title: Dist. 46, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 965 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum Deus possit aliquem pure remunerare ex iustitia, vel pure ex misericordia.*

> Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The notes below are therefore labelled by page: note 13 of page 965, then notes 1–10 of page 966.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum possit Deus aliquem pure *remunerare* ex iustitia, vel pure ex misericordia, ita quod ista duo separentur. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Hugo de sancto Victore[^p965-13] dicit, quod si Deus totam poenam relaxaret, non propter hoc esset iniustus: ergo si misericordia velit relaxare poenam, et iustitia non repugnat; patet etc.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Deus est summe iustus et summe misericors; sed « albius est quod est nigro impermixtius[^p966-1] »: ergo cum misericordia temperet iustitiam, et iustitia misericordiam, istud est summae misericordiae, quod nihil habet de iustitia, et e converso: ergo si Deus summus est in utroque, potest facere opus de iustitia, in quo non sit misericordia.

<!-- page 966 -->

3. Item, tantae culpae debetur tanta poena; quaeritur igitur, utrum Deus *possit* tantam infligere. Si *non*, ergo non est omnipotens; si *potest*, et hoc erat[^p966-2] purae iustitiae: ergo potest facere opus purae iustitiae; similiter concluditur, quod opus purae misericordiae.

4. Item, homo potest punire hominem tantum, quantum meruit, potest etiam totum remittere: ergo si Deus est iustior et misericordior homine, multo fortius Deus potest hoc facere.

**Contra:**
1. Secundae ad Timotheum secundo[^p966-3]: *Iustus est et negare se ipsum non potest*: si ergo non potest facere contra se nec se negare, non potest facere, quin puniat; et sic etc.

2. Item, proprium est Dei misereri[^p966-4]; sed proprium non potest relinquere illud cuius est proprium: ergo impossibile est, quod aliquem remuneret, quin misericorditer faciat.

3. Item, culpa est totam culpam prosequi, et culpa est malum relinquere impunitum: ergo sicut Deus non potest mentiri[^p966-5], quia malum est, sine culpa; sic nec omnino iuste punire nec omnino misericorditer parcere.

4. Item, sicut Deus creat in quantum unus, verus et bonus; ita regit et remunerat in quantum misericors et iustus; sed impossibile est, Deum facere effectum, qui non habeat modum, speciem et ordinem, quae respondent unitati, veritati et bonitati[^p966-6]: ergo impossibile est, quod retribuat, quin in effectu illo aliquid retribuat iustitiae, aliquid misericordiae.

### Conclusio

> *In omni Dei retributione misericordia et iustitia sic coniunctae sunt, ut impossibile sit, eas ab invicem separari.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in omni retributione Domini sic sunt coniunctae misericordia et iustitia, quod impossibile est, separari eas ab invicem. — Et ratio huius est: quia, sicut in nobis, *quaedam* sunt virtutes, quarum perfectio attenditur per accessum ad extremum, ut puta caritas; *quaedam* per accessum ad medium, ut iustitia et misericordia[^p966-7]; unde non dicitur *summe iustus* per excessum severitatis, nec *summe misericors* propter omnimodam remissionem culpae; sed quia tantum miseretur, quantum est conveniens, similiter et tantum punit. — Et ratio huius est, quia iustitia et misericordia maxime dicuntur respectu *actuum et meritorum nostrorum*.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod dicit Hugo, quod potest totam poenam remittere; dicendum, quod verum est de potentia *simpliciter*, sed non est verum de potentia *ordinata ad merita*. — Vel intelligitur de poena *subsequente*, non de poena *concomitante culpam*, quia, ut dicitur in primo Confessionum[^p966-8], « impossibile est, esse dedecus peccati sine decore iustitiae ».

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est summe iustus; dicendum est, quod non dicitur *summe iustus* per recessum a misericordia ad severitatem, sed per recessum ab iniustitia.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum possit isti tantam poenam infligere; dico, quod non potest, et hoc, quia misericordia repugnat, et non potest suam misericordiam negare, hoc enim est *non-posse*; unde sicut *non posse* esse nimis rigidum[^p966-9] non sonat in defectum, sed in nobilitatem; sic in proposito intelligendum. — Posset etiam dici, quod ratione offensae, quae est in Deum infinitum, poena non possit sufficiens taxari, nec peccator esset capax; unde defectus est ex parte *naturae suscipientis*, non *naturae infligentis*.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homo potest parcere totum; dicendum, quod est homo, ad quem spectat *misereri*, ut est ille qui recepit iniuriam, et iste non potest omnino punire, quin excedat; et homo, ad quem spectat *punire*, ut est iudex, et iste non potest omnino dimittere, quin excedat. Et quoniam Deus gerit istam duplicem personam, scilicet eius qui offenditur, et eius qui iudicat; cum[^p966-10] non possit excedere, facit utrumque.

---

english:
### Article II. Question IV. *Whether God can reward anyone purely out of justice, or purely out of mercy.*

Fourth it is asked whether God can *reward* anyone purely out of justice, or purely out of mercy, so that these two are separated. And that this is so, it seems:

1. Because Hugh of St. Victor[^p965-13] says that if God were to remit the whole punishment, he would not on that account be unjust: therefore if mercy should will to remit the punishment, justice too does not oppose it; it is plain, etc.

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because God is supremely just and supremely merciful; but "that is whiter which is less mixed with black[^p966-1]": therefore, since mercy tempers justice, and justice mercy, that belongs to supreme mercy which has nothing of justice, and conversely: therefore if God is supreme in both, he can do a work of justice in which there is no mercy.

3. Likewise, to so great a fault so great a punishment is due; it is asked therefore whether God *can* inflict so great a one. If *not*, then he is not omnipotent; if he *can*, then this also would be[^p966-2] of pure justice: therefore he can do a work of pure justice; and in like manner it is concluded that he can do a work of pure mercy.

4. Likewise, a man can punish a man only as much as he has deserved, and he can also remit the whole: therefore if God is more just and more merciful than man, much more strongly can God do this.

**Contra:**
1. In the second chapter of the Second Letter to Timothy[^p966-3]: *He is faithful and cannot deny himself*: if therefore he cannot act against himself nor deny himself, he cannot act without punishing; and so forth.

2. Likewise, it is proper to God to have mercy[^p966-4]; but what is proper cannot leave behind that of which it is proper: therefore it is impossible that he should reward anyone without acting mercifully.

3. Likewise, it is a fault to prosecute a fault to the full, and it is a fault to leave an evil unpunished: therefore, just as God cannot lie[^p966-5], because it is an evil, without fault; so neither can he punish wholly justly nor spare wholly mercifully.

4. Likewise, just as God creates inasmuch as he is one, true and good; so he governs and rewards inasmuch as he is merciful and just; but it is impossible for God to make an effect which does not have measure, species and order, which correspond to unity, truth and goodness[^p966-6]: therefore it is impossible that he should repay without repaying in that effect something of justice and something of mercy.

### Conclusion

> *In every retribution of God mercy and justice are so joined together that it is impossible for them to be separated from one another.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in every retribution of the Lord mercy and justice are so joined together that it is impossible for them to be separated from one another. — And the ground of this is: because, just as among us *some* virtues are such that their perfection is measured by approach to an extreme, as for instance charity; *some* by approach to a mean, as justice and mercy[^p966-7]; hence he is not called *supremely just* by an excess of severity, nor *supremely merciful* on account of an all-encompassing remission of fault; but because he has mercy just so much as is fitting, and likewise punishes just so much. — And the ground of this is that justice and mercy are chiefly spoken of in respect of *our acts and merits*.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which Hugh says, that he can remit the whole punishment; it must be said that this is true of power taken *simply*, but it is not true of power *ordered to merits*. — Or it is to be understood of the punishment that *follows*, not of the punishment *accompanying the fault*, because, as is said in the first book of the Confessions[^p966-8], "it is impossible that the disgrace of sin should be without the beauty of justice."

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that he is supremely just; it must be said that he is not called *supremely just* by a withdrawal from mercy toward severity, but by a withdrawal from injustice.

