title: Dist. 11

title_alt: Littera Magistri — Distinctio XI (Cap. I–III)

title_alt: The Master's Text — Distinction XI (Chapters I–III)

source_text:
<!-- page 241 -->

# DISTINCTIO XI.

### Cap. I. *Utrum Christus sit creatura, vel factus.*

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum debeat simpliciter dici atque concedi, Christum esse *factum*, vel *creatum*, vel creaturam[^p241-1]. — Ad quod dici potest, hoc simpliciter et absque determinatione minus congruenter dici; et si quandoque brevitatis causa simpliciter denuntietur, nunquam tamen simpliciter debet intelligi; quia, ut Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate[^p241-2] ait, « cum de Christo loquimur, quid, secundum quid et propter quid dicatur, prudens et diligens ac pius lector intelligere debet ». — Qui Christum vel Dei Filium non esse *factum*, vel creaturam, in libro primo de Trinitate ostendit ita inquiens: « *In principio erat Verbum; et Verbum caro factum est; et omnia per ipsum facta sunt.* Neque dicit omnia, nisi quae facta sunt, id est omnem creaturam. Unde liquido apparet, ipsum *factum* non esse, per quem facta sunt omnia; et si *factus* non est, *creatura* non est. Si autem creatura non est, eiusdem cum Patre substantiae est. Omnis enim substantia, quae Deus non est, creatura est; et quae creatura non est, Deus est. Sed si Filius non eiusdem substantiae est, cuius Pater[^p241-3], ergo *facta* substantia est; et si *facta* substantia est, non omnia per ipsum facta sunt; at omnia per ipsum facta sunt: *facta* igitur substantia non est, sed una cum Patre infecta substantia est ». Item in eodem[^p241-4]: « Si vel Filium fecit Pater, quem non fecit ipse Filius, non omnia per Filium facta sunt; at omnia per Filium facta sunt: ipse igitur factus non est, ut cum Patre faceret omnia quae facta sunt ». Idem in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum[^p241-5]: « Dicitur creatura quidquid fecit Pater Deus per Filium, qui non potest appellari *creatura*, quoniam per ipsum facta sunt omnia ». Ambrosius in primo libro de Trinitate[^p241-6]: « Probemus, inquit, creaturam non esse Dei Filium. Audivimus enim in Evangelio, Dominum mandasse discipulis: *Praedicate Evangelium universae creaturae.* Qui *universam* creaturam dicit *nullam* excipit. Et ubi sunt qui creaturam Christum appellant? Nam si creatura esset, sibi mandaret Evangelium praedicari », et subiectus esset vanitati, quia testante Apostolo: *Omnis creatura vanitati subiecta est.* Non igitur Christus creatura est, sed Creator, qui docendae creaturae discipulis mandat officium.

### Cap. II. *De perfidia et poena Arii.*

Arii haec fuisse perfidia legitur, ut Christum creaturam fateretur[^p241-7]. Ideo effusa sunt Arii viscera, atque crepuit medius, prostratus in faciem, ea quibus Christum negaverat foeda ora pollutus. His aliisque plurimis testimoniis instruimur, non debere lateri simpliciter, Christum esse *factum*, vel *creaturam*; sed addita determinatione, recte dici potest, ut si dicatur *factus secundum carnem*, vel *secundum hominem*, ut factura humanitati, non Deo attribuatur. Ut enim ait Ambrosius in libro primo de Trinitate[^p241-8]: « Non Deus *factus* est, sed Deus Dei Filius *natus* est; postea vero secundum carnem homo *factus* ex Maria est. *Misit enim Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub Lege; Filium*, inquit, *suum*, scilicet non unum de multis. Cum dicit *suum*, generationis aeternae proprietatem significavit. Postea *factum ex muliere* asseruit, ut factura non Divinitati, sed assumtioni corporis ascriberetur. *Factum igitur ex muliere* dicit propter carnis susceptionem, *sub Lege* propter observantiam Legis ». « Generatio generationi non praeiudicat, nec caro divinitati ». « Deus enim aeternus incarnationis sacramentum suscepit, non dividuus, sed unus et in utroque unus, scilicet Divinitate et corpore. Non enim *alter* ex Patre, *alter* ex Virgine, sed idem *aliter* ex Patre, *aliter* ex Virgine », « qui factus est secundum nostrae susceptionem naturae, non secundum aeternae substantiam vitae », « quem legimus *primogenitum* et *unige-*<!-- page 242 -->*nitum*: primogenitum, quia nemo ante ipsum; unigenitum, quia nemo post ipsum ». — Ex his evidenter traditur, qua intelligentia accipiendum sit, cum dicitur Christus *factus* vel simpliciter, vel cum additamento, ut factura scilicet vel creatura non ad assumentem Deum, sed ad assumtum hominem referatur. In Deo enim creatura esse non potest, ut Ambrosius ait in primo libro de Trinitate[^p242-1]: « Nunquid dicto *factus* est Christus? Nunquid mandato *creatus* est Christus? Quomodo autem creatura in Deo esse potest? Etenim Deus naturae simplicis est, non coniunctae atque compositae, cui nihil accidat, sed solum quod divinum est in natura habeat sua ». — Etsi ergo Christus secundum hominem dicitur creatura, non tamen[^p242-2] simpliciter praedicandus est creatura. Nec ex eo, quod Christus secundum hominem dicitur esse creatura, potest quis progredi sic argumentando: si, secundum quod homo, Christus est creatura; vel rationalis, vel non; vel quae est Deus, vel non; nitens per hoc probare, Christum esse aliquid non divinum; quia quod ipse est secundum hominem ipse est. Et ideo, si secundum hominem est aliqua substantia non divina, est utique aliquid non divinum. — Sed ex tropicis locutionibus non est recta argumentationis processio; illa autem locutio tropica est, qua Christus dicitur creatura vel simpliciter, vel cum adiunctione.

### Cap. III. *An homo ille semper fuerit.*[^p242-3]

Post praedicta quaeritur, utrum *homo* ille coeperit esse, vel semper fuerit: sicut simpliciter enuntiamus, Christum vel Dei Filium semper fuisse nec coepisse. De hoc Augustinus dicit ita super Ioannem[^p242-4]: « Habuit aliquando Dei Filius quod nondum habuit idem ipse homo filius, quia nondum erat homo ». Idem in eodem[^p242-5]: « Priusquam mundus esset, nec nos eramus, nec ipse mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus ». Idem super Psalmos: « Christus noster, etsi forte homo recens est, tamen est aeternus Deus ». — Alibi[^p242-6] vero legitur, quod *puer* ille creavit stellas; et Christus dicit, se esse *principium* et esse *ante Abraham*. His igitur auctoritatibus in nullo resultantes, dicimus, hominem illum, in quantum *homo* est, coepisse; in quantum *Verbum* est, semper fuisse. Hic enim absque distinctione non est ferenda responsio. Nam et ipse Augustinus huiusmodi utitur distinctione in pluribus locis[^p242-7] dicens, per Christum omnia esse facta, in quantum est *Verbum*; secundum id vero, quod *homo* est, ipsum esse factum et glorificatum. Si igitur ad personam respicias, confidenter dic, hominem illum semper fuisse; si vero ad naturam hominis, concede, eum coepisse.

---

english:
# DISTINCTION XI.

### Chapter I. *Whether Christ is a creature, or made.*

It is also wont to be asked whether it ought to be said simply and conceded that Christ is *made*, or *created*, or a creature[^p241-1]. — To which it can be said that this is less fittingly said simply and without qualification; and even if at times, for the sake of brevity, it be declared simply, it ought nevertheless never to be understood simply; because, as Augustine says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^p241-2], "when we speak of Christ, the prudent and diligent and pious reader ought to understand *what* is said, *in what respect*, and *on what account*." — He who shows that Christ, or the Son of God, is not *made* nor a creature, in the first book *On the Trinity*, does so, saying thus: "*In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was made flesh; and all things were made through him.* Nor does he say 'all things' save those which were made, that is, every creature. Whence it plainly appears that he himself is not *made*, through whom all things were made; and if he is not *made*, he is not a *creature*. But if he is not a creature, he is of the same substance with the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature; and what is not a creature is God. But if the Son is not of the same substance as the Father[^p241-3], then he is a *made* substance; and if he is a *made* substance, not all things were made through him; but all things were made through him: therefore he is not a *made* substance, but is together with the Father an unmade substance." Likewise in the same work[^p241-4]: "If the Father made even the Son, whom the Son himself did not make, then not all things were made through the Son; but all things were made through the Son: therefore he himself was not made, so that with the Father he might make all things that were made." The same, in the book *Of Eighty-three Questions*[^p241-5]: "Whatever the Father God made through the Son is called a creature, who cannot be called a *creature*, since through him all things were made." Ambrose, in the first book *On the Trinity*[^p241-6]: "Let us prove, he says, that the Son of God is not a creature. For we have heard in the Gospel that the Lord charged the disciples: *Preach the Gospel to every creature.* He who says *every* creature excepts *none*. And where are they who call Christ a creature? For if he were a creature, he would charge that the Gospel be preached to himself," and he would be subject to vanity, since, as the Apostle attests: *Every creature is made subject to vanity.* Therefore Christ is not a creature, but the Creator, who charges the disciples with the office of teaching the creature.

