeat* codd. F U *habuerit*.

en: Cf. d. 37, a. I, q. 3. — For *nec oportuit* codices A N read *nec oportet*, and for *habeat* codices F U read *habuerit*.

la: Edd. *sed cum Lex vetus principaliter habeat*.

en: The editions read *sed cum Lex vetus principaliter habeat* (but since the old Law principally has).

la: Vers. 19. — Paulo ante verbo *promissiones* cod. M praemittit *comminationes et*. Inferius pro *quibus* edd. *in qua*. Subinde cod. A *proprie* pro *primae*.

en: Verse 19. — A little before, codex M prefixes *comminationes et* (threats and) to the word *promissiones*. Below, for *quibus* the editions read *in qua*. Thereupon codex A reads *proprie* for *primae*.

la: Codd. N Z *sensualis*, quod etiam, attenta abbreviatione, in plurimis aliis codd. legi potest, edd. minus bene *sensibilis*.

en: Codices N Z read *sensualis*, which also, given the abbreviation, can be read in very many other codices; the editions less well read *sensibilis*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 34. p. II. a. I. q. I. ad 5.

en: Cf. above, d. 34, p. II, a. I, q. I, ad 5.

la: Rom. 5, 20: *Lex autem subintravit, ut abundaret delictum. Ubi autem abundavit delictum, superabundavit gratia* etc. — Pro *magna comminatio poenae* edd. *comminatio poenae magnae*. Finem solut. cod. D exhibet sic: *et gratia et Spiritus S. collatione*.

en: Rom. 5, 20: *But the Law entered in, that sin might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did more abound* etc. — For *magna comminatio poenae* the editions read *comminatio poenae magnae*. Codex D gives the end of the solution thus: *and by the bestowal of grace and of the Holy Spirit*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hac ultima distinctione Magister primo agit de duobus ultimis Decalogi praeceptis, quibus prohibetur actus interior concupiscentiae, id est, qui est separatus ab actu exteriori; de quibus breviter agit auctor noster in dubiis I. 2. Observat autem S. Thom. (hic a. I.), quod interius peccatum moechiae et furti ideo prae aliis prohibeatur, «quia etiam per se concupiscentia horum sine progressu ad actum habet quandam delectationem», scilicet per solam apprehensionem; quod in peccatis, quorum obiectum est nocumentum aliquod, ut homicidium, non ita contingit (cfr. supra d. 37. a. 2. q. I. ad 7.). — Notatu valde dignum est hic dub. 3, ubi S. Bonav. denuo tractat celeberrimam controversiam de modo, quo Sacramenta causant gratiam, de qua ex professo iam egit IV. Sent. p. I. a. I. q. 4. Dicit enim hic in fine: «Idcirco hic repetii, non propter hoc, ut nova superadderentur, sed ut ostenderetur, quod a communi positione non dissonat, cui pro viribus meis in omnibus praecedentibus libris adhaesi tanquam viae securiori» etc. Revera sapientissime ita de utraque opinione disserit, ut secundam opinionem explicando faciat prope accedere ad primam, quam sequitur S. Thomas.

**II.** In conclusione huius quaestionis omnes consentiunt. Circa solutionem ad 5. S. Thom. (hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 1; cfr. S. I. II. q. 99. a. 6.) specialiter quaerit: «Utrum Lex vetus promittebat tantum temporalia, vel etiam aeterna»; et resolvit, quod aeterna «non promittebantur nisi sub quibusdam figuris». — Idem tamen in solut. ad I. addit, quod resolutio illa non comprehendat «aliquos viros perfectos, qui ad Legem novam pertinebant», quae postea a Concilio Trident. (Sess. VI. c. 7.) consecrata est. — Ea quae S. Bonav. in istis tribus quaest. de Lege veteri passim dicit, illustrantur his verbis Petri a Tar. (in fine III. Sent.): «Secundum Gulielmum, episcopum Parisiensem, septem erant partes veteris Legis. Prima pars erant testimonia veritatis; secunda, mandata honestatis; tertia, iudicia aequitatis; quarta, exempla sanctitatis; quinta, promissa remunerationis; sexta, comminationes punitionis; septima, caerimoniae divini cultus et honoris. Hanc domum Sapientiae, septem his aedificatam columnis (Prov. 9, 1.), adveniens Christus vacuam, ut dictum est, sua Maiestate implevit, qui est benedictus in saecula». — De ipsa I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., Sum. p. III. q. 29. m. I. a. 3. — Scot., hic q. unica n. 8. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2; S. I. II. q. 107. a. I. ad 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 5. — De hac et 2. seqq. qq. Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2; Biel, hic q. unica.