*To 3.* To that which is asked, whether he can inflict so great a punishment on this man; I say that he cannot, and this because mercy opposes it, and he cannot deny his own mercy, for this is a *not-being-able*; hence, just as *not being able* to be too rigid[^p966-9] does not sound as a defect but as a nobility; so it is to be understood in the case proposed. — It could also be said that, by reason of the offence, which is against the infinite God, a sufficient punishment could not be assessed, nor would the sinner be capable of it; hence the defect is on the side of the *nature receiving*, not of the *nature inflicting*.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that a man can spare the whole; it must be said that there is the man to whom it belongs to *have mercy*, as is he who has received the injury, and this one cannot punish wholly without exceeding; and there is the man to whom it belongs to *punish*, as is the judge, and this one cannot wholly dismiss without exceeding. And since God bears this twofold person, namely of him who is offended and of him who judges; since[^p966-10] he cannot exceed, he does both.

---

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 8. et 9, ubi agit de iustitia potestatis et aequitatis, de iustitia patiente et cogente, ac inter alia dicit: « Cum ergo Deus punit peccatorem, iuste facit; quia eius potestati debetur, ut hoc possit, si velit, et iuste punitur qui patitur... Cum vero Deus iustificat peccatorem, iuste agit et iustus est iustitia potestatis, qua ei hoc licet ». In seqq. ostendit, quod Deus semper iuste agit (sive iustitia potestatis, sive aequitatis), assumendo quosdam ad salvationem, deserendo quosdam ad punitionem; immo quod qui salvantur, Dei iustitia servata, secundum *merita sua* iuste damnari potuissent, et qui secundum merita sua iuste damnantur, per *gratiam Dei* iuste salvari potuissent, si Deus voluisset etc. — Edd. quaestionem sic proponunt: *utrum possit Deus aliquem punire pure ex iustitia, vel pure remunerare ex misericordia* etc.

en: Book I of *On the Sacraments*, part VIII, cc. 8 and 9, where he treats of the justice of power and of equity, of justice as suffering and as compelling, and among other things says: "When therefore God punishes the sinner, he acts justly; because it is owed to his power that he should be able to do this, if he wills, and he who suffers is justly punished... But when God justifies the sinner, he acts justly and is just by the justice of power, by which this is permitted to him." In what follows he shows that God always acts justly (whether by the justice of power or of equity), in taking up some to salvation and abandoning others to punishment; indeed that those who are saved could, with God's justice preserved, have been justly damned according to *their own merits*, and those who are justly damned according to their own merits could, through the *grace of God*, have been justly saved, had God so willed, etc. — The editions propose the question thus: *whether God can punish anyone purely out of justice, or purely reward out of mercy*, etc.

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 4. (c. 5.).

en: Aristotle, *Topics* III, c. 4 (c. 5).

la: Codd. P aa *est*, edd. *erit*.

en: Codices P and aa read *est*; the editions *erit*.

la: Vers. 13: Ille fidelis permanet; negare etc.

en: Verse 13: *He remains faithful; to deny*, etc.

la: Oratio pro pluribus defunctis: Deus, cui proprium est misereri semper et parcere etc. — De *minori* vide Porphyr., de Praedicab. c. de *Proprio*, ubi proprium stricte sumtum definitur, quod convenit « soli et omni et semper » etc.; et Aristot., V. Topic. c. 1.

en: The prayer for several of the departed: *O God, whose property it is always to have mercy and to spare*, etc. — On the *minor* premise see Porphyry, *On the Predicables*, the chapter on the *Proprium*, where the proper taken strictly is defined as that which belongs "to it alone, and to all of it, and always," etc.; and Aristotle, *Topics* V, c. 1.

la: Tit. 1, 2: Qui non mentitur Deus.

en: Titus 1:2: *God, who does not lie*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. 1. dub. 3, et II. Sent. d. 35. a. 2. q. 1. — Circa finem arg. ante *iustitiae* codd. M R omittunt *retribuat*, quod parum congruit. Fortasse legendum *tribuat* pro *retribuat*, vel *sit*.

en: Cf. I *Sent.* d. 3, p. 1, dub. 3, and II *Sent.* d. 35, a. 2, q. 1. — Toward the end of the argument, before *iustitiae*, codices M and R omit *retribuat*, which fits poorly. Perhaps *tribuat* should be read for *retribuat*, or *sit*.

la: Supple cum codd. G L Y *sic et in Deo* (simile additur a codd. P bb in fine corp.). — Cfr. supra pag. 963, nota 4.

en: Supply, with codices G, L and Y, *so also in God* (something similar is added by codices P and bb at the end of the body). — Cf. above, p. 963, note 4.

la: Cfr. c. 10. n. 16. et c. 12. n. 19. Clarius habetur III. de Lib. Arb. c. 15. n. 44. (vide supra pag. 957, nota 9.). — In principio solut. substituimus ex cod. G *totam poenam* pro *totam culpam*; cod. aa *totum*.

en: Cf. c. 10, n. 16 and c. 12, n. 19. It is found more clearly in *On Free Choice of the Will* III, c. 15, n. 44 (see above, p. 957, note 9). — At the beginning of the solution we have substituted, from codex G, *totam poenam* for *totam culpam*; codex aa reads *totum*.

la: Plures codd. *minus rigidum*, edd. *iniustum*.

en: Several codices read *minus rigidum*; the editions *iniustum*.

la: Edd. *ideo cum*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: The editions read *ideo cum*. — See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L102594–L102792, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p965-{L,R}-{1,2}.png` and `vol4-p966-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands were already generated at the true per-page gutter — p.965 @ 1480, p.966 @ 2170; **not regenerated**). No scholion: Article II's scholion sits in `a2-q1` (raw L102368) and covers q1–q4.

**Header hazard.** The OCR prints the header as `QUAESTiO IV.` (lowercase i) and the title line as `Uirum Deus possit aliquem pure remunerare ex iustiiia…`. The bands read `QUAESTIO IV.` / *Utrum … ex iustitia*; rendered accordingly. The title is taken from the line after the header (L102596), and matches the skeleton's `title_la`.

**Page span corrected.** The skeleton carried `printed_pages: [965, 966, 967]` / `pdf_pages: [985, 986, 987]`. The question ends on p.966 at *«… facit utrumque.»* — band `vol4-p967-L-0.png` shows p.967 opening directly with the running head `DIST. XLVI.`, then `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` and `DUB. I.` No q4 body or footer material is on p.967. Frontmatter narrowed to [965, 966] / [985, 986]. `line_start`/`line_end` unchanged (L102788 is only the p.967 running head, page furniture).

**Page → apparatus split map (11 entries).**
- **p.965 (13 footer notes total):** notes **1–12 belong to `a2-q3`** — their anchors (`Universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas` ⁴, `Iustus Dominus in omnibus viis suis` ⁵, `Qui creavit te sine te` ⁶, `sine poenalitatibus non possumus vivere` ⁷, `appropriate` ⁹, `dicendum quod` ¹⁰, `condecentia bonitatis` ¹¹, `iustificationi` ¹²) all fall in q3's body, which occupies the whole of p.965 L-0/L-1 and R-0/R-1. **Note 13 is mine**, anchored at `Hugo de sancto Victore` ¹³ in my arg. 1. Derived independently from the bands, not from the `a2-q3` file.
- **p.966 (10 footer notes):** all 10 are mine — L-column footer carries the runover of p.965 n.13 plus notes 1–4; R-column footer carries the runover of n.4 plus notes 5–10. My body anchors all ten. **Nothing forwarded to `dubia`** — p.967's footer sequence restarts and belongs entirely to the dubia chunk.

**Hand-offs.** *Picked up:* p.965 note 13 only. *Forwarded to `a2-q3`:* p.965 notes 1–12. *Forwarded to `dubia`:* the whole of p.967 (body + footers) — `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` at L102793, running head at L102788.