### Chapter II. *On the perfidy and punishment of Arius.*

This is read to have been the perfidy of Arius, that he confessed Christ to be a creature[^p241-7]. Therefore the bowels of Arius gushed out, and he burst asunder in the midst, cast down upon his face, polluted in that foul mouth wherewith he had denied Christ. By these and very many other testimonies we are instructed that it ought not to be hidden simply that Christ is *made*, or a *creature*; but with a qualification added, it can rightly be said, as if it be said *made according to the flesh*, or *according to the man*, so that the making be attributed to the humanity, not to God. For as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^p241-8]: "Not as God was he *made*, but as God the Son of God he was *born*; but afterward, according to the flesh, he was *made* man of Mary. *For God sent his Son made of a woman, made under the Law; his Son*, he says, that is, not one of many. When he says *his own*, he signified the property of the eternal generation. Afterward he asserted *made of a woman*, so that the making might be ascribed not to the Divinity, but to the assumption of the body. Therefore he says *made of a woman* on account of the taking up of the flesh, *under the Law* on account of the observance of the Law." "Generation does not prejudice generation, nor flesh the divinity." "For the eternal God took up the sacrament of the incarnation, not divided, but one and in both one, namely in Divinity and in body. For he is not *one* from the Father, *another* from the Virgin, but the same one *otherwise* from the Father, *otherwise* from the Virgin," "who was made according to the assumption of our nature, not according to the substance of the eternal life," "whom we read to be *firstborn* and *only-begotten*:<!-- page 242 -->firstborn, because none before him; only-begotten, because none after him." — From these it is evidently handed down with what understanding it is to be taken when Christ is said to be *made*, either simply, or with an addition, so that the making, namely, or the creature, be referred not to the assuming God, but to the assumed man. For in God there cannot be a creature, as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^p242-1]: "Was Christ *made* by a word? Was Christ *created* by a command? But how can a creature be in God? For God is of a simple nature, not of a conjoined and composite one, to which nothing accrues, but which has only what is divine in its nature." — Although, therefore, Christ is said to be a creature according to the man, yet he is not[^p242-2] to be predicated simply a creature. Nor from this, that Christ is said to be a creature according to the man, can anyone proceed to argue thus: if, insofar as he is man, Christ is a creature; he is either rational, or not; either that which is God, or not; striving thereby to prove that Christ is something not divine; because what he himself is according to the man, that he is. And therefore, if according to the man he is some substance not divine, he is assuredly something not divine. — But from tropical locutions there is no right procedure of argumentation; and that locution is tropical whereby Christ is said to be a creature, either simply, or with an adjunct.

### Chapter III. *Whether that man always existed.*[^p242-3]

After the foregoing it is asked whether that *man* began to be, or always existed: just as we simply declare that Christ, or the Son of God, always was and did not begin. Concerning this Augustine speaks thus on John[^p242-4]: "The Son of God had at some time what that same man-son did not yet have, because he was not yet man." The same, in the same place[^p242-5]: "Before the world was, neither were we, nor was he himself the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The same, on the Psalms: "Our Christ, even though perhaps he is recently man, is nevertheless eternal God." — But elsewhere[^p242-6] it is read that that *boy* created the stars; and Christ says that he is the *beginning* and is *before Abraham*. In nothing, therefore, resisting these authorities, we say that that man, insofar as he is *man*, began; insofar as he is *Word*, always was. For here a response is not to be borne without a distinction. For Augustine himself too uses a distinction of this kind in many places[^p242-7], saying that all things were made through Christ, insofar as he is the *Word*; but according to that whereby he is *man*, that he himself was made and glorified. If therefore you regard the person, say confidently that that man always existed; but if the nature of the man, concede that he began.

---

la: Edd. 1, 8 omittunt *creaturam*. Paulo superius post *Christum* codd. ABCO omittunt *esse*. Infra post *dici potest* edd. 1, 8 addunt *quod* et deinde ponunt *dicitur* pro *dici*.

en: Editions 1, 8 omit *creaturam* ("a creature"). A little above, after *Christum*, codices ABCO omit *esse*. Below, after *dici potest*, editions 1, 8 add *quod* and then put *dicitur* for *dici*.

la: Cap. 13. n. 28; seq. locus est c. 6. n. 9, ubi respicitur Ioan. 1, 1. 11.

en: Chapter 13, n. 28; the following passage is c. 6, n. 9, where reference is made to John 1:1, 11.

la: Edd. 1, 8 *cum Patre* pro *cuius Pater*.

en: Editions 1, 8 read *cum Patre* ("with the Father") for *cuius Pater* ("whose [is the] Father").

en: Chapter 6, n. 12.

la: Quaest. 67. n. 1, secundum sensum.

en: Question 67, n. 1, according to the sense.

la: Sive *de Fide*, c. 14. n. 86; ubi citatur Marc. 16, 15, et infra Rom. 8, 20.

en: Or *On Faith*, c. 14, n. 86; where Mark 16:15 is cited, and below Romans 8:20.

la: Ita codd. et edd. 1, 5, 8; in ceteris *faceret*. — De Arii poena cfr. Ambros., l. *de Fide* c. 19. n. 123. seq.

en: Thus the codices and editions 1, 5, 8; in the others, *faceret*. — On the punishment of Arius cf. Ambrose, book *On Faith*, c. 19, n. 123 ff.

la: Ibid. c. 14. n. 93. seq., et citatur Gal. 4, 4. Seq. locus est eiusdem de *Incarnat. dominicae sacramento*, c. 5. n. 36; tertius locus ibid. n. 86; quartus n. 37; tandem quintus eiusdem l. *de Fide*, c. 14 n. 89.

en: Ibid., c. 14, n. 93 ff., and Galatians 4:4 is cited. The following passage is from the same author's *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation*, c. 5, n. 36; the third passage, ibid., n. 86; the fourth, n. 37; finally the fifth, from the same author's book *On Faith*, c. 14, n. 89.

la: Sive *de Fide*, c. 16. n. 105. seq.

en: Or *On Faith*, c. 16, n. 105 ff.

la: Codd. ABCE et edd. 1, 8 addunt *Christus*; eaedem edd. infra pro *rationalis, vel non* habent *rationalis vel irrationalis*.

en: Codices ABCE and editions 1, 8 add *Christus*; the same editions, below, for *rationalis, vel non* ("rational, or not") read *rationalis vel irrationalis* ("rational or irrational").

la: Hic in codd. ABCE et edd., exceptis 1 et Vat., incipit d. XII.

en: Here in codices ABCE and the editions, except 1 and the Vatican edition, distinction XII begins.

la: *Tract.* 106. in Ioan. Evang. (c. 17.) n. 5. In originali expressius legitur *Deus Filius* pro *Dei Filius*. Post *ipse homo* edd., exceptis 1, 8, non bene addunt *Dei*, refragantibus etiam codd. et originali. Sensus est, quod Christus, qui ut Deus omnia simul cum Patre habuit, ut homo nondum glorificatus quodam modo nondum habuerat discipulos, unde dicere potuit: *Mihi eos dedisti* (Ioan. 17, 6.).

en: *Tractate* 106 on the Gospel of John (c. 17), n. 5. In the original it reads more expressly *Deus Filius* ("God the Son") for *Dei Filius* ("the Son of God"). After *ipse homo*, the editions, except 1, 8, not rightly add *Dei*, against the codices also and the original. The sense is that Christ, who as God had all things together with the Father, as man not yet glorified had in a certain manner not yet had disciples, whence he could say: *Thou hast given them to me* (John 17:6).

la: *Tract.* 105. n. 7. Seq. locus est *Enarrat. in Ps.* 80. n. 13. Est etiam ibid. v. 10. in Glossa *interlineari*.

en: *Tractate* 105, n. 7. The following passage is the *Exposition on Psalm* 80, n. 13. It is also found there, v. 10, in the *interlinear* Gloss.

la: Glossa in Matth. 2, 2, apud Lyranum. Seqq. loci Scripturae sunt Ioan. 8, 25. et 58. — Infra pro *resultantes*, quod habent nostrae edd. nec non codd., in ed. Parmensi Comment. S. Thomae *reluctantes*. Deinde ante *coepisse* edd. 1, 8 praefigunt *esse*; denique pro *ferenda* codd. BC et edd. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 *referenda*.

en: The Gloss on Matthew 2:2, in Lyra. The following passages of Scripture are John 8:25 and 58. — Below, for *resultantes* ("resisting"), which our editions as well as the codices have, the Parma edition of the Commentary of St. Thomas reads *reluctantes*. Then before *coepisse*, editions 1, 8 prefix *esse*; finally for *ferenda*, codices BC and editions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 read *referenda*.

la: *Tract.* 105. in Evang. Ioan. n. 2. et 4; tr. 1. n. 9. et seqq.; l. *contra Maximin.* c. 17, et II. c. 17. n. 2. et Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 3. n. 8.

en: *Tractate* 105 on the Gospel of John, nn. 2 and 4; tractate 1, n. 9 and following; book *Against Maximinus*, c. 17, and book II, c. 17, n. 2, and Letter 187 (formerly 57), c. 3, n. 8. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p241-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p242-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), reflowed column-by-column (the littera is printed in a parallel two-column layout: read Left column top→bottom, then Right), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 17086–17176. The Lombard *littera* for DISTINCTIO XI comprises three chapters: Cap. I (*Utrum Christus sit creatura, vel factus*), Cap. II (*De perfidia et poena Arii*), Cap. III (*An homo ille semper fuerit*). Bonaventure's COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI (raw 17177) begins immediately after `…ad naturam hominis, concede, eum coepisse.` (confirmed eyes-on `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p242-R-1.png`: the next lines are the COMMENTARIUS title + DIVISIO TEXTUS) and belongs to the next chunk `bon-sent-III-d11-divisio`.

**Page-split map.** p.241: tail of d.10 commentary (right column top, NOT part of this chunk), then DISTINCTIO XI header + Cap. I (full) + Cap. II opener, running through the Ambrose *de Trinitate* quotation and ending mid-word at `…quem legimus primogenitum et unige-` (continues onto p.242). p.242: Cap. II tail (from `-nitum: primogenitum…`) + Cap. III (full), ending `…concede, eum coepisse.` The page break falls inside the Cap. II Ambrose quotation at `unige-|nitum` — joined continuously across the `<!-- page 242 -->` marker.

**Apparatus / per-page restart.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. p.241's littera apparatus sits under the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` heading (notes 1–8; left footer col 1–3, right footer col 4–8). p.242's littera notes 1–7 share the foot of the page with the COMMENTARIUS notes (no separate SENTENTIARUM heading is reprinted; the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` heading follows note 7 and belongs to `bon-sent-III-d11-divisio`). Disambiguated `[^p241-N]` / `[^p242-N]`.

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED from d10 (Dub. V): NONE.** The resume note confirmed no footer leaks into d.11; verified eyes-on (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p241-L-0.png`): p.241 opens cleanly with the DISTINCTIO XI header below the close of d.10's commentary. Clean start, no inbound hand-off.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED to d11-divisio:**
- **The `1 Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 6. a. 1; B. Albert., hic. a. 16.` note** printed at the very top of p.241's left footer column, ABOVE the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` heading. It is an editorial cross-reference keyed to the Bonaventure dubia (parallel-loci to Alexander of Hales and Albert "hic"), not a littera note; it belongs to the COMMENTARIUS apparatus stream of `bon-sent-III-d11-divisio`.
- **The entire `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` block on p.242** (heading + note 1 `Pro his verbis, quae sumta sunt ex lit. Magistri, d. X. c. 3, sola Vat. substituit Solet etiam quaeri…` + note 2 `Supra d. X. c. 3. Ibi autem in divisione textus illud capitulum explicite tribuitur distinctioni X…`), which follows littera note 7 at the foot of p.242, belongs to `bon-sent-III-d11-divisio` (the COMMENTARIUS opens at raw 17177).