**III.** Seq. (2.) quaestio ab aliis, ut a S. Thoma, sub hac formula proponitur: «Utrum Lex vetus iustificaret». — Communi consensu explicatur locutio de Lege occidente hoc sensu, quod dicatur occidens «non quidem effective, sed occasionaliter ex sua imperfectione» (S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 98. a. I. ad 2.); quod bene explicat S. Bonav. (hic in corp. et ad 2. 3.). — In assignandis causis iustificationis auctor noster iam praevenit doctrinam, quae postea a Concilio Trident. (Sess. VI. c. 7.) consecrata est. — De hac (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 28. m. 5. a. I. — S. Thom., hic a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. — Durand., hic q. 3.

**IV.** Ultimam quaestionem eodem modo alii Scholastici solvunt; de qua agunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. I. a. 1. 2. — Scot., loc. cit. n. 2. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. I. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 107. a. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 5. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. ad 3.

english_scholion:
**I.** In this last distinction the Master first treats of the two last precepts of the Decalogue, by which the interior act of concupiscence is forbidden, that is, the act which is separated from the exterior act; concerning which our author treats briefly in dubia I and 2. Now St. Thomas observes (here, a. I.) that the interior sin of adultery and theft is for this reason forbidden before the others, «because even of itself the concupiscence of these, without progress to the act, has a certain delight», namely by mere apprehension; which in sins whose object is some harm, as homicide, does not so happen (cf. above, d. 37, a. 2, q. I, ad 7.). — Very worthy of note here is dub. 3, where St. Bonaventure again treats the most celebrated controversy concerning the manner in which the Sacraments cause grace, of which he already treated expressly in IV Sent., p. I, a. I, q. 4. For he says here at the end: «I have repeated this here, not in order that new things might be added, but in order that it might be shown that it does not dissonate from the common position, to which to the best of my powers I have adhered in all the preceding books as to the safer way» etc. Indeed he most wisely so discourses concerning each opinion that, in explaining the second opinion, he makes it approach close to the first, which St. Thomas follows.

**II.** In the conclusion of this question all agree. Concerning the solution to 5, St. Thomas (here, a. 4, little-question 1; cf. S. I-II, q. 99, a. 6.) specially asks: «Whether the old Law promised only temporal things, or also eternal»; and he resolves that eternal things «were not promised except under certain figures». — Yet the same author in the solution to 1 adds that that resolution does not comprehend «certain perfect men who belonged to the new Law», which was afterward consecrated by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. 7.). — The things which St. Bonaventure says throughout in these three questions concerning the old Law are illustrated by these words of Peter of Tarentaise (at the end of III Sent.): «According to William, bishop of Paris, there were seven parts of the old Law. The first part was the testimonies of truth; the second, the commands of honesty; the third, the judgments of equity; the fourth, the examples of sanctity; the fifth, the promises of remuneration; the sixth, the threats of punishment; the seventh, the ceremonies of divine worship and honor. This house of Wisdom, built with these seven columns (Prov. 9, 1.), Christ, coming, filled with his Majesty, finding it empty, as has been said—who is blessed forever». — Concerning the first question itself: Alex. of Hales, Sum. p. III, q. 29, m. I, a. 3. — Scotus, here q. unica, n. 8. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. little-question 2; S. I-II, q. 107, a. I, ad 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 5. — Concerning this and the 2 following questions: Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2; Biel, here q. unica.

**III.** The following (2nd) question is proposed by others, as by St. Thomas, under this formula: «Whether the old Law justified». — By common consensus the expression concerning the killing Law is explained in this sense, that it is called killing «not indeed effectively, but occasionally on account of its imperfection» (S. Thomas, S. I-II, q. 98, a. I, ad 2.); which St. Bonaventure well explains (here, in the body and ad 2 and 3.). — In assigning the causes of justification our author already anticipates the doctrine which was afterward consecrated by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. 7.). — Concerning this (2nd) question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. q. 28, m. 5, a. I. — St. Thomas, here a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 3, 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I. — Durandus, here q. 3.

**IV.** The last question other Scholastics solve in the same manner; concerning which there treat: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. I, a. 1, 2. — Scotus, loc. cit. n. 2 seqq. — St. Thomas, here a. I, little-question 3; S. I-II, q. 107, a. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. ad 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed **pp.884–886** (PDF 906–908; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` 61336–61525). Vol III two-column; PDF-priority inversion applies. Running heads grep-/eyes-confirmed: `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 885` sits within the body where it crosses onto p.886 (OCR-mangled "883"); `886 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` at the head of p.886; the next running head `DIST. XL. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. 887` sits at the a1-q2 boundary (trust running-head TEXT over OCR'd digits). Silent OCR-garble corrections: `liraoris/limoris` → *timoris*; `secnndum/secundum`; `differenlia/differentia`; `radicera` → *radicem*; `cura` → *cum*; `quodsi` → *quod si*; `distinguilur` → *distinguitur*; `essetc` → *esset*; `ralione` → *ratione*; `procedilur` → *proceditur*; `incutiunl` → *incutiunt*; `niagis/magis`; `manuduci`; `syllogisnio/syllogismo`; `ulendnm` → *utendum*; `Deis` → *Dei* [marker n.8/Tit.3,4]; `dicrtur` → *dicitur*; `obiicilur/obiicitur`; `dnplicis` → *duplicis*; `araorem/amorem`; `lnotivum` → *motivum*; `delectionem/delectationem`; `proraissionibus` → *promissionibus*; `comminaliones/comminationes`; `inlelligendum` → *intelligendum*; `earnalis` → *carnalis*; `exlerretur` → *exterretur*; `defectura` → *defectum*; `consislit/consistit`.