**Band-vs-OCR disagreements resolved at band time** (all legible; not parked as flags):
- p.966 n.1 — OCR `Aristol., III. Topic. c. i. (c. S.)` → band **c. 4. (c. 5.)**.
- p.966 n.6 — OCR `II. Sent. d. 33.` → band **d. 35.**
- p.966 n.8 — OCR `III. de Lib. Arb. c. \'.i. n. ii.` → band **c. 15. n. 44.**
- Body arg. 2 — OCR `« albius est quod est nigro impermixlius »` → band *impermixtius*.
- Body Contra 1 — OCR `Iustus est ct negcire se ipsum non potest` → band *Iustus est et negare se ipsum non potest*.

**Seam checks.** Opening (*Quarto quaeritur…*) is continuous with `a2-q3`'s close (*…iustitia ratione punitionis coniunctae iustificationi.*) across the p.965 R-1 → header boundary. Closing sentence *Et quoniam Deus gerit istam duplicem personam… facit utrumque.* parses; no dubia material bleeds into the tail. Marginal glosses (`Fundamenta.`, `Conclusio.`, `Ad oppositum.`, `Ratio.`, `Notandum.`) trimmed as editorial marginalia.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 46, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 967 -->

> The numbered notes below are Quaracchi's page footers. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on each printed page, so the notes are labelled by page: notes 1–10 belong to page 967 and notes 1–7 to page 968.

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *sine intermissione perpetuos* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Iob vigesimo quarto[^p967-1] dicitur: *Transierunt ab aquis nivium ad calorem nimium*: ergo saltem videtur, quod in illo transitu sit intermissio. — Item, super illud Isaiae decimo quarto[^p967-2]: *Tu autem proiectus es*; Glossa: « Etsi omnes animae aliquando habebunt requiem, tu nunquam »: et ita videtur, quod animae aliquando ibi requiescant.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod punitio gehennalis erit sine omni intermissione; et hoc patet per illud quod dicitur Apocalypsis decimo quarto[^p967-3]: *Ascendit fumus tormentorum in saecula saeculorum, et non habebunt requiem die ac nocte.* Cum enim non sit interpolatio in culpa, non debet esse in poena.

Quod obiicitur de transitu, dicendum, quod dupliciter potest intelligi: vel sicut est transitus subiecti ab uno contrariorum immediatorum in aliud[^p967-4], ita tamen, quod semper est sub altero contrariorum; sic intelligitur in proposito; vel ita, quod non intelligatur successio, sed nec transitus cum successione, sed varietas cum confusione.

Quod obiicitur de Glossa, dicendum, quod loquitur non *simpliciter*, sed *sub conditione*, ad exaggerandum magnitudinem peccati illius.

#### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quae si sola esset alienari a regno* etc. Videtur enim male dicere: quia, ut dicit Augustinus[^p967-5], haec est *mitissima* poenarum omnium: ergo contradicit sibi nunc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus[^p967-6] loquitur de illis qui damnum habent et non animadvertunt, vel animadvertunt, non tamen habent conscientiae remorsum. — Vel dicendum, quod quia ipse comparat carentiam visionis Dei aeternam ad poenam temporalem, dicens[^p967-7], quod illa excedit omnem temporalem, quia ibi est privatio boni aeterni, sed hic temporalis. Cum autem dicit, ipsam esse *mitissimam*, loquitur de poenis aeternis.

#### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *quantumcumque mali sint, de poena relaxare*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Ecclesiastici quadragesimo[^p967-8]: *A praesidente* etc.; dicit Glossa: « In inferno nulla erit mitigatio ».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hic loquitur de relaxatione, quae fit *in* taxatione poenae, sed ibi de mitigatione *post* poenam taxatam. — Aliqui tamen exponunt, quod non erit mitigatio ad *liberationem*, sicut exponit Magister quasdam alias auctoritates in littera[^p967-9]; sed ista expositio extorta esse videtur. Aliud est enim poenam *mitigari*, aliud *a poena omnino liberari*.

#### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius!* quia videtur dicere contra illud quod dicitur in Psalmo[^p967-10]: *In labiis meis pronuntiavi omnia iudicia oris tui.* Si enim potuit *pronuntiare*: ergo et *comprehendere*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *iudicia Dei* dicuntur dupliciter: uno modo *iudicialia praecepta*, quae erant in Lege, quae frequenter in Psalmo vocantur *iudicia*. Alio modo dicuntur *divina dispositio* et *divini consilii definitio*, et ista sunt inscrutabilia quantum ad cognitionem *si est*, antequam fiant; et quantum ad cognitionem *propter quid*, ex quo facta sunt, nisi Spiritus Dei revelet, *qui scrutatur etiam profunda Dei*[^p968-1]. Et sic patet, quod alio modo accipitur hic et ibi *iudicium*.

<!-- page 968 -->

#### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *quaedam sunt, quibus ostenditur misericors et aequus distributor*. Videtur enim male dicere: quia opera Dei non ostendunt misericordiam et iustitiam, nisi sicut effectus causam: si ergo misericordia et iustitia est eadem causa omnino, ut dicit in littera[^p968-2], ergo eisdem effectibus, quibus ostenditur *iustus*, ostenditur et *misericors*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *causa* in Deo, quamvis non dicat veram habitudinem et dependentiam ex parte *Dei*, dicit tamen habitudinem ex parte *creaturae*; et sicut ex parte *creaturae* est habitudinis veritas, ita et multiplicitas; et secundum illorum habituum multiplicitatem est divinam essentiam multipliciter intelligere et significare[^p968-3]. Quoniam igitur alium modum habet effectus, qui respicit *meritum*, alium, qui respicit misericordiae *effectum*[^p968-4]; et iustitia et misericordia istas habitudines connotant; quamvis *principale significatum* sit unum, tamen ille *effectus*, qui attribuitur iustitiae, nec potest nec debet attribui misericordiae[^p968-5].

#### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *aliud significat sapientia, aliud iustitia* etc.; quia supra[^p968-6] cum dictum sit, quod non dicitur diversitas significati, videtur, quod contra se dicat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud intelligitur ratione *connotati*; sed illud quod superius dictum est, intelligitur ratione *principalis significati*. — Vel dicendum, quod *alietas* non notatur in re significata absolute, sed sub ratione intelligendi, quae est alia et alia, quia voces sunt signa intellectuum[^p968-7]. Et sic patet illud.

---

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

#### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what he says, that *without intermission perpetual* etc. For it seems that he speaks badly, because in Job the twenty-fourth chapter[^p967-1] it is said: *They shall pass from the waters of snows to excessive heat*: therefore at least it seems that in that passage there is an intermission. — Likewise, upon that text of Isaiah the fourteenth chapter[^p967-2]: *But thou art cast out*; the Gloss: « Although all souls shall at some time have rest, thou never »: and so it seems that souls do at some time rest there.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the punishment of hell will be without any intermission; and this is plain from what is said in the Apocalypse, the fourteenth chapter[^p967-3]: *The smoke of their torments ascendeth for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night.* For since there is no interruption in the fault, there ought not to be one in the punishment.

To what is objected concerning the passage, it must be said that it can be understood in two ways: either as there is a passage of a subject from one of two immediate contraries into the other[^p967-4], yet in such a way that it is always under one of the two contraries — thus it is understood in the case proposed; or in such a way that no succession is understood, nor even a passage with succession, but a variation together with confusion.

To what is objected concerning the Gloss, it must be said that it speaks not *absolutely*, but *conditionally*, in order to exaggerate the magnitude of that sin.

#### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Which, if it were the only one, would be to be estranged from the kingdom* etc. For it seems that he speaks badly: because, as Augustine says[^p967-5], this is the *mildest* of all punishments: therefore he now contradicts himself.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that Augustine[^p967-6] is speaking of those who suffer the loss and do not advert to it, or who do advert to it yet have no remorse of conscience. — Or it must be said that he compares the eternal lack of the vision of God to a temporal punishment, saying[^p967-7] that the former exceeds every temporal one, because there is the privation of an eternal good, but here of a temporal one. But when he says that it is the *mildest*, he is speaking of the eternal punishments.

#### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *however evil they may be, to relax something of the punishment*. For it seems that he speaks badly, because in Ecclesiasticus the fortieth chapter[^p967-8]: *From him that sitteth* etc.; the Gloss says: « In hell there will be no mitigation ».