**`[?]` flags: NONE.** All readings legible at 450 dpi; OCR garbles (`crealura`→*creatura*, `faclum`→*factum*, `crepuil`→*crepuit*, `Quaeslionum`→*Quaestionum*, `Prinsquam`→*Priusquam*, `horno`→*homo*, `resullanles`→*resultantes*, the misnumbered SENTENTIARUM markers, and the cascade-fragmented footer block) silently corrected against the PDF column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 11, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XI — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XI — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 242 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI.
### *De communicatione idiomatum, quae dicunt aliquam defectibilitatem.*[^comm-xref]

*Deinde, si quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio*[^p242-comm1] *etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, qualiter conveniunt Christo illa idiomata, quae sonare videntur in complementum et dignitatem. In hac vero parte inquirit de his quae dicunt aliquam defectibilitatem; talia autem sunt, quae notant inceptionem et significant habere esse post non-esse. Talia autem sunt in triplici differentia: quia quaedam important inchoationem in *esse* implicite et ratione *connotati*, ut vocabulum praedestinandi; quaedam *implicite*, sed ratione *principalis significati*, ut verbum creandi; quaedam *explicite* et ratione sui *primi significati*, sicut verbum incipiendi. Ideo pars ista habet partes tres. In quarum prima inquirit, utrum praedestinatio dicatur in Christo de natura, an de persona[^p242-comm2]. In secunda vero inquirit, utrum Christus sit creatura, in principio distinctionis undecimae: *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum debeat simpliciter dici* etc. In tertia vero quaerit, utrum ille homo aliquando inceperit, an semper fuerit, ibi: *Post praedicta quaeritur* etc.

Prima autem et ultima parte remanente indi-<!-- page 243 -->visa, media pars dividitur in tres. In quarum prima proponit quaestionem et determinat. In secunda vero per auctoritates Sanctorum confirmat, ibi: *Qui Christum vel Dei Filium non esse factum* etc. Tertio vero dissolvit argumentationem sophisticam, quae quidem videtur esse contraria veritati, et hoc ibi: *Etsi ergo Christus secundum hominem dicitur creatura* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa duo. Primo quantum ad Christi praedestinationem. Secundo vero quaeritur de his quae videntur circa Christum ponere inceptionem.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria per comparationem ad praedestinationem nostram.

Primum est, utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis.

Secundum est, utrum sit nostrae praedestinationis forma exemplaris.

Tertium est, utrum respectu nostrae praedestinationis sit in ea[^p243-2] ratio causalitatis.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XI.
### *On the communication of idioms which state some defectibility.*[^comm-xref]

*Next, if it be asked whether predestination*[^p242-comm1] *etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master showed how those idioms belong to Christ which seem to ring of completeness and dignity. But in this part he inquires concerning those which state some defectibility; and such are those which mark an inception and signify having being after non-being. And such are of a threefold difference: for some import inchoation in *being* implicitly and by reason of what is *connoted*, as the word "to-predestine"; some *implicitly*, but by reason of the *principal thing signified*, as the word "to-create"; some *explicitly* and by reason of their *primary signification*, as the word "to-begin." Therefore this part has three parts. In the first of these he inquires whether predestination is said in Christ of the nature or of the person[^p242-comm2]. In the second he inquires whether Christ is a creature, at the beginning of the eleventh distinction: *It is also wont to be asked whether it ought to be said simply,* etc. In the third he asks whether that man at some time began, or always existed, there: *After the foregoing it is asked,* etc.

But the first and last parts remaining undi-<!-- page 243 -->vided, the middle part is divided into three. In the first of these he proposes the question and determines it. In the second he confirms it by the authorities of the Saints, there: *He who [shows that] Christ, or the Son of God, is not made,* etc. In the third he resolves the sophistical argumentation, which indeed seems to be contrary to the truth, and this there: *Although, therefore, Christ is said to be a creature according to the man,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there falls here a question concerning two matters. First, as regards Christ's predestination. Second, it is asked concerning those things which seem to posit an inception in Christ.

Concerning the first, three things are asked by comparison to our predestination.

The first is, whether Christ's predestination is conformable to our predestination.

The second is, whether it is the exemplary form of our predestination.

The third is, whether, with respect to our predestination, there is in it[^p243-2] an account of causality.

---

en: Cf. on this matter Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 10, m. 6, a. 1; Blessed Albert, here, a. 16.

la: Pro his verbis, quae sumta sunt ex lit. Magistri, d. X. c. 3, sola Vat. substituit *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum debeat simpliciter dici* etc.

en: For these words, which are taken from the text of the Master, d. X, c. 3, the Vatican edition alone substitutes *It is also wont to be asked whether it ought to be said simply,* etc.

la: Supra d. X. c. 3. Ibi autem in *divisione textus* illud capitulum explicite tribuitur distinctioni X. In commentario autem de eodem agitur in hac dist.

en: Above, d. X, c. 3. There, however, in the *division of the text* that chapter is explicitly attributed to distinction X. But in the commentary the same matter is treated in this distinction.

la: Non pauci codd. parum recte *in eo.*

en: Not a few codices, less correctly, [read] *in eo* ("in him").

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.242–243 (PDF 264–265; offset pdf = printed + 22): `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p242-{L,R}-{1,2}.png`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p243-{L,R}-{0,2}.png`, reflowed column-by-column (Left col top→bottom, then Right), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 17177–17241. `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI` at raw 17177; `DIVISIO TEXTUS` at raw 17183; `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` at raw 17228; the chunk ends just before `ARTICULUS I.` (raw ~17238) / `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 17242), which begin the next chunk `bon-sent-III-d11-a1-q1`. d.11 has **no pars division** (2 articles × 3 quaestiones; scaffold: littera + divisio + a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3 + dubia).

**Page-split map.** The COMMENTARIUS heading + subject line (*De communicatione idiomatum, quae dicunt aliquam defectibilitatem*) + lemma (*Deinde, si quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio¹ etc.*) + DIVISIO TEXTUS open at the **bottom of p.242** (two-column), immediately after the *littera* (Cap. III) closes with *…ad naturam hominis, concede, eum coepisse.* The DIVISIO body runs across both columns of p.242 and breaks mid-word at *…Prima autem et ultima parte remanente indi-* (continues onto p.243). p.243 (running head `DIST. XI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`, page number `243`) carries the continuation (*-visa, media pars dividitur in tres…*) plus the whole TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (three-question list), and ends just before the `ARTICULUS I.` header at the top of p.243's left column. The `<!-- page 243 -->` break is placed at `indi-|visa`, joined continuously.

**Marker → footer mapping (per-page restart).** Three body markers, all confirmed eyes-on at 450 dpi:
- lemma `praedestinatio¹` (p.242) → p.242 *Notae ad Commentarium* note 1 (`[^p242-comm1]`, *Pro his verbis…*).
- `…an de persona²` (p.242; the raw OCR garbles this superscript as `5` — corrected to `2` against `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p242-R-1.png`) → p.242 *Notae ad Commentarium* note 2 (`[^p242-comm2]`, *Supra d. X. c. 3…*).
- TRACTATIO `…sit in ea²` (p.243) → p.243 footer note 2 (`[^p243-2]`, *Non pauci codd. parum recte in eo*).

The COMMENTARIUS subject-heading cross-reference (`Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal.… B. Albert., hic a. 16`), printed above the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` heading at the top of p.241's left footer column, is anchored here to the COMMENTARIUS heading (`[^comm-xref]`) — it is a dubia-type parallel-loci note, not a *littera* note.

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED (from d11-littera, commit 1ddce50).**
- The p.241 cross-reference note `Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 6. a. 1; B. Albert., hic. a. 16.` → rendered as `[^comm-xref]`.
- The entire p.242 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` block (heading + n.1 *Pro his verbis…* + n.2 *Supra d. X. c. 3…*) → rendered as `[^p242-comm1]` and `[^p242-comm2]`.
Both were forwarded in d11-littera's `## Notes` and are now consumed in full.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED (to d11-a1-q1).** The remaining p.243 footer notes belong to the body of **ARTICULUS I, QUAEST. I** (which opens at the top of p.243's left column, *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio Christi…*) and carry forward to `bon-sent-III-d11-a1-q1`:
- p.243 n.1 `Codd. quod, sed contra text. Magistri, hic c. 1.`
- p.243 n.3 `De hac definitione vide tom. I. pag. 702, nota 6. et pag. 704, nota 3. — Subinde pro sed hoc edd. sed haec.`
- p.243 n.4 `Aristot., de Praedicam. c. 1: Univoca vero dicuntur… — De minori cfr. supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1.`
- p.243 n.5 `Cfr. infra arg. 1. pro parte negat., et l. Sent. d. 40. a. 1. q. 2.`
- p.243 n.6 `Sive de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, c. 15. n. 31… pro Christianos fecit codd. I L Z aa cc Christianos facit.`
- p.243 n.7+ (right footer column) keyed to the a1-q1 *Sed contra* arguments.
(Only p.243 note 2 belongs to the divisio; the rest are a1-q1's.)

**ARTICULUS I opener — no "Consequenter quaeruntur…" fold.** Verified eyes-on (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p243-{L,R}-0/1.png`) and against the raw: after the TRACTATIO list, `ARTICULUS I. / De Christi praedestinatione. / QUAESTIO I.` follows directly, and the article opens straight into `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio Christi sit…` — there is **no** short article-opener sentence (*Consequenter quaeruntur tria…* etc.) to fold into a1-q1. The divisio stops cleanly before `ARTICULUS I.`

**`has_scholion: false`** — divisio/tractatio chunk; no scholion.

**`[?]` flags: NONE.** All readings legible at 450 dpi. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF column bands: `dividilur`→*dividitur*, `auetoritates`→*auctoritates*, `factuni`→*factum*, `sophislicam`→*sophisticam*, `conlraria veritali`→*contraria veritati*, `Elsi ergo… lura`→*Etsi ergo… [crea]tura*, `hie`→*hic*, `quaerilur de bis`→*quaeritur de his*, `signiflcant`→*significant*, `es.se`→*esse*, `hulum praedeslinandi`→*[voca]bulum praedestinandi*, and the misnumbered `de persona⁵`→`de persona²` marker.