**Alignment.** ✅ VERIFIED the FIRST question. q1 body opener (raw 61339) = *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem* = the TRACTATIO's first item (*Primo quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes radicem* — with respect to the root). Title *De differentia utriusque Legis penes radicem*. Bounded forward at `QUAESTIO II.` raw 61526 (*De differentia secundum effectum* → a1-q2). NOT misaligned.

**Page span.** pp.884–886. q1 opens at the FOOT of **p.884** (PDF 906, beneath the ARTICULUS UNICUS header that closed d40-divisio), runs through **p.885** and onto **p.886**, where the body finishes (ad-6 tail *…gratia Spiritus sancti.*) and the article-master **SCHOLION** begins. The scholion's §I sits in the lower band of p.886; §II–§IV are printed in the upper note-band of **p.887** (carried over above the QUAESTIO II body) — translated here in full as part of a1-q1's own scholion. q1 does not run into the QUAESTIO II main body.

**Apparatus = 23 entries, per-page restart renumbered CONTINUOUS [^1]–[^23] (single sequence, no [^Nb] suffixes).** Per-page split map:
- **p.884 footer nn.1–6 → [^1]–[^6]** (PICKED UP from d40-divisio hand-off): n.1 *Codd. R W Y aa…* (arg.1 *ad invicem* → [^1], anchored at *interiora*); n.2 *Contra Adimant.* (*Augustinus²* → [^2]); n.3 *Vers. 15* (*octavo³* → [^3]); n.4 *Libr. XIV. de Civ. Dei…* (Contra-distinction *Augustinus⁴* → [^4]); n.5 *Cfr. supra pag. 555…* (*spes⁵* → [^5]); n.6 *Cod. U sit.* (*esset⁶* → [^6]).
- **p.885 footer nn.1–9 → [^7]–[^15]**: nn.1–6 = arg.4 *Deuteronomii sexto* / arg.5 *incutiunt* / arg.6 *aeternam* / Respondeo *Hebraeos* / *Exodi decimo nono* / *Matthaei quinto* → [^7]–[^12]; nn.7–9 = Respondeo *verum⁷* (Aristot.) / *Dei⁸* (Tit.3,4) / Sol. *incurrere⁹* → [^13]–[^15].
- **p.886 footer nn.1–8 → [^16]–[^23]**: n.1 *Aug. Enarrat. Ps.79* (Sol.2 *aliis¹*) → [^16]; n.2 *Vide supra d.26* (*immediate²*) → [^17]; n.3 *Cfr. d.37* (Sol.3 *tertiam³*) → [^18]; n.4 *Edd. sed cum…* (Sol.4 *habet⁴*) → [^19]; n.5 *Vers.19* (Sol.5 *primo⁵*) → [^20]; n.6 *Codd. NZ sensualis* (Sol.6 *sensualis⁶*) → [^21]; n.7 *Cfr. supra d.34* (*nota⁷*) → [^22]; n.8 *Rom.5,20* (*gratiae⁸*) → [^23].
- Marker pairing **23/23** (each [^N] appears once in the Latin body and once in the English body).

**Footer hand-offs.** PICKED UP ← d40-divisio: the entire **p.884 footer band nn.1–6** (forwarded by the divisio, which carried no markers). FORWARDED → a1-q2: **NOTHING** — a1-q1's band closes at p.886 n.8 ([^23]); QUAESTIO II opens fresh at the foot of p.886 / top of p.887 with its own per-page band (the p.887 note-band's first entries belong partly to this scholion §II–§IV and partly to QUAESTIO II's own apparatus, which a1-q2 will walk).

**Scholion.** a1-q1 carries its OWN article-master SCHOLION (raw ~61480, `SCHOLION.`), four sections §I–§IV. §I (lower p.886) frames the whole last distinction (the two interior-concupiscence precepts; the Sacrament-causality controversy of dub. 3) — the right-column companion passage *Notatu valde dignum est hic dub. 3…* is folded into §I as printed. §II surveys the conclusion + the *seven parts of the old Law* (Peter of Tarentaise / William of Paris) + q.1 bibliography; §III the 2nd quaestio (*penes effectum* / killing Law); §IV the 3rd quaestio. Body-then-scholion order preserved (scholion LAST in both `## Latin` and `## English`).

**No `[?]` flags** — pp.884–887 fully legible at 450 dpi; all OCR garbles resolved unambiguously against the PDF column bands.