**Respondeo:** It must be said that here he is speaking of a relaxation which takes place *in* the assessing of the punishment, but there of a mitigation *after* the punishment has been assessed. — Some, however, expound it as meaning that there will be no mitigation unto *deliverance*, as the Master expounds certain other authorities in the text[^p967-9]; but that exposition seems forced. For it is one thing for a punishment to be *mitigated*, another *to be delivered from the punishment altogether*.

#### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *How incomprehensible are his judgments!* because he seems to speak against what is said in the Psalm[^p967-10]: *With my lips I have pronounced all the judgments of thy mouth.* For if he could *pronounce* them: therefore also *comprehend* them.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that *the judgments of God* are spoken of in two ways: in one way, the *judicial precepts* which were in the Law, which are frequently called *judgments* in the Psalm. In another way there are called judgments *the divine disposition* and *the determination of the divine counsel*, and these are inscrutable as regards the knowledge *whether it is*, before they come to be; and as regards the knowledge *on account of what*, once they have been done, unless the Spirit of God reveal it, *who searcheth even the deep things of God*[^p968-1]. And thus it is plain that *judgment* is taken in one way here and in another there.

<!-- page 968 -->

#### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *there are certain things by which he is shown to be merciful and an equitable distributor*. For it seems that he speaks badly: because the works of God do not show mercy and justice except as an effect shows its cause: if therefore mercy and justice are altogether the same cause, as he says in the text[^p968-2], therefore by the same effects by which he is shown to be *just*, he is shown also to be *merciful*.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that *cause* in God, although it does not state a true relation and dependence on the part of *God*, nevertheless does state a relation on the part of *the creature*; and just as on the part of *the creature* there is truth of relation, so also multiplicity; and according to the multiplicity of those relations it is possible to understand and to signify the divine essence in manifold ways[^p968-3]. Since therefore an effect which regards *merit* has one mode, and one which regards the *effect* of mercy another[^p968-4]; and justice and mercy connote these relations; although the *principal thing signified* is one, nevertheless that *effect* which is attributed to justice neither can nor ought to be attributed to mercy[^p968-5].

#### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *wisdom signifies one thing, justice another* etc.; because, since it was said above[^p968-6] that no diversity of the thing signified is asserted, it seems that he contradicts himself.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the former is understood by reason of *what is connoted*; but what was said above is understood by reason of *the principal thing signified*. — Or it must be said that *otherness* is not noted in the thing signified absolutely, but under the manner of understanding, which is one and another, because words are signs of acts of understanding[^p968-7]. And thus that is plain.

---

la: Vers. 19. Cfr. supra pag. 927, nota 8. — Pro *Transierunt* cod. G *Transibunt*.

en: Verse 19. Cf. above, p. 927, note 8. — For *Transierunt* codex G reads *Transibunt*.

la: Vers. 19. — *Glossa* est secundum Hieron. in hunc loc. dicentem: Omnes animae apud inferos aliquam requiem accipient, tu [Nabuchodonosor] solus in extremas tenebras relegaberis. — Inferius pro *aliquando* cod. G *aliquantulum*.

en: Verse 19. — The *Gloss* is according to Jerome on this passage, who says: All souls among those below shall receive some rest; thou [Nebuchadnezzar] alone shalt be banished into the outermost darkness. — Below, for *aliquando* codex G reads *aliquantulum*.

la: Vers. 11; Vulgata post *tormentorum* addit *eorum* et substituit *nec habent* pro *et non habebunt*.

en: Verse 11; the Vulgate after *tormentorum* adds *eorum*, and substitutes *nec habent* for *et non habebunt*.

la: Vide Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Oppositis*, et V. Phys. text. 46. seqq. (c. 5.), ubi allegatur ut exemplum transitus de sanitate in aegritudinem, vel vice versa. — In edd. tota responsio haec omittitur et confunditur cum seq. de Glossa; legunt enim: *Quod obiicitur de transitu, dicendum, quod loquitur* etc. In fine solut. pro *peccati illius* cod. L *peccata illius* [Nabuchodonosor]. — De eodem dubio Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: See Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter *On Opposites*, and *Physics* V, text 46 ff. (c. 5), where the passage from health into sickness, or the reverse, is alleged as an example. — In the editions this whole reply is omitted and confused with the following one concerning the Gloss; for they read: *To what is objected concerning the passage, it must be said that he speaks* etc. At the end of the solution, for *peccati illius* codex L reads *peccata illius* [Nebuchadnezzar]. — On the same doubt, Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Enchirid. c. 93. n. 23. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: *Enchiridion* c. 93, n. 23. Cf. II *Sent.* d. 33, a. 3, q. 1 f.

la: In obiectionis verbo. — Mox non pauci codd. omittunt *tamen*.

en: In the passage cited in the objection. — Shortly after, not a few codices omit *tamen*.

la: Verba, quae textum huius dubii sequuntur, sunt: *Tam grandis tamen est poena, ut ei possint nulla tormenta, quae novimus, comparari* etc. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: The words which follow the text of this doubt are: *So great, however, is the punishment, that no torments which we know can be compared to it* etc. See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — On this doubt cf. St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Vers. 3. seq.: *A residente* [*praesidente* legitur in pluribus antiquis edd.] *super sedem gloriosam usque ad humiliatum in terra et cinere... furor, zelus* etc. — Glossa, apud Lyranum *interlinearis* in v. 4, sumta est ex Rabano, in hunc loc.

en: Verse 3 f.: *From him that sitteth* [*praesidente*, "presideth", is read in several old editions] *upon the glorious throne unto him that is humbled in earth and ashes... wrath, envy* etc. — The Gloss, in Lyra the *interlinear* one at v. 4, is taken from Rabanus, on this passage.

la: Hic c. 1. — Superius edd. omittunt *quae fit in taxatione poenae*, et subinde cum nonnullis codd. *non* ante *erit*. Circa finem solut. ex codd. L O U substituimus *poenam* pro *peccatum*. — De hoc dubio cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2, ubi in scholio citantur alii doctores.

en: Here c. 1. — Above, the editions omit *quae fit in taxatione poenae*, and thereupon, with several codices, *non* before *erit*. Near the end of the solution we have, from codices L O U, substituted *poenam* for *peccatum*. — On this doubt cf. above, a. 1, q. 2, where other doctors are cited in the scholion.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 10. — De cognitione *si est* et *propter quid* cfr. Aristot., II. Poster. c. 1. seqq. — Edd., posito *quia ante fiunt* pro *si est, antequam fiant*, prosequuntur: *quam ad nostram cognitionem deducantur. Vel si ad nostram cognitionem deducantur, non tamen cognoscimus, quare facta sunt, nisi* etc. — Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thoma et a Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Epistle I Cor. 2, 10. — On the knowledge *whether it is* and *on account of what*, cf. Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* II, c. 1 ff. — The editions, having put *quia ante fiunt* for *si est, antequam fiant*, continue: *than that they be brought to our knowledge. Or if they are brought to our knowledge, we still do not know why they were done, unless* etc. — The same doubt is solved by St. Thomas and by Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Hic c. 3. — Cod. G *ut dicit littera*.

en: Here c. 3. — Codex G reads *ut dicit littera*.

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. et 3. — Edd. *assignare*, quae etiam cum pluribus codd. superius pro *veritas* substituunt *severitas*. Pro *illorum*, quod est in codd. S U, in aliis et edd. habetur *aliorum*.

en: See I *Sent.* d. 30, q. 1 and 3. — The editions read *assignare*; they also, with several codices, substitute above *severitas* for *veritas*. For *illorum*, which is in codices S U, in the others and in the editions *aliorum* is found.

la: Ita cod. aa, in aliis et edd. perperam *defectum*.

en: So codex aa; in the others and in the editions, wrongly, *defectum*.

la: Ex codd. N Y Z aa supplevimus *nec debet*. Edd. legunt: *quamvis principale significent, inde est, quod ille effectus... non potest attribui misericordiae.* — De hoc dub. cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: From codices N Y Z aa we have supplied *nec debet*. The editions read: *although they principally signify, hence it is that that effect... cannot be attributed to mercy.* — On this doubt cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3: *Non diversitas subiacentis, id est rei his vocabulis significatae, exprimitur* etc.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 3: *Not a diversity of the underlying thing, that is, of the reality signified by these words, is expressed* etc.

la: Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1: *Sunt ergo ea quae sunt in voce, earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae.* Cfr. supra pag. 68, nota 1. — Superius voci *alietas* codd. L Y praemittunt *talis*, et pro *notatur* edd. cum pluribus codd. *vocatur*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 1: *Those things then which are in the voice are marks of the affections which are in the soul.* Cf. above, p. 68, note 1. — Above, codices L Y prefix *talis* to the word *alietas*, and for *notatur* the editions with several codices read *vocatur*. — On this doubt cf. St. Thomas and Richard of Middleton, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L102793–L102920, verified throughout against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{967,968}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands taken as generated at the measured per-page gutters p.967 @ 1532, p.968 @ 2179; **no bands regenerated**). No scholion in this chunk.