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. 11, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 243 -->

### ARTICULUS I. *De Christi praedestinatione.*
### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur[^1], utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis, ita quod nostra et sua praedestinatio dicatur secundum rationem univocam. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per definitionem praedestinationis: « Praedestinatio est praeparatio gratiae et gloriae[^3] »; sed hoc convenit Christo et nobis: ergo etc.

2. *Item*, quod convenit Christo secundum humanam naturam convenit uniformiter nobis, cum sit eiusdem naturae et speciei nobiscum[^4]; sed praedestinatio convenit Christo secundum naturam humanam: ergo nobis et sibi competit secundum rationem univocam.

3. *Item*, conformamur Christo in merito; et si conformamur in merito, necesse est conformari in praemio: ergo pari ratione et in divino proposito. Sed hoc est praedestinatio[^5]: ergo etc.

4. *Item*, Augustinus *de Vocatione Sanctorum*[^6]: « Quicumque homo gratia fit Christianus, sicut ille homo ab initio factus est Christus »: ergo si eo modo Deus alios homines Christianos fecit, per quem modum et illum hominem Christum fecit, et omnino eodem modo praedestinavit, quo modo fecit; ergo per eundem modum praedestinavit nos et Christum.

**Sed contra:**
1. Augustinus *de Praedestinatione Sanctorum*[^7]: « Praedestinatio est propositum miserendi »; sed respectu eius non est miserendi propositum, in quo nullum contingit reperire peccatum: si ergo talis est Christus, videtur, quod non secundum eandem rationem dicatur praedestinatio de nobis et de Christo.

2. *Item*, praedestinatio sic notificatur communiter[^8]: « Praedestinatio est praeparatio gratiae in praesenti et gloriae in futuro »; sed in Christo simul fuerunt gratia et gloria: ergo praedestinatio non convenit nobis et Christo secundum unam rationem.

3. *Item*, praedestinatio est in nobis non tantum ratione naturae, verum etiam ratione personae; sed in Christo est praedestinatio ratione naturae assumtae, non ratione personae, cum illa sit aeterna[^9]: ergo etc.

4. *Item*, ille homo Christus praedestinatus fuit esse Deus sive Dei filius, secundum quod dicitur ad Romanos primo[^10]: *Qui praedestinatus est filius* <!-- page 244 -->*Dei in virtute* etc. — unde et *datus est ei spiritus non ad mensuram* — nos autem praedestinati sumus ad gratiam creatam et finitam: ergo si creatum et finitum non univocatur in aliquo cum increato et infinito, necessario sequitur, quod praedestinatio secundum aliam et aliam rationem dicatur de nobis et de Christo.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Praedestinatio Christi quodam modo est conformis nostrae praedestinationi, quodam modo difformis, et non dicitur cum hac univoce, nisi quatenus est ei conformis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod praedestinatio Christi quodam modo habet *conformitatem* ad nostram praedestinationem, quodam modo *difformitatem*; quod patet, si attendantur ea quae circa praedestinationem sunt[^1b]. Consideratur enim praedestinatio in comparatione ad *praedestinantem* et ad *praedestinatum* et ad *terminum* et ad *initialem statum*. Si ergo consideretur praedestinatio secundum comparationem ad *praedestinantem*, unius rationis et conformis modi est praedestinatio Christi nostrae praedestinationi; eodem enim modo, quo Deus praedestinavit Christum, praedestinavit et nos. — Si loquamur in comparatione ad *statum a quo*, simpliciter est differentia. Nam nos per gratiam praedestinationis eripuit de statu peccati et de massa perditionis, sicut dicit Glossa super illud ad Romanos octavo[^2b]: *Quos praedestinavit hos et vocavit,* et ipse textus indicat; hunc autem statum non est reperire in Christo aliquo modo. Et sic quantum ad primum est simpliciter convenientia, quantum ad ultimum, scilicet quantum ad statum[^3b], differentia.

Quantum vero ad duo intermedia partim est convenientia, partim differentia. In nobis enim est praedestinatio respectu naturae, et etiam respectu personae, et magis proprie respectu personae quam naturae. In Christo autem est praedestinatio ratione naturae assumtae, quae sequitur divinam dispositionem, non ratione personae; et ita quodam modo est convenientia, et quodam modo differentia respectu praedestinati. — Respectu etiam termini consimiliter est[^4b]. Nam nos sumus praedestinati ad gratiam et gloriam, similiter et Christus; sed nos sumus praedestinati ad participandam gratiam et gloriam successive, Christus autem simul. Item, nos sumus praedestinati ad gratiam personae singularis, Christus autem ad gratiam unionis et singularis personae[^5b]; et ita tantum habet quantum nos et abundat a nobis; ac per hoc quodam modo convenit, quodam modo excedit. Verum est igitur, quod praedestinatio Christi quodam modo est *conformis* et quodam modo *difformis*; et si notificetur secundum illud, in quo conformatur, est univocatio; secundum autem quod disconvenit, non.

**Ad argumenta:** Et per hoc patent rationes ad utramque partem. Nam primae, quae ostendunt, quod sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis, procedunt a parte *praedestinantis*, vel *praedestinati* quantum ad *naturam*, vel ex parte *termini* quantum ad *gratiam et gloriam*; et sic verum concludunt. Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de ipsa praedestinatione a parte *status initialis*, vel a parte *praedestinati* ratione *personae*, vel a parte *termini* ratione *unionis divinae*; et suis viis concedendae sunt singulae.

### SCHOLION

**I.** Iam supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1–3. plura dicta sunt de praedestinatione respectu Christi; ad quem locum lectorem remittimus. — Haec 1. quaestio dilucide et aptis distinctionibus totam rem explanat. Iisdem distinctionibus utitur S. Thom. in Comment. (III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3. quaestiunc. 2.) et easdem conclusiones habet. Generalim autem dicit, praedestinationem Christi ac nostram non esse eiusdem rationis, sed convenire tantum secundum *analogiam*. Pro quo addit hanc rationem, quod ratio *specifica* cuiuslibet motus accipitur penes terminum *ad quem*, qui in Christo est unio in persona, quae non nisi secundum analogiam quandam convenit cum unione per operationem (gratiam et gloriam), quae est terminus *ad quem* in ceteris praedestinatis. <!-- page 245 -->— De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 3. m. 6. — B. Albert., III. Sent. d. 10. a. 19. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 10. a. 4. q. 1. — Aegid. R., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3. dub. lat. 1. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 7. q. 3, breviter tangit quaestiones huius art.

**II.** Sequentem (2.) quaestionem S. Thom. (S. III. q. 24. a. 3.) eadem conclusione solvit, sed eam verbis aliquatenus differentibus explicat. Alii explicite ipsam non tractant; sed nonnulli in sequenti (3.) quaestione eam tangunt.

**III.** Tertia huius articuli quaestio communiter in hoc sensu solvitur, quod praedestinatio Christi non nisi ratione *termini* possit esse causa nostrae praedestinationis; neque sub hoc respectu potest esse causa efficiens *principalis*, quae soli Deo convenit, sicut nec causa finalis *principalis*. Tamen « Deus praeordinavit nostram salutem ab aeterno praedestinando, ut per Iesum Christum compleretur » (S. Thom., S. III. q. 24. a. 4.). — De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. c. m. 5. — S. Thom., Comment. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., loc. cit. a. 20. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. dub. lat. 2. — Durand., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3.

---

english:
### ARTICLE I. *On the predestination of Christ.*
### QUESTION I. *Whether Christ's predestination is conformable to our predestination.*

Concerning the first matter one proceeds thus, and it is asked[^1] whether Christ's predestination is conformable to our predestination, such that our predestination and his are said according to a univocal account. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:

1. *First*, by the definition of predestination: "Predestination is the preparation of grace and glory[^3]"; but this belongs to Christ and to us: therefore etc.

2. *Likewise*, what belongs to Christ according to his human nature belongs uniformly to us, since he is of the same nature and species as we are[^4]; but predestination belongs to Christ according to his human nature: therefore it pertains to us and to him according to a univocal account.

3. *Likewise*, we are conformed to Christ in merit; and if we are conformed in merit, it is necessary to be conformed in reward: therefore by parity of reasoning also in the divine purpose. But this is predestination[^5]: therefore etc.

4. *Likewise*, Augustine, *On the Calling of the Saints*[^6]: "Whatever man is made a Christian by grace, just as that man was from the beginning made Christ": therefore if God made other men Christians in the same way by which he also made that man Christ, and altogether predestined in the same way in which he made [them]; therefore he predestined us and Christ by the same mode.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine, *On the Predestination of the Saints*[^7]: "Predestination is the purpose of having mercy"; but with respect to him in whom it is possible to find no sin there is no purpose of having mercy: if, then, such is Christ, it seems that predestination is not said of us and of Christ according to the same account.

2. *Likewise*, predestination is commonly described thus[^8]: "Predestination is the preparation of grace in the present and of glory in the future"; but in Christ grace and glory existed at the same time: therefore predestination does not belong to us and to Christ according to one account.

3. *Likewise*, predestination is in us not only by reason of nature, but also by reason of person; but in Christ predestination is by reason of the assumed nature, not by reason of person, since that [person] is eternal[^9]: therefore etc.

4. *Likewise*, that man Christ was predestined to be God, or the Son of God, according to what is said in Romans, chapter one[^10]: *Who was predestined the Son* <!-- page 244 -->*of God in power* etc. — whence also *the Spirit was given to him not by measure* — but we are predestined to created and finite grace: therefore if the created and finite is not univocated in anything with the uncreated and infinite, it necessarily follows that predestination is said of us and of Christ according to one account and another.

### CONCLUSION.

> Christ's predestination is in a certain way conformable to our predestination, in a certain way unconformable, and it is not said univocally with the latter except insofar as it is conformable to it.

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ's predestination in a certain way has *conformity* to our predestination, in a certain way *unconformity*; which is evident if one attends to the things that belong to predestination[^1b]. For predestination is considered in comparison to the *one predestining*, and to the *one predestined*, and to the *term*, and to the *initial state*. If, then, predestination be considered according to the comparison to the *one predestining*, Christ's predestination is of one account and of a conformable mode with our predestination; for in the same way in which God predestined Christ, he also predestined us. — If we speak in comparison to the *state from which*, there is simply a difference. For he snatched us by the grace of predestination from the state of sin and from the mass of perdition, as the Gloss says on that text of Romans, chapter eight[^2b]: *Whom he predestined, these also he called,* and the text itself indicates [it]; but this state is not to be found in Christ in any way. And thus, as regards the first, there is simply agreement; as regards the last, namely as regards the state[^3b], difference.

But as regards the two intermediate [points] there is partly agreement, partly difference. For in us predestination is with respect to nature, and also with respect to person, and more properly with respect to person than to nature. But in Christ predestination is by reason of the assumed nature, which follows the divine disposition, not by reason of person; and thus there is in a certain way agreement, and in a certain way difference, with respect to the one predestined. — With respect also to the term it is likewise so[^4b]. For we are predestined to grace and glory, and likewise also Christ; but we are predestined to partake of grace and glory successively, whereas Christ [partakes] at the same time. Likewise, we are predestined to the grace of a singular person, but Christ to the grace of the union and of the singular person[^5b]; and thus he has as much as we and abounds beyond us; and through this he in a certain way agrees, in a certain way exceeds. It is true, therefore, that Christ's predestination is in a certain way *conformable* and in a certain way *unconformable*; and if it be described according to that in which it is conformable, there is univocation; but according to that in which it disagrees, there is not.

**To the arguments:** And through this the arguments for both sides are clear. For the first ones, which show that it is conformable to our predestination, proceed from the side of the *one predestining*, or of the *one predestined* as regards *nature*, or from the side of the *term* as regards *grace and glory*; and thus they conclude truly. But the arguments to the opposite proceed concerning predestination itself from the side of the *initial state*, or from the side of the *one predestined* by reason of *person*, or from the side of the *term* by reason of the *divine union*; and each is to be conceded along its own paths.

la: Codd. *quod,* sed contra text. Magistri, hic c. 1.

en: The codices [read] *quod,* but against the text of the Master, here c. 1.

la: De hac definitione vide tom. I. pag. 702, nota 6. et pag. 704, nota 3. — Subinde pro *sed hoc* edd. *sed haec.*

en: On this definition see vol. I, p. 702, note 6, and p. 704, note 3. — Then, for *sed hoc* ("but this") the editions [read] *sed haec.*

la: Aristot., de Praedicam. c. 1: Univoca vero dicuntur quorum et nomen commune est, et secundum nomen eadem substantiae ratio, ut animal et homo etc. — De *minori* cfr. supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, c. 1: "Things are called univocal of which both the name is common and the account of substance according to the name is the same, as animal and man," etc. — On the *minor* [premise] cf. above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. infra arg. 1. pro parte negat., et l. Sent. d. 40. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Cf. below, argument 1 for the negative side, and I Sent., d. 40, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Sive de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, c. 15. n. 31: Ea gratia fit ab initio fidei suae homo quicumque Christianus, qua gratia homo ille ab initio suo factus est Christus. — Paulo inferius pro *Christianos fecit* codd. I L Z aa cc *Christianos facit.*

en: Or [rather] *On the Predestination of the Saints,* c. 15, n. 31: "By that grace any man whatever becomes a Christian from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man from his beginning was made Christ." — A little below, for *Christianos fecit* ("made [them] Christians") the codices I L Z aa cc [read] *Christianos facit* ("makes [them] Christians").

la: Cap. 17. n. 34. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 702, nota 3. et pag. 705, nota 3. Vide etiam August., II. Contra duas epist. Pelagian. c. 10. n. 22.

en: Chapter 17, n. 34. Cf. vol. I, p. 702, note 3, and p. 705, note 3. See also Augustine, *Against Two Letters of the Pelagians*, II, c. 10, n. 22.

la: Vide hic nota 3. — De minori cfr. d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. et d. 14. per totam.

en: See here note 3. — On the minor [premise] cf. d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 ff. and d. 14 throughout.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1. — Quoad ipsam minorem S. Thom., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3, speciali quaestione probat, dici posse, naturam in Christo esse praedestinatam, vel personam ratione naturae.

en: As was shown above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1. — As to the minor [premise] itself, St. Thomas, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, in a special question proves that it can be said that in Christ the nature is predestined, or the person by reason of the nature.

la: Vers. 4. — Seq. loc. Script. est Ioan. 3, 34. — Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 3. — Ratio deinde in conclusione adducta ab Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 52. et 64. (c. 6. 7.), sic exprimitur: Ratio [proportio] autem nulla est infiniti ad finitum.

en: Verse 4. — The following passage of Scripture is John 3, 34. — Cf. above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 3. — The reasoning then adduced in the conclusion, from Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World*, I, texts 52 and 64 (cc. 6, 7), is expressed thus: "There is no ratio [proportion] of the infinite to the finite."

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. adiiciunt *consideranda.* In cod. U sic scriptum est: *quodam modo habet conformitatem cum nostra praedestinatione, quodam modo… si attendatur, circa quae praedestinatio consideratur. Praedestinatio enim habet comparationem ad praedestinantem* etc.

en: The editions, together with a few codices, add *consideranda* ("to be considered"). In codex U it is written thus: "in a certain way it has conformity with our predestination, in a certain way… if it be attended to, [as regards] the things concerning which predestination is considered. For predestination has a comparison to the one predestining," etc.

la: Vers. 30. — Glossa hic adducta ut *ordinaria* habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum et sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in Ps. 150. n. 3, ubi ad verbum legitur sic: Praedestinatio nostra non in nobis facta est, sed in occulto apud ipsum [Deum] in eius praescientia. Tria vero reliqua in nobis fiunt: vocatio, iustificatio, glorificatio. Vocamur praedicatione poenitentiae... Vocati renuntiamus diabolo per poenitentiam, ne sub iugo eius remaneamus etc. Cfr. Glossa interlinearis, allegata supra pag. 177, nota 8. Animadverte etiam, quod August., de Dono persever. c. 14. n. 35, definita prius praedestinatione (quod sit « praescientia scilicet et praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur quicumque liberantur »), dicit: Ceteri autem ubi nisi in massa perditionis iusto divino iudicio relinquuntur?

en: Verse 30. — The Gloss here adduced is held as the *ordinary* [Gloss] in Strabo and Lyra, and is taken from Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm 150*, n. 3, where word for word it reads thus: "Our predestination was not made in us, but hidden with him [God] in his foreknowledge. But the three remaining things are done in us: calling, justification, glorification. We are called by the preaching of penance... Being called, we renounce the devil through penance, lest we remain under his yoke," etc. Cf. the interlinear Gloss, cited above p. 177, note 8. Note also that Augustine, *On the Gift of Perseverance*, c. 14, n. 35, having first defined predestination (that it is "the foreknowledge, namely, and preparation of God's benefits, by which whoever are freed are most certainly freed"), says: "But the rest — where, except in the mass of perdition, are they left by the just divine judgment?"

la: Cod. M subtexuit *initialem,* Vat. *est simpliciter.*

en: Codex M added beneath *initialem* ("initial"); the Vatican edition [reads] *est simpliciter* ("there is simply").

la: Vat. bene supplet *quodam modo convenientia, et quodam modo differentia,* edd. 1, 2 *differentia* tantum. Mox plurimi codd. omittunt *similiter.* Deinde codd. I K L T U V aa bis pro *nos sumus* substituunt *nos fuimus,* codd. A F G Q U *percipiendam* pro *participandam,* et pro *gratiam et gloriam* edd. et non pauci codd. *gloriam et gratiam.*

en: The Vatican edition well supplies *quodam modo convenientia, et quodam modo differentia* ("in a certain way agreement, and in a certain way difference"), [whereas] editions 1, 2 [have] *differentia* ("difference") only. Then most codices omit *similiter* ("likewise"). Next, the codices I K L T U V aa twice substitute *nos fuimus* ("we were") for *nos sumus* ("we are"), the codices A F G Q U [read] *percipiendam* for *participandam,* and for *gratiam et gloriam* ("grace and glory") the editions and not a few codices [read] *gloriam et gratiam* ("glory and grace").

la: Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. et a. 2. q. 2.

english_scholion:
**I.** Already above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1–3, many things were said about predestination with respect to Christ; to which place we refer the reader. — This first question lucidly and with fitting distinctions explains the whole matter. St. Thomas uses the same distinctions in his Commentary (III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, subquestion 2) and has the same conclusions. But in general he says that Christ's predestination and ours are not of the same account, but agree only according to *analogy*. For which he adds this reason, that the *specific* account of any motion is taken from the term *to which*, which in Christ is the union in the person, which agrees only according to a certain analogy with the union by operation (grace and glory), which is the term *to which* in the rest of the predestined. <!-- page 245 -->— On this first question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 3, m. 6. — Blessed Albert, III Sent., d. 10, a. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, III Sent., d. 10, a. 4, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, lat. dub. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, III Sent., d. 7, q. 3, briefly touches the questions of this article.

**II.** The following (second) question St. Thomas (*Summa* III, q. 24, a. 3) solves with the same conclusion, but explains it in somewhat differing words. Others do not treat it explicitly; but some touch on it in the following (third) question.

**III.** The third question of this article is commonly solved in this sense, that Christ's predestination can be the cause of our predestination only by reason of the *term*; nor under this respect can it be the *principal* efficient cause, which belongs to God alone, just as neither [can it be] the *principal* final cause. Nevertheless, "God foreordained our salvation from eternity by predestining, that it might be accomplished through Jesus Christ" (St. Thomas, *Summa* III, q. 24, a. 4). — On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 5. — St. Thomas, Commentary, loc. cit., subquestion 3. — Blessed Albert, loc. cit., a. 20. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit., q. 2. — Giles of Rome, loc. cit., lat. dub. 2. — Durandus, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.243–245 (PDF 265–267; offset pdf = printed + 22): `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p243-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p244-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p245-{L,R}-0.png`, reflowed column-by-column (Left col top→bottom, then Right; body bands then footer bands), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 17242–17364. `QUAESTIO I.` at raw 17242; the chunk ends just before `QUAESTIO II.` (raw 17365), which begins the next chunk `bon-sent-III-d11-a1-q2`.