**Dubium count — established from the bands, not the OCR.** Six dubia, **Dub. I–VI**, every numeral clearly legible in print:
- p.967 L band 0 → `Dub. I`; L band 1 → `Dub. II`
- p.967 R band 0 → `Dub. III`; R band 1 → `Dub. IV`
- p.968 L band 0 → `Dub. V`; R band 0 → `Dub. VI`

A case-insensitive grep of the raw range finds all six as well (`DUB. I`, `DUB. II`, `DUB. III`, `DuB. IV`, `DuB. V`, `DuB. VI`) — this range is not subject to the d.45 `DuB.`-dropout defect. No numeral is damaged or ambiguous; no gap in the sequence.

**Page-break placement.** The true printed break falls mid-word inside Dub. IV's *Respondeo* (p.967 ends `…qui scrutatur etiam pro-`, p.968 begins `funda Dei`). The `<!-- page 968 -->` comment is therefore placed at the nearest clean paragraph boundary, before `Dub. V`. Note `[^p968-1]` is anchored in Dub. IV even though it is a page-968 footer — that is correct: its anchor word *profunda Dei* is printed on p.968.

**Apparatus split map.**
- **p.967 — 10 notes, all 10 claimed by this chunk.** Anchors: 1–5 in the left column (Dub. I ×4, Dub. II ×1), 6 (Dub. II resp., left col.), 7 (Dub. II resp. cont., right col.), 8–9 (Dub. III), 10 (Dub. IV). Note the column-order/reading-order interleave: note 6's anchor precedes note 7's in reading order even though 7 sits at the top of the right column.
- **p.968 — 7 notes, all 7 claimed by this chunk.** Anchors: 1 (Dub. IV), 2–5 (Dub. V), 6–7 (Dub. VI).
- Total 17 entries.

**Hand-off backward (a2-q4, pp.965–967).** Derived independently from the bands: **a2-q4 has no body on p.967 and no share of p.967's footers.** The p.967 L band 0 shows the running head `DIST. XLVI.` / `DUBIA.` `967` immediately followed by the centred `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` head and `Dub. I` — printed p.967 is wholly this chunk's. The footer block that the OCR places just *before* the p.967 running head (raw L102780–102787, notes on *de Lib. Arb.*, `totam poenam pro totam culpam`, `minus rigidum`, `Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.`) is the footer of printed **p.966** and belongs to a2-q4. This chunk claims none of it. Opening continuity confirmed: `In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram` is a fresh section opener under its own centred head, so no cross-seam sentence is in play.

**Hand-off forward — REPORTED.** The p.968 footer block is **printed inside d.47's raw range**: notes 1–7 appear at raw L102941–L102963, i.e. *after* `DISTINCTIO XLVII.` (L102921). This is the same defect flagged in d.45. Printed p.968 carries the dubia in its upper portion of both columns and d.47's *Cap. I–II* in its lower portion, with one footer rule per column; the band read (`vol4-p968-L-2`, `vol4-p968-R-2`) confirms notes 1–7 sit under the p.968 rule and are the dubia's. They are rendered here. The separate `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` block (notes 1–3, same p.968 footer area, right column) belongs to **Lombard's littera for d.47** and is NOT claimed here — the d.47 littera writer should pick it up.

**Forward boundary.** This chunk stops at L102920 (`Et sic patet illud.`), which parses and is the printed close of Dub. VI. No d.47 material bleeds in; `DISTINCTIO XLVII.` and its *Cap. I* are excluded.

**Band-vs-OCR disagreements, resolved at band time (no flags parked):**
- p.967 note 8: OCR `interlinearis in v. i` → band reads **`in v. 4`**.
- p.967 note 9: OCR `ex codd. L U` → band reads **`ex codd. L O U`**.
- p.967 note 10: OCR `v. 30. 32. 102. 106` → band reads **`v. 30. 52. 102. 106`** (Ps. 118, 52 *Memor fui iudiciorum tuorum* fits the note's subject; v. 32 does not).
- Body: OCR `non ent mitigatio` → band `non **erit** mitigatio`; OCR `dicens '` right-column garbles, `signifilcare`, `mnlliphcitas`, `inteUigitur`, `alietas`/`alietas` all resolved from the bands.

**Marginal glosses trimmed** (editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text): `Aliter.` (p.967 R, Dub. II), `Alia expositio, non probata.` (p.967 R, Dub. III), `Duplex sensus vocabuli.` (p.967 R, Dub. IV), `Notandum.` (p.968 L, Dub. V), `Aliter.` (p.968 R, Dub. VI).

**`[?]` flags:** none.

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. 47

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XLVII — De iudicio universali

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XLVII — On the universal judgement

source_text:
<!-- page 968 -->

### DISTINCTIO XLVII.

> Nota de numeratione. Quaracchi numerat notas suas per singulas paginas impressas, et in his paginis duas series distinctas praebet: unam ad commentarium S. Bonaventurae, alteram sub titulo NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM ad ipsam litteram Magistri. Notae huius capituli sunt notae 1–3 seriei *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum* paginae 968, et notae 1–6 paginae 969. Notae 1–7 seriei commentarii paginae 968 ad dubia distinctionis XLVI. pertinent et ibi redduntur.

### Cap. I. *De sententia iudicii.*

Solet etiam quaeri: qualiter dabitur iudicii sententia? — Sed non est perspicuum id explicare. Non enim Scriptura[^p968n-1] aperte definit, an *voce* illa proferantur: *Venite benedicti*, et: *Ite maledicti*; an *virtute* iudicis ita fiet, conscientiis singulorum attestantibus, ut modo dicitur futurum, ut iudicis potentiae effectus ipsius dictione significetur. Illa etiam: *Esurivi, et non dedistis mihi manducare*, et huiusmodi, magis conscientiis exprimenda plurimi putant quam verbis, quia Apostolus *in momento, in ictu oculi* mysterium consummandum tradit. Sed illud ad *resurrectionis statum* tantum referunt, non ad *iudicium*, qui iudicii sententiam et malorum increpationes et bonorum praeconia verbis exprimenda asserunt.

### Cap. II. *Quod Sancti iudicabunt, et quomodo.*

Non autem solus Christus iudicabit, sed et Sancti cum eo *iudicabunt nationes*[^p968n-2]. Ipse enim Apostolis ait: *Sedebitis et vos super duodecim sedes, iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel.* Nec est putandum, quod duodecim Apostolis tantum hoc promiserit Christus. Ubi enim sedebit Paulus, qui plus omnibus laboravit, si non ibi sedebunt nisi duodecim? « Per *duodecim* igitur *sedes*[^p968n-3] » perfectio tribunalis, id est « universitas iudicantium intelligitur », scilicet omnes perfecti, qui *relictis omni-*

<!-- page 969 -->

*bus*, secuti sunt *Christum*; « per duodecim tribus universitas iudicandorum ». Iudicabunt vero eos Sancti, non modo comparatione, sed etiam auctoritate et potestate; unde *gladii ancipites in manibus eorum*, id est sententia de bonis et malis in potestate eorum. — Si vero quaeritur: quae erit eorum potestas vel auctoritas in iudicando? puto, non ante posse sciri, quam videatur, nisi divina revelatione quis didicerit.