**Alignment check.** q1 opener verified eyes-on: `ARTICULUS I. / De Christi praedestinatione. / QUAESTIO I. / Utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis.` followed by `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio Christi sit…` — this is the **first** of the three questions listed in the d.11 *divisio* TRACTATIO ("Primum est, utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis"). No q-swap. The article opens directly into the question with **no** standalone `Consequenter quaeruntur…` opener to fold (confirmed in the divisio hand-off).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.243** (running head `DIST. XI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`, page no. 243): bottom of the left column carries `ARTICULUS I. / De Christi praedestinatione. / QUAESTIO I.` and the *videtur* arguments 1–4 (left column); the right column carries the tail of arg 4 (`eodem modo… nos et Christum`) and the *Sed contra* arguments 1–4 (Pro parte negativa). Body breaks at `*Qui praedestinatus est filius* | *Dei in virtute*` mid-citation (Sed contra 4) onto p.244.
- **p.244** (running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`, page no. 244): tail of Sed contra 4 (left col top), then `CONCLUSIO`, the `Respondeo` body (Conclusio sidenotes 1–5 + generalis + Ad argumenta in the right column), and `SCHOLION` I begins at the bottom of the left column and continues at the top of the right column. SCHOLION I breaks at `…in ceteris praedestinatis. | — De hac 1. quaestione…` onto p.245.
- **p.245** (running head `DIST. XI. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`, page no. 245): SCHOLION I tail (parallel-loci list), SCHOLION II, and SCHOLION III (left col top → right col top). The SCHOLION here **forward-covers q2 and q3** (II = the *sequens* quaestio = q2; III = *tertia huius articuli quaestio* = q3). After SCHOLION III the page continues with `QUAESTIO II.` body, which is the next chunk.

**`<!-- page 243 -->`** at the chunk top (q1 opens on p.243). **`<!-- page 244 -->`** placed at the `Qui praedestinatus est filius | Dei in virtute` seam. **`<!-- page 245 -->`** placed at the `in ceteris praedestinatis. | — De hac 1. quaestione` seam inside SCHOLION I.

**Marker → footer mapping (per-page restart).**
- p.243 body markers: opener `quaeritur¹` (n.1, *Codd. quod*); arg 1 `gloriae³` (n.3); arg 2 `nobiscum⁴` (n.4); arg 3 `praedestinatio⁵` (n.5); arg 4 `Sanctorum⁶` (n.6); Sed contra 1 `Sanctorum⁷` (n.7); Sed contra 2 `communiter⁸` (n.8); Sed contra 3 `aeterna⁹` (n.9); Sed contra 4 `Romanos primo¹⁰` (n.10). **p.243 note 2** (*Non pauci codd. parum recte in eo*) belongs to the d.11 *divisio* TRACTATIO (consumed there, commit on d11-divisio) — NOT rendered here.
- p.244 body markers (Respondeo): `circa praedestinationem sunt¹` (n.1, *Edd. cum paucis codd. adiiciunt consideranda*); `ad Romanos octavo²` (n.2, the long *Vers. 30* Gloss note, which continues into the p.244 right footer); `statum³` (n.3, *Cod. M subtexuit initialem*); `consimiliter est⁴` (n.4, the long codices-variant note); `singularis personae⁵` (n.5, *Cfr. infra d. 13*).

**Apparatus count: 14 entries** — p.243 nn.1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (9) + p.244 nn.1,2,3,4,5 (5).

**J4 Class-A fix (2026-07-17).** The chunk had a duplicate-label defect (`[^1]`, `[^3]`, `[^4]`, `[^5]` each used once per printed page, per Quaracchi's per-page restart) that J1's automated relabel tool could not safely fix, because the p.244 n.1 apparatus *definition* was missing from the `## Apparatus` section entirely — only its body marker (`circa praedestinationem sunt[^1]`, already correctly placed) survived transcription, so the defs sequence read `1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,2,3,4,5` (13 entries) instead of the correct `1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2,3,4,5` (14). That missing `2` in the repeat sequence broke the tool's greedy page-boundary partition (it folded `[^2]`'s def into the p.243 group instead of starting the p.244 group). Verified against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p244-{L,R}-2.png`, printed p.244, pdf p.266): the missing note reads "Edd. cum paucis codd. adiiciunt *consideranda*. In cod. U sic scriptum est: …" — transcribed and inserted as the new `[^1]:` entry immediately before the p.244 `[^2]:` entry, restoring the def count to 14 and the correct group partition. No Latin/English body text or marker positions were touched — only the missing def was added. `tools/fix-apparatus-labels.py --apply` then mechanically relabeled the two per-page groups to the page-qualified `[^p243-N]` / `[^p244-N]` scheme.

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED (from d11-divisio, commit 451330c).** The p.243 footer notes nn.1, 3–7 (the `Circa primum sic proceditur…` argument apparatus) were forwarded from the d.11 *divisio* `## Notes`; nn.8–10 were also flagged there as belonging to the a1-q1 *Sed contra*. All of p.243 nn.1,3–10 are now consumed in this chunk. (p.243 n.2 was the divisio's and is not duplicated here.)

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED (to d11-a1-q2):** none. The q1 body footers all close on pp.243–244. The SCHOLION on p.245 is editorial (no body `[^N]` markers) and forward-covers q2/q3 by design; q2's own apparatus begins fresh with the p.245 footer note keyed to the `QUAESTIO II.` body (`Quod sit nostrae praedestinationis forma exemplaris` arguments), which is the next chunk's to claim.

**`has_scholion: true`** — SCHOLION I–III present; II and III forward-cover q2 and q3 respectively (so those sibling chunks may legitimately carry `has_scholion: false`).

**`[?]` flags: NONE.** All readings legible at 450 dpi. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF column bands: `utruin`→*utrum*, `videlur`→*videtur*, `Praedestinalio`→*Praedestinatio*, `Iteni`→*Item*, `buma-nam`/`humanam`→*humanam*, `competil`→*competit*, `Itcm`→*Item*, `Cbristum`/`Christuin`→*Christum*, `liominem`→*hominem*, `Auguslinus`→*Augustinus*, `propositnm`/`sitnm`→*propositum*/*positum*, `nulliim`→*nullum*, `notificalur`→*notificatur*, `siinul`→*simul*, `assnmtae`→*assumtae*, `praedestinalus`→*praedestinatus*, `finilam`/`finilum`→*finitam*/*finitum*, `praedeslinatio`→*praedestinatio*, `attendantur`/`praedeslina-`→*praedestina-*, `praedestina.nlem`→*praedestinantem*, `concinsio`→*conclusio*, `enira`→*enim*, `oclavo`→*octavo*, `slatum`→*statum*, `conciusio`→*conclusio*, `lionem`→*[disposi]tionem*, `excedit`✓, `lantum`→*tantum*, `singidaris`→*singularis*, `estisitur`/`estigitur`→*est igitur*, `Cnnsti`→*Christi*, `deslinalione`→*[prae]destinatione*, `remitti-mus`→*remittimus*, `lotam`→*totam*, `lisdem`→*Iisdem*, `Generalim`✓ (Quaracchi spelling), `Chrisli`→*Christi*, `ralio`→*ratio*, `renlibus`→*[diffe]rentibus*, `i|uaestione`/`quaestione`→*quaestione*, `Terlia`→*Tertia*, `praedeslinationis`→*praedestinationis*, `efflciens`→*efficiens*, `flnalis`→*finalis*. Apparatus garbles likewise corrected (`Aristol.`→*Aristot.*, `dicuuliir`→*dicuntur*, `seeiindiun`→*secundum*, `subslantiae`→*substantiae*, `niinen`→*nomen*, `eonclusione`→*conclusione*, `flnituin`→*finitum*, `Strabum et Lyranum`✓, `praescienlia`→*praescientia*, `glorificatio`✓, `poenitenliae`→*poenitentiae*, `iusfo`→*iusto*, `delinila`→*definita*, etc.). The Aegidius siglum `/Egid.` is the Æ-ligature for *Aegidius* (Giles of Rome).


title: Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 245 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum praedestinatio Christi respectu nostrae praedestinationis sit forma exemplaris.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio Christi respectu nostrae praedestinationis sit forma exemplaris. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Romanos octavo[^1]: *Quos praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui*; sed illud cui debet res conformari et configurari, est exemplar eius: ergo si praedestinati sumus, ut conformemur Christo; videtur, quod eius praedestinatio sit nostrae praedestinationis exemplaris ratio.

2. Item, Augustinus, *de Praedestinatione Sanctorum*[^2]: « Praeclarissimum lumen nostrae praedestinationis est Iesus Christus »; sed *lumen* habet rationem distinguendi et notificandi: si ergo hoc competit formae exemplari, videtur, quod praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationis exemplar et ratio agnoscendi.

3. Item, vita Christi et modus vivendi fuit norma et exemplar sancte vivendi ipsis membris Christi[^3]; sed sicut se habet conversatio ad conversationem, ita se habet praedestinatio ad praedestinationem: ergo si vita sua fuit regula et exemplar nostrae, pari ratione praedestinatio sua praedestinationis nostrae.

4. Item, Christi generatio fuit ratio exemplaris omnis emanationis, quia « in Verbo, quod Deus genuit, omnia disposuit[^4] »: ergo pari ratione eius praedestinatio fuit ratio exemplaris omnis praedestinationis.

**Sed contra:** 1. Super illud Iob trigesimo octavo[^5]: *Nunquid nosti ordinem caeli* etc.; Glossa: « Noscere ordinem caeli est supernarum dispositionum occultas dispositiones videre »: ergo in praedestinationibus et dispositionibus est ordo et distinctio: ergo unusquisque praedestinatus habet suam propriam praedestinationem, distinctam a praedestinatione Christi: et si alia ratione praedestinatus est Christus, et alia alii, ergo non est exemplar praedestinationis aliorum.

2. Item, ipsa praedestinatio nihil aliud est quam praevisio sive dispositio pertinens ad exemplar[^6]; si ergo exemplaris non est exemplar, ergo praedestinationis nihil est exemplar: ergo praedestinationis nostrae non est exemplar praedestinatio Christi.

3. Item, quae sunt simul, unum non est ratio exemplandi reliquum; sed omnes praedestinationes simul et ab aeterno fuerunt in mente divina: ergo praedestinatio Christi nullatenus potuit esse exemplaris forma[^7].

4. Item, si praedestinatio Christi est exemplar nostrae praedestinationis, aut ergo ratione principalis significati, aut ratione connotati. Si ratione principalis significati, cum illud sit Deus sive divina essentia, divina essentia erit exemplata, et idem erit exemplar sui ipsius[^8]. Si ratione connotati; contra: exemplar praecedit exemplatum, non sequitur; sed multi habuerunt gratiam finalem, quae est effectus praedestinationis, antequam Christus susciperet gratiam: ergo non videtur, quod praedestinatio Christi cuiuslibet alterius praedestinationis fuerit exemplaris forma.

### Conclusio.

> Praedestinatio Christi quoad connotatum et exemplar exterius potest dici exemplar nostrae praedestinationis, non respectu summi artificis, sed respectu nostri.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de praedestinatione Christi et nostra[^9] dupliciter: aut quantum ad *principale significatum*, aut quantum ad

<!-- page 246 -->

*connotatum*. Si loquamur quantum ad *principale significatum*, quod quidem est divina essentia; sic nulla praedestinatio exemplar habet ab alia, cum omnes unum sint, scilicet divina essentia. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad *connotatum*, quod quidem est gratia et gloria; tunc distinguendum est, quod duplex est exemplar: quoddam *interius* in mente artificis, sicut ratio, secundum quam artifex producit sua opera; quoddam *exterius*, ad quod aspiciens ille qui ignorat artem, aliquo modo regulatur; sicut isti artifices mechanici aliquas formas exterius habent, secundum quas dirigunt opera sua, sicut patet in his qui faciunt calceamenta.

Si ergo *primo* modo loquamur de praedestinatione Christi ratione *connotati*, adhuc praedestinatio Christi non est nostrae praedestinationis exemplar. Deus enim non praedestinavit nos, aspiciens ad aliquod *aliud a se*, sed unumquodque praevidit *in se* et *disposuit* secundum *rationem propriam*. — Si vero loquamur de exemplari *secundo* modo, sic praedestinatio Christi est exemplar nostrae praedestinationis, exemplar, inquam, directivum non respectu summi artificis, sed respectu nostri, tam in credendis quam in exspectandis quam etiam in operandis. Tunc enim est in nobis recte *gratia* Dei, quando Christo efficimur conformes; et talia etiam per gratiam futura sunt *corpora* nostra, quale Christus sua resurrectione monstravit, secundum quod Sancti dicunt[^10]; et nos ipsi, si volumus ad ultimum praedestinationis terminum pervenire, necesse habemus *in auctorem fidei et consummatorem* aspicere[^11], qui *exemplum dedit, ut quemadmodum ipse fecit, et nos faciamus*. Quemadmodum enim Petrus dicit primae secundo, *Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum*. Et pro tanto dicit Augustinus, quod ipse est « praeclarissimum lumen nostrae praedestinationis », quasi Deus ad unumquemque nostrum dicat: *Aspice et fac secundum exemplar, quod tibi in monte monstratum est*[^12], hoc est in Christo, cuius omnia illa veteris Testamenti apparamenta fuerunt signa. — Et in hoc sensu concedi potest, quod praedestinatio Christi exemplaris forma sit nostrae praedestinationis.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod sunt distinctae et ordinatae; dicendum, quod ex illo verbo habetur, quod inter praedestinationes a parte connotatorum est *distinctio*, sic tamen quod non deest *ordo*. Et ideo, quamvis nostrae praedestinationis effectus ab effectu praedestinationis Christi sit distinctus; potest tamen habere ordinem ad ipsum, secundum quem est directio et regulatio, et per hoc quaedam ratio exemplandi.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praedestinatio ipsa est exemplar; dicendum, quod verum est de ratione *principalis significati*; et quantum ad hoc bene concedendum est, quod una praedestinatio non est exemplar alterius, sed ratione *connotati* est exemplatum; et nihil prohibet, aliquod esse quodam modo exemplatum et quodam modo exemplar. Sicut liber primo factus ab artifice est exemplar respectu librorum deinceps fiendorum, sed exemplatus fuit ab arte existente in mente[^13]; sic et in effectu praedestinationis intelligendum est.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praedestinationes sunt simul; iam patet responsio. Hoc enim verum est quantum ad *principale significatum*, sed quantum ad *connotatum* veritatem non habet; et ideo nihil impedit, quin ex illa parte contingat reperire exemplaritatem[^14].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod exemplar praecedit exemplatum; dicendum, quod etsi Christus, proprie loquendo, sua vita non dederit formam et exemplum, nisi his qui secuti sunt[^15], tamen sub quibusdam velaminibus figurarum dedit praecedentibus quod nobis dat aperte; et cum exercebantur spiritualiter et fideliter a viris sanctis et spiritualibus, per hoc Christo conformabantur in vita, quem etsi nondum viderent in carne, videbant tamen fide, iuxta illud Ioannis octavo[^16]: *Abraham exsultavit, ut videret diem meum, vidit et gavisus est*; et ita, quamvis non praecesserit re, praecessit tamen praefiguratione et credulitate. Et illud sufficit ad rationem exemplaris qualemcumque. — Praeterea, etsi quantum ad gratiam non praecesserit, tamen quantum ad gloriam praecessit; et ratione istius rationem exemplaritatis habet Christi praedestinatio respectu omnium. Ipse enim est *primogenitus in multis fratribus, primatum tenens in omnibus*[^17].

english:
### Question II. *Whether Christ's predestination is an exemplary form in relation to our predestination.*

Secondly it is asked whether Christ's predestination is an exemplary form in relation to our predestination. And that it is so, it seems.

1. To the Romans, chapter eight[^1]: *Whom he predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son*; but that to which a thing ought to be conformed and configured is its exemplar: therefore if we are predestined to be conformed to Christ, it seems that his predestination is the exemplary ground of our predestination.

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Predestination of the Saints*[^2]: "The most splendid light of our predestination is Jesus Christ"; but *light* has the character of distinguishing and making known: if therefore this belongs to an exemplary form, it seems that Christ's predestination is the exemplar of our predestination and the ground of recognizing it.

3. Likewise, the life of Christ and his manner of living was the norm and exemplar of holy living for the very members of Christ[^3]; but as conduct stands to conduct, so predestination stands to predestination: therefore if his life was the rule and exemplar of ours, by parity of reasoning his predestination [was] of our predestination.

4. Likewise, Christ's generation was the exemplary ground of every emanation, since "in the Word, which God begot, he disposed all things[^4]": therefore by parity of reasoning his predestination was the exemplary ground of every predestination.

**On the contrary:** 1. Upon that text of Job, chapter thirty-eight[^5]: *Dost thou know the order of heaven* etc.; the Gloss: "To know the order of heaven is to see the hidden dispositions of the supernal dispositions": therefore in predestinations and dispositions there is order and distinction: therefore each predestined person has his own proper predestination, distinct from the predestination of Christ: and if Christ is predestined by one ground, and others by another, therefore it is not the exemplar of the predestination of others.

2. Likewise, predestination itself is nothing other than the foreseeing or disposition pertaining to the exemplar[^6]; if therefore that which belongs to the exemplar is not an exemplar, then nothing belonging to predestination is an exemplar: therefore Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of our predestination.

3. Likewise, of things that are simultaneous, the one is not the ground of exemplifying the other; but all predestinations were simultaneously and from eternity in the divine mind: therefore Christ's predestination could in no way be an exemplary form[^7].

4. Likewise, if Christ's predestination is the exemplar of our predestination, then either by reason of the *principal signified* or by reason of the *connoted*. If by reason of the *principal signified*, since that is God or the divine essence, the divine essence will be the exemplified, and the same will be the exemplar of itself[^8]. If by reason of the *connoted*; on the contrary: the exemplar precedes the exemplified, it does not follow; but many had final grace, which is an effect of predestination, before Christ received grace: therefore it does not seem that Christ's predestination was the exemplary form of anyone else's predestination.

### Conclusion.

> Christ's predestination, as regards the connoted and the exterior exemplar, can be called the exemplar of our predestination, not in relation to the supreme artificer, but in relation to us.

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of the predestination of Christ and ours[^9] in two ways: either as to the *principal signified*, or as to the

*connoted*. If we speak as to the *principal signified*, which indeed is the divine essence; then no predestination has its exemplar from another, since all are one, namely the divine essence. — But if we speak as to the *connoted*, which indeed is grace and glory; then it must be distinguished that the exemplar is twofold: one *interior* in the mind of the artificer, as the account by which the artificer produces his works; another *exterior*, looking to which one who is ignorant of the art is in some way regulated; just as those mechanical artificers have certain exterior forms, according to which they direct their works, as is evident in those who make shoes.

If therefore in the *first* way we speak of Christ's predestination by reason of the *connoted*, even so Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of our predestination. For God did not predestine us by looking to anything *other than himself*, but he foresaw each thing *in himself* and *disposed* it according to its *proper ground*. — But if we speak of the exemplar in the *second* way, then Christ's predestination is the exemplar of our predestination, an exemplar, I say, that is directive not in relation to the supreme artificer, but in relation to us, both in the things to be believed and in the things to be awaited and also in the things to be done. For then the *grace* of God is rightly in us, when we are made conformable to Christ; and our *bodies* too are destined through grace to be such, of which kind Christ showed by his resurrection, according to what the Saints say[^10]; and we ourselves, if we wish to arrive at the ultimate term of predestination, must look *to the author of faith and its consummator*[^11], who *gave an example, that as he himself did, we also might do*. For as Peter says in the first [letter], chapter two, *Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example*. And to this extent Augustine says that he is "the most splendid light of our predestination," as though God says to each one of us: *Look and make according to the exemplar that was shown to thee on the mountain*[^12], that is, in Christ, of whom all those furnishings of the Old Testament were signs. — And in this sense it can be conceded that Christ's predestination is the exemplary form of our predestination.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected on the contrary, that they are distinct and ordered; it must be said that from that text it is held that among predestinations on the side of the connoted there is *distinction*, yet in such a way that *order* is not lacking. And therefore, although the effect of our predestination is distinct from the effect of Christ's predestination; it can nevertheless have an order toward it, according to which there is direction and regulation, and through this a certain ground of exemplifying.

2. To that which is objected, that predestination itself is an exemplar; it must be said that this is true by reason of the *principal signified*; and as to this it must well be conceded that one predestination is not the exemplar of another, but by reason of the *connoted* it is the exemplified; and nothing prevents something from being in one way exemplified and in another way an exemplar. Just as a book first made by an artificer is an exemplar with respect to the books thereafter to be made, but it was exemplified from the art existing in the mind[^13]; so too it must be understood in the effect of predestination.