### Cap. III. *De ordinibus eorum qui erunt in iudicio.*

Erunt autem quatuor ordines in iudicio. Duae quippe sunt partes, electorum scilicet et reproborum, ut Gregorius[^p969-1] in *Moralibus* ait, « sed bini ordines eisdem singulis partibus continentur. Alii enim iudicantur et pereunt, alii non iudicantur et pereunt; alii iudicantur et regnant, alii non iudicantur et regnant. Iudicantur et pereunt quibus dominica inclamatione dicetur: *Esurivi, et non dedistis mihi manducare* etc. Non iudicantur et pereunt quibus Dominus ait: *Qui non credit iam iudicatus est.* Eorum enim damnatio toti Ecclesiae nota est et certa, et ideo dicuntur tunc non iudicari, quia ad conspectum districti iudicis cum aperta damnatione suae infidelitatis accedent. Qui vero professionem fidei sine operibus habent iudicabuntur et peribunt, id est, redarguentur, ut pereant. Qui vero nec fidei Sacramenta tenuerunt increpationem iudicis in se fieri non audient, quia, infidelitatis suae tenebris praeiudicati, eius quem despexerant invectione redargui non merentur. Illi saltem verba iudicis audient, qui eius fidem saltem verbo tenuerunt. Illi autem in damnatione sua aeterni iudicis nec verba percipient, qui eius reverentiam nec verbotenus servare voluerunt »; et ideo illi iudicandi, isti non iudicandi dicuntur. « Ex electorum vero parte alii iudicantur et regnant, scilicet qui vitae maculas lacrymis tergunt et eleemosynarum superinductione operiunt; quibus iudex veniens in dextera consistentibus dicet: *Esurivi, et dedistis mihi manducare.* Alii autem non iudicantur et regnant, qui etiam praecepta legis perfectionis virtute[^p969-2] transcendunt; quia non hoc solum, quod lex praecipit, implere contenti sunt, sed et quod ad perfectionem consulitur implere student. De quibus Propheta ait: *Dominus ad iudicium veniet cum senatoribus populi sui;* et Salomon, de Ecclesiae sponso loquens, ait: *Nobilis in portis vir eius, quando sederit cum senatoribus terrae;* et Iob: *Non salvat impios et pauperibus iudicium tribuit.* Hi ergo recte sub generali iudicio non tenentur, sed *iudices* veniunt, quia et praecepta generalia vivendo vicerunt, et omnibus relictis, Christum secuti sunt. Recte *pauperibus iudicium tribuit*, qui quanto huic mundo magna humilitate despecti sunt, tanto tunc maiori culmine potestatis excrescent ». « De talibus dicitur: *Qui vicerit, dabo ei sedere mecum in throno meo; sicut et ego vici et sedi cum Patre meo in throno eius.* Vincens Dominus cum Patre in throno sedit, quia post passionis certamen et resurrectionis palmam, quod Patri esset aequalis, omnibus claruit. Nobis vero in throno Filii sedere est ex eiusdem Filii potestate iudicare; quia enim iudicandi principatum ex eius virtute percipimus, quasi in eius throno residemus[^p969-3] ». — Ex his apparet, quod etiam perfectiores Sancti cum Christo iudicabunt potestate; et quare quidam dicuntur iudicandi, alii non iudicandi.

### Cap. IV. *De ordine iudicii et ministerio Angelorum.*

Cum autem in Evangelio[^p969-4] legatur, quod *Dominus mittet Angelos suos, qui colligent de regno eius omnia scandala et mittent iniquos in caminum ignis;* et item: *Exibunt Angeli et separabunt malos de medio iustorum et mittent eos in caminum ignis;* et item: *Mittet Angelos suos cum tuba et congregabunt electos a quatuor ventis;* et Propheta dicit: *Congregate illi Sanctos eius:* ministerio Angelorum illa impleri, dubitandum non est. Domino enim veniente ad iudicium, praecedet ante eum ignis, quo comburetur facies mundi huius, et peribit caelum et terra, non secundum substantiam sed secundum speciem, quae immutabitur, caelum quidem aereum, non aethereum. Tantum enim ascendet ignis in iudicio, quantum ascenderunt aquae in diluvio. Ille autem ignis malis, qui reperti fuerint vivi, erit consumtio, bonis vero non. Ut enim ait Augustinus[^p969-5], hoc erit incendium mundi Sanctis, quod fuit caminus tribus pueris; in quibus, si aliquid purgandum fuerit, per illum ignem purgabitur; aliis vero nullam ingeret molestiam. Purgato vero per ignem mundo, et ad iudicium veniente Domino, emittetur vox illa magna, qua resurgent omnes mortui; et tunc ministerio Angelorum ventilabitur area, quia boni congregabuntur ei de quatuor partibus orbis angelico ministerio; quo et rapientur *obviam Christo in aëra*, reprobis in terra, quam dilexerunt, remanentibus. Et tunc praeconia illa bonorum: *Esurivi, et dedistis mihi manducare;* et increpationes illae malorum: *Esurivi, et non dedistis mihi manducare* etc.; proferentur vel sono vocali, vel alio modo. Denique proferetur sententia super utrosque: *Venite benedicti* etc.; et: *Ite maledicti* etc.; et ministerio Angelorum, virtute Dei cooperante, mittentur mali in caminum ignis, hoc est in infernum.

### Cap. V. *Si post iudicium daemones praeerunt hominibus ad puniendum.*

Et solet quaeri, utrum in inferno malis ad puniendum praesint daemones post iudicium, quos *carnifices tortoresque animarum* Scriptura[^p969-6] appellat. — Aposto-

<!-- page 970 -->

lus dicit, quod Christus tunc *evacuabit omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem.* Dum enim durat mundus, Angeli Angelis, daemones daemonibus, homines hominibus praesunt; sed omnibus collectis, iam omnis praelatio cessabit. — Hinc quidam putant, post iudicium daemones non habere potestatem cruciandi homines, sicut modo, sed ut daemones virtute Dei cruciari sine creaturae ministerio asserunt, sic reprobos homines ibi non per operationem daemonum, sed virtute divina tantum aeternis subiici cruciatibus. — Praemissa tamen auctoritas non id cogit sentire, quae, etsi asserat, tunc nec daemones daemonibus, nec homines hominibus praeesse, non definit tamen, an daemones praesint hominibus ad torquendum. Unde quibusdam videtur, eos sic exstare hominibus tortores in poena, sicut exstiterunt incentores in culpa.

---

english:
<!-- page 968 -->

### DISTINCTION XLVII.

> A note on the numbering. Quaracchi numbers its notes anew on each printed page, and on these pages it offers two distinct series: one for St. Bonaventure's commentary, the other, under the heading NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, for the text of the Master itself. The notes of this chunk are notes 1–3 of the *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum* series of page 968, and notes 1–6 of page 969. Notes 1–7 of the commentary series of page 968 belong to the doubts of Distinction XLVI and are rendered there.

### Cap. I. *On the sentence of the judgement.*

It is also wont to be asked: in what manner will the sentence of the judgement be given? — But it is not clear how to explain this. For Scripture[^p968n-1] does not openly define whether those words are uttered by *voice*: *Come, ye blessed*, and: *Go, ye cursed*; or whether it will come about by the *power* of the judge, with the consciences of individuals bearing witness, as it is now said will be the case, so that the effect of the judge's power is signified by his very pronouncement. Those words also: *I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat*, and the like, very many think are to be expressed rather to the consciences than in words, because the Apostle hands down that the mystery will be consummated *in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye*. But those who assert that the sentence of the judgement and the rebukes of the wicked and the acclamations of the good are to be expressed in words refer that saying only to the *state of the resurrection*, not to the *judgement*.

### Cap. II. *That the Saints will judge, and in what manner.*

Now Christ alone will not judge, but the Saints too *will judge the nations*[^p968n-2] with him. For he himself says to the Apostles: *You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.* Nor is it to be supposed that Christ promised this only to the twelve Apostles. For where will Paul sit, who laboured more than all, if none but twelve shall sit there? « By the twelve *seats*[^p968n-3], therefore, » is understood the perfection of the tribunal, that is, « the whole body of those who judge », namely all the perfect, who, *having left all*,

<!-- page 969 -->

followed *Christ*; « by the twelve tribes, the whole body of those who are judged ». And the Saints will judge them not merely by comparison, but also by authority and power; whence *two-edged swords are in their hands*, that is, the sentence upon the good and the wicked is in their power. — But if it be asked what their power or authority in judging will be, I think that it cannot be known before it is seen, unless someone has learned it by divine revelation.