3. To that which is objected, that predestinations are simultaneous; the response is already evident. For this is true as to the *principal signified*, but as to the *connoted* it does not hold the truth; and therefore nothing prevents that on that side an exemplarity should be found[^14].

4. To that which is objected, that the exemplar precedes the exemplified; it must be said that although Christ, properly speaking, did not give a form and example by his life except to those who followed[^15], nevertheless under certain veils of figures he gave to those who preceded what he gives to us openly; and when they were exercised spiritually and faithfully by holy and spiritual men, through this they were conformed to Christ in life, whom, even though they did not yet see in the flesh, they nevertheless saw by faith, according to that text of John, chapter eight[^16]: *Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day, he saw it and was glad*; and thus, although he did not precede in actuality, he nevertheless preceded by prefiguration and by belief. And that suffices for some kind of exemplary character. — Moreover, even if as to grace he did not precede, nevertheless as to glory he did precede; and by reason of this, Christ's predestination has the character of exemplarity in relation to all. For he is *the firstborn among many brethren, holding the primacy in all things*[^17].

la: Vers. 29. — In minori respici videtur illud Exod. 25, 40: *Fac secundum exemplar* etc. Cfr. de minori tom. I. pag. 600, nota 7.

en: Verse 29. — In the minor [premise] there seems to be referenced that text of Exodus 25, 40: *Make according to the exemplar* etc. Cf. on the minor [premise], tome I, page 600, note 7.

la: Cap. 15. n. 30. Est etiam praeclarissimum lumen praedestinationis et gratiae ipse Salvator… Christus Iesus. Cfr. de Dono persever. c. 24. n. 67.

en: Chapter 15, n. 30. "The Saviour himself… Christ Jesus is also the most splendid light of predestination and grace." Cf. *On the Gift of Perseverance* c. 24, n. 67.

la: Vide Ioan. 13, 15, et 1. Petr. 2, 21. — Paulo inferius post *et exemplar nostrae* edd. supplent *vitae*.

en: See John 13, 15, and 1 Peter 2, 21. — A little below, after *and the exemplar of our*, the editions supply *life*.

la: Ut apud Petr. Lombardum et Lyranum legitur in Glossa ordinaria in Ps. 61, 12. Verba ipsa sumta sunt ex August. in hunc loc. Cfr supra pag. 191, nota 4, et I. Sent. d. 6. q. 3. et d. 27. p. II. q. 2.

en: As it is read in Peter Lombard and in Lyra in the Glossa ordinaria on Psalm 61, 12. The words themselves are taken from Augustine on this passage. Cf. above, page 191, note 4, and I Sent. d. 6, q. 3, and d. 27, p. II, q. 2.

la: Vers. 33. — Glossa haec ordinaria (et apud Strabum et Lyranum) sumta est ex Gregor., XXIX. Moral. c. 33. n. 77, ubi sic: Ordinem caeli nosse est supernarum dispositionum occultas praedestinationes videre. — Paulo inferius pro *et si alia ratione* cod. U *et sic secundum aliam rationem.* Deinde idem cod. U cum codd. A G H I K N T V Z bb *alia* omittit ante *alii.* Demum edd. ultimam conclus. huius arg. sic exhibent: *ergo non est exemplar suae praedestinationis et aliorum.*

en: Verse 33. — This Gloss (ordinary, and in Strabo and in Lyra) is taken from Gregory, *Moralia* XXIX, c. 33, n. 77, where thus: "To know the order of heaven is to see the hidden predestinations of the supernal dispositions." — A little below, for *and if by another ground* codex U reads *and thus according to another ground.* Then the same codex U, with codices A G H I K N T V Z bb, omits *another* before *others.* Finally the editions present the last conclusion of this argument thus: *therefore it is not the exemplar of its own predestination and of others.*

la: Cfr. hic fundam. 4. — Inferius pro *nihil* cod. G *non.*

en: Cf. here, fundamentum 4. — Below, for *nothing* codex G reads *not.*

la: Vat. addit *praedestinationum aliarum.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *of other predestinations.*

la: Edd. *et idem* [Vat. *et sic idem*] *exemplatum et exemplar sui ipsius.* Mox post *non sequitur* Vat. adiicit *illud*, et pro *non sequitur* cod. K habet *et non convertitur.* — De principiis huius arg. cfr. I. Sent. d. 40. a. 1. q. I.

en: The editions [read] *and the same* [Vatican ed.: *and thus the same*] *the exemplified and the exemplar of itself.* Soon after *it does not follow* the Vatican edition adds *that*, and for *it does not follow* codex K has *and it is not convertible.* — On the principles of this argument cf. I Sent. d. 40, a. 1, q. I.

la: Pro *nostra* Vat. falso *natura.*

en: For *ours* the Vatican edition falsely [reads] *nature.*

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 43. a. I. q. 6. et d. 49. p. II. a. 2. princip. a. 2. q. I, ubi praecipue allegatur August., de Civ. Dei, qui in laudato libro passim (XIII. c. 23; XXII. c. 13. seqq.) agit de qualitate corporum resurgentium. — Paulo superius pro *per gratiam* codd. G (K. a secunda manu) bb *per gloriam.*

en: Cf. IV Sent. d. 43, a. I, q. 6, and d. 49, p. II, a. 2, princ., a. 2, q. I, where Augustine is chiefly alleged, *On the City of God*, who in the praised book throughout (XIII, c. 23; XXII, c. 13 ff.) treats of the quality of resurrected bodies. — A little above, for *through grace* codices G (K, by a second hand), bb [read] *through glory.*

la: Hebr. 12, 2. — Subinde respicitur illud Ioan. 13, 15: Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis. — Seq. Script. loc. est I. Petr. 2. 21. — Post *et consummatorem* Vat. interiicit *qui est Christus* et mox pro *Quemadmodum enim* substituit *quemadmodum etiam.* Vocula ista *enim* abest a cod. Z et edd. 1, 2.

en: Hebrews 12, 2. — Thereupon there is referenced that text of John 13, 15: "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also may do." — The following Scripture passage is 1 Peter 2, 21. — After *and consummator* the Vatican edition inserts *who is Christ*, and soon for *For as* it substitutes *as also.* That little word *for* is absent from codex Z and editions 1, 2.

en: Exodus 25, 40.

la: Vat. subdit *artificis.* Verbum *existente* in cod. Q a secunda manu mutatum est in *exemplante.* Paulo superius pro *aliquod esse* codd. A G H bb *aliquid esse.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *of the artificer.* The word *existing* in codex Q was changed by a second hand into *exemplifying.* A little above, for *something to be* codices A G H bb [read] *some thing to be.*

la: Cfr. I Sent. d. 35. q. 3. et 6.

en: Cf. I Sent. d. 35, q. 3 and 6.

la: Edd. supplent *eum.* Paulo inferius pro *et cum* non pauci codd. *et tamen*, codd. A bb (K aa a secunda manu) *et dum.*

en: The editions supply *him.* A little below, for *and when* not a few codices [read] *and yet*, codices A bb (K aa by a second hand) *and while.*

la: Ver. 56. — Mox pro *praecesserit re* edd. 1, 2 *praecesserit tempore*, Vat. *praecesserit re vel tempore.*

en: Verse 56. — Soon for *preceded in actuality* editions 1, 2 [read] *preceded in time*, the Vatican edition *preceded in actuality or in time.*

la: Rom. 8, 29, et Coloss. 1, 18. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Romans 8, 29, and Colossians 1, 18. — See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.245–246 (PDF pp.267–268; raw OCR lines 17365–17488), reading each page left column top→bottom then right column, body bands then footer bands (Vol III PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/III Override). Fresh literal English. Offset pdf = printed + 22.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.245** (running head `DIST. XI. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` / `QUAEST. II.`, page no. 245): QUAESTIO II opens here, after the tail of q1's Scholion III at the top of the left column. The four *videtur* arguments (left col), the running-head transition into the right column carrying *Sed contra* 1 (tail), then args 2–4, the `CONCLUSIO`, and the opening of the `Respondeo` (`…aut quantum ad`) all fall on p.245. Footer = nn.1–9 (left col nn.1–5; right col nn.6–9).
- **p.246** (running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`, page no. 246): the `Respondeo` body continues from `connotatum…` (left col), Conclusio sidenotes 1–3 + Subdistinctio, then the `Solutio oppositorum` (Ad 1–4) in the right column. Footer = nn.1–8 (left col nn.1–2; right col nn.3–8).

**`<!-- page 245 -->`** at the chunk top (q2 opens on p.245). **`<!-- page 246 -->`** placed at the `…aut quantum ad | connotatum` seam inside the Respondeo (the seam confirmed grammatically continuous against the 450 dpi bands of both pages).

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. q2 prints **no** free-standing scholion. q1's Scholion **§II** forward-covers this question (verified in d11-a1-q1, commit 956dc2c: "Sequentem (2.) quaestionem S. Thom. … eadem conclusione solvit…"). The p.246 apparatus note [^17] itself directs *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — confirming the scholarly apparatus for q2 lives in the preceding question's scholion.

**Apparatus.** 17 entries total, per-page restart: **p.245 nn.1–9** (markers in the *videtur* args 1–4 → [^1]–[^4]; *Sed contra* 1–4 → [^5]–[^8]; Respondeo opener → [^9]) and **p.246 nn.1–8** (Respondeo/Solutio body → [^10]–[^17]). Renumbered to a single continuous chunk-internal sequence [^1]–[^17]; the per-page split is documented above and the original Quaracchi per-page numbers (p.245: 1–9; p.246: 1–8) are recoverable from this map.

**Hand-offs picked up (inbound): NONE.** Per d11-a1-q1's report (commit 956dc2c), q1 forwarded no footers — its body footers all close on pp.243–244, and the p.245 scholion is editorial with no body markers. q2's apparatus begins fresh with the p.245 `QUAESTIO II` footer.

**Hand-offs FORWARDED (to d11-a1-q3): NONE.** q2's body and both page footers (p.245 nn.1–9, p.246 nn.1–8) close fully within pp.245–246. The next printed page p.247 opens directly with the `QUAESTIO III.` running head and body (raw 17489); no q2 footer note leaks onto p.247. The boundary is LOCKED at QUAESTIO III, raw line 17489.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the 450 dpi column bands.