### Cap. III. *On the orders of those who will be in the judgement.*

Now there will be four orders in the judgement. For there are two parts, namely of the elect and of the reprobate, as Gregory[^p969-1] says in the *Morals*, « but two orders each are contained within these several parts. For some are judged and perish, others are not judged and perish; some are judged and reign, others are not judged and reign. Those are judged and perish to whom it shall be said at the Lord's cry: *I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat* etc. Those are not judged and perish to whom the Lord says: *He that believeth not is already judged.* For their damnation is known and certain to the whole Church, and therefore they are said then not to be judged, because they will come before the sight of the stern judge with the open damnation of their unbelief. But those who have the profession of faith without works will be judged and will perish, that is, they will be refuted so that they perish. But those who have not even held the Sacraments of the faith will not hear the judge's rebuke made against them, because, forejudged by the darkness of their own unbelief, they do not deserve to be refuted by the reproach of him whom they had despised. Those at least will hear the words of the judge, who at least in word held his faith. But those in their damnation will not perceive even the words of the eternal judge, who were unwilling to keep reverence for him even in word »; and therefore the former are called to-be-judged, the latter not-to-be-judged. « But on the side of the elect, some are judged and reign, namely those who wipe away the stains of their life with tears and cover them by the overlaying of alms; to whom, standing at his right hand, the judge at his coming will say: *I was hungry, and you gave me to eat.* But others are not judged and reign, who by the power of perfection[^p969-2] even transcend the precepts of the law; because they are not content to fulfil only what the law commands, but strive to fulfil also what is counselled unto perfection. Of whom the Prophet says: *The Lord will come to judgement with the elders of his people;* and Solomon, speaking of the spouse of the Church, says: *Her husband is honourable in the gates, when he shall sit among the senators of the land;* and Job: *He saveth not the wicked, and he giveth judgement to the poor.* These, then, are rightly not held under the general judgement, but come as *judges*, because they both overcame the general precepts by their living, and, having left all, followed Christ. Rightly *he giveth judgement to the poor*, since the more they were despised by this world in their great humility, so much the greater will they then rise up to a height of power ». « Of such it is said: *He that shall overcome, I will give to him to sit with me in my throne; as I also have overcome, and have sat with my Father in his throne.* The Lord, overcoming, sat with the Father in the throne, because after the contest of the passion and the palm of the resurrection it became clear to all that he was equal to the Father. But for us to sit in the throne of the Son is to judge by the power of that same Son; for since we receive the sovereignty of judging from his power, we as it were reside in his throne[^p969-3] ». — From these things it appears that the more perfect Saints too will judge with Christ by power; and why some are called to-be-judged, and others not-to-be-judged.

### Cap. IV. *On the order of the judgement and the ministry of the Angels.*

But since it is read in the Gospel[^p969-4] that *the Lord will send his Angels, who shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals and shall cast the wicked into the furnace of fire;* and again: *The Angels shall go out and shall separate the wicked from among the just and shall cast them into the furnace of fire;* and again: *He shall send his Angels with a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds;* and the Prophet says: *Gather ye together his Saints to him:* it is not to be doubted that these things are fulfilled by the ministry of the Angels. For when the Lord comes to judgement, a fire will go before him, by which the face of this world will be burned up, and heaven and earth will perish, not according to substance but according to species, which will be changed — the heaven, indeed, that is airy, not the ethereal one. For the fire will rise as high in the judgement as the waters rose in the flood. But that fire will be a consuming for the wicked who shall be found alive, but not for the good. For as Augustine[^p969-5] says, this burning of the world will be to the Saints what the furnace was to the three boys; in whom, if there be anything to be purged, it will be purged by that fire; but upon the others it will inflict no trouble. And when the world has been purged by fire, and the Lord is coming to judgement, that great voice will be sent forth, by which all the dead will rise; and then by the ministry of the Angels the threshing-floor will be winnowed, because the good will be gathered to him from the four parts of the world by angelic ministry; by which also they will be caught up *to meet Christ in the air*, the reprobate remaining on the earth which they loved. And then those acclamations of the good: *I was hungry, and you gave me to eat;* and those rebukes of the wicked: *I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat* etc.; will be uttered either by vocal sound, or in some other way. Finally the sentence will be pronounced over both: *Come, ye blessed* etc.; and: *Go, ye cursed* etc.; and by the ministry of the Angels, with the power of God co-operating, the wicked will be cast into the furnace of fire, that is, into hell.

### Cap. V. *Whether after the judgement the demons will preside over men for punishing them.*

And it is wont to be asked whether in hell the demons preside over the wicked for punishing them after the judgement, whom Scripture[^p969-6] calls *butchers and torturers of souls.* — The Apo-

<!-- page 970 -->

stle says that Christ will then *bring to nought all principality and power and virtue.* For while the world lasts, Angels preside over Angels, demons over demons, men over men; but when all have been gathered, then every prelacy will cease. — Hence some think that after the judgement the demons do not have the power of tormenting men, as they do now; but just as they assert that the demons are tormented by the power of God without the ministry of any creature, so likewise that reprobate men are there subjected to eternal torments not through the operation of the demons, but by the divine power alone. — The authority set forth above, however, does not compel one to hold this, since, even if it asserts that then neither do demons preside over demons, nor men over men, it nevertheless does not define whether the demons preside over men for torturing them. Whence it seems to some that they stand forth to men as torturers in punishment, just as they stood forth as instigators in fault.

---

la: Matth. 25, 34, deinde v. 41. 42; denique I. Cor. 15, 52. — Solae edd., exceptis I et 6, addunt *aliis* ante *iudicii*, et pro *praeconia* ponunt *praemia*.

en: Matthew 25, 34, then vv. 41 and 42; finally I Cor. 15, 52. — Only the editions, with the exception of 1 and 6, add *aliis* before *iudicii*, and for *praeconia* put *praemia*.

la: Sap. 3, 8; deinde Matth. 19, 28, et I. Cor. 15, 10; cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 86. n. 4; XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 5. n. 3.

en: Wisdom 3, 8; then Matthew 19, 28, and I Cor. 15, 10; cf. Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm* 86, n. 4; *On the City of God* XX, c. 5, n. 3.

la: Hic et duo seqq. loci sunt ex Beda, Homil. in festo S. Benedicti, et super Matth. 19, 28, etiam apud Lyranum. Respiciuntur Matth. 19, 27; Marc. 10, 28; Ps. 149, 6.

en: This passage and the two following are from Bede, *Homily on the feast of St. Benedict*, and on Matthew 19, 28, found also in Lyra. Reference is made to Matthew 19, 27; Mark 10, 28; Psalm 149, 6.

la: Libr. XXVI. Moral. c. 27. n. 50; respiciuntur Matth. 25, 42; Ioan. 3, 18. Seq. locus est Gregorii, ibid. n. 51.

en: *Morals* Book XXVI, c. 27, n. 50; reference is made to Matthew 25, 42; John 3, 18. The following passage is Gregory's, ibid. n. 51.

la: In originali et Vat. *perfectione virtutum*, sed antiqua lectio, notata a Maurinis, convenit cum lectione codd. et edd. Loci Scripturae sunt Isai. 3, 14; Prov. 31, 23; Iob 36, 6.

en: In the original and in the Vatican edition, *perfectione virtutum* ("by the perfection of the virtues"); but the ancient reading, noted by the Maurists, agrees with the reading of the codices and of the editions. The passages of Scripture are Isaiah 3, 14; Proverbs 31, 23; Job 36, 6.

la: Ibid. c. 28. n. 53; citatur Apoc. 3, 21.

en: Ibid. c. 28, n. 53; Apocalypse 3, 21 is cited.

la: Matth. 13, 41. seq., deinde v. 49, et denique 24, 31; Ps. 49, 5.

en: Matthew 13, 41 f., then v. 49, and finally 24, 31; Psalm 49, 5.

la: Libr. XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 18. secundum sensum. — In edd., excepta I, contra codd. omittitur *enim* ante *ait*, et verba colligantur cum praecedentibus. In seqq. respiciuntur, vel citantur Matth. 3, 12; I. Thess. 4, 17; Matth. 13, 42.

en: *On the City of God* Book XX, c. 18, according to the sense. — In the editions, with the exception of 1, against the codices, *enim* is omitted before *ait*, and the words are joined with what precedes. In what follows, reference is made to, or citation is made of, Matthew 3, 12; I Thessalonians 4, 17; Matthew 13, 42.

la: Videtur alludere ad Matth. 18, 34. Seq. locus est I. Cor. 15, 24.

en: He seems to allude to Matthew 18, 34. The following passage is I Cor. 15, 24. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L102921–L103092, verified throughout against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{968,969,970}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. **No bands regenerated** — those supplied were clean at every edge read. Littera Magistri, Cap. I–V; no scholion.

**Page → apparatus split map.**

- **p. 968 — shared with `bon-sent-IV-d46-dubia`.** The page carries **two independent footnote sequences**. The *commentary* sequence (notes 1–7: *Epist. I. Cor. 2, 10 …* through *Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1 …*) belongs entirely to d.46's dubia and is already rendered there as p968-1 … p968-7; **not claimed here**. Beneath it, under the printed header `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.`, runs the *littera* sequence, notes **1–3**, all three anchored in this chunk's Cap. I–II. Rendered here with the `p968n-` prefix precisely so the two page-968 sequences cannot collide across files. The column split was settled from the bands (`vol4-p968-L-2`, `vol4-p968-R-2`), not from the OCR interleave: the `NOTAE` header sits in the **right** footer column, below the commentary series' notes 6–7.
- **p. 969 — wholly this chunk.** Six notes, **1–6**; the whole printed page is littera, so all six are claimed. Footer notes 1–3 are printed in the left column, 4–6 in the right; body anchors nevertheless fall in reading order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
- **p. 970 — this chunk claims NOTHING.** The littera occupies only the top ~14 lines of each column of p. 970 (from *lus dicit* to *incentores in culpa*) and contains **no footnote anchor at all**; the final Cap. V citation is carried by p. 969 note 6, whose *Seq. locus est I. Cor. 15, 24* covers the p. 970 sentence *evacuabit omnem principatum*. The p. 970 footer (`vol4-p970-L-2`: note 1 *Codd. N aa In prima determinat de ordine iudicii…*, note 2 *Cod. B alteram huius primae partis divisionem subiungit…*, continuing into the right column) belongs entirely to the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLVII.` / divisio.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* the p. 968 footer split, verified independently against `vol4/bon-sent-IV-d46-dubia.md` — no duplication, no drop; d.46's seven entries and this chunk's three together exhaust the printed p. 968 footer.
- *Forwarded:* `bon-sent-IV-d47-divisio` (L103093–L103173) takes **the whole of the p. 970 footer**, both columns, starting at note 1. This chunk reserved nothing on p. 970.

**Band reads that overrule the OCR** (resolved at band time, not parked as flags):
- p. 968 NOTAE note 1: OCR `Matth. 23, 34` → band reads **Matth. 25, 34**, and `deinde v. 41. H` → **deinde v. 41. 42**. Matthew 25 is also what the anchored text requires (*Venite benedicti* = Mt 25, 34).
- p. 968 NOTAE note 2: OCR `I. Cor. lo, 10` → band reads **I. Cor. 15, 10**.
- p. 968 NOTAE note 3: OCR `Ps. '149, 6` → **Ps. 149, 6**.
- p. 969 note 2: OCR `Prov. 3 1, 23` → **Prov. 31, 23**.
- p. 969 note 3: OCR `Ibid. c. 28. n. 33` → band reads **Ibid. c. 28. n. 53**.
- Cap. I: OCR `an virtute hulicis \lA fiet` → band reads **an virtute iudicis ita fiet**.
- Cap. II: the OCR string `sedes^ Beda perfectio tribunalis` conceals a **right-margin gloss**. The band (`vol4-p968-R-1`) shows the printed line as « Per duodecim igitur *sedes* ³ » with the marginal attribution **Beda** set outside the text block. `Beda` is therefore trimmed from the body as marginalia, not rendered as text.
- Marginalia likewise trimmed throughout: the running side-notes *Dubium 1–3*, *opinio 1*, *opinio 2*, *Alietas*, and the signature/running-head debris (*S. Bonav. — Tom. IV.*, *122*).

**Seam checks.** The opening is a fresh `DISTINCTIO XLVII.` header, so no grammatical continuity with d.46's close is required. The closing sentence — *sicut exstiterunt incentores in culpa.* — parses and is the genuine end of Cap. V; the next raw line begins the OCR-garbled `C0MMENTARIU8 IN MSTINOTIONEM XLVIL` header at L103093. No cascade-merge signature found.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Every disagreement between OCR and band was legible on the band and is recorded above.


title: Dist. 47, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 970 -->

### Commentarius in Distinctionem XLVII.
#### *De ordine iudicii extremi.*

*Solet quaeri, qualiter dabitur iudicii sententia.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 1–3 of page 970.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de resurrectione. In hac parte agit de iudicii definitione. Dividitur autem haec pars in duas. In prima namque agitur de iudicio. In secunda de statibus consequentibus ad iudicium, infra distinctione quadragesima nona: *Post resurrectionem, facto universo* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte agit de ordine, secundum quem iudicium illud dabitur. In secunda vero determinat de potestate et forma ipsius iudicis[^p970-1], infra distinctione quadragesima octava: *Solet etiam quaeri, in qua forma iudicabit Christus.*

Prima pars habet duas. In prima parte determinat ordinem iudicii quantum ad ea quae sunt de ipso iudicio. In secunda vero, quantum ad annexa, ibi: *Cum autem in Evangelio legatur*[^p970-2]. Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat ordinem temporis. In secunda ordinem dignitatis, ibi: *Non autem solus Christus iudicabit*; ubi ostenditur ordo eorum qui iudicabuntur, et in iudicandis adhuc erunt quatuor ordines.

*Cum autem in Evangelio legatur.* Haec est secunda pars, in qua determinat ordinem quantum ad annexa; et quia quaedam antecedunt, ut praemissio Angelorum et ignis; et quaedam sequuntur, ut cruciatio damnatorum: ideo primo determinat, quae erunt illa quae praecedent iudicium, et quis erit ordo, ostendens, quod adventum Christi praeibunt Angeli, praeibit nihilominus ignis conflagratorius. Secundo, utrum ministerium daemonum in torquendo sit futurum post iudicium, ibi: *Et solet quaeri, utrum in inferno* etc. — Et sic hic duo tanguntur: primum est de ordine iudicii; secundum vero est de his quae annexa sunt, et maxime de illo igne, qui praecedit faciem iudicis.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister in ea, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de iudicantibus et iudicandis.

Secundo de igne, qui praecedet faciem iudicis.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo, quantum pertinet ad iudicantes, quaeritur, utrum Apostoli iudicent.

Secundo, utrum iudicent Angeli.

Similiter quantum ad iudicandos quaeruntur duo[^p970-3].

Primo quaeritur, utrum omnes iudicabuntur.

Secundo, utrum iudicabuntur Angeli.

---

english:
### Commentary on Distinction XLVII.
#### *On the order of the last judgement.*

*It is customarily asked how the sentence of the judgement will be given.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the resurrection. In this part he treats of the determination of the judgement. Now this part is divided into two. For in the first the judgement is treated. In the second, the states consequent upon the judgement, below in distinction forty-nine: *After the resurrection, when the universe has been made* etc.

The first part has two. In the first part he treats of the order according to which that judgement will be given. In the second, however, he determines concerning the power and the form of the judge himself[^p970-1], below in distinction forty-eight: *It is also customarily asked in what form Christ will judge.*

The first part has two. In the first part he determines the order of the judgement as regards those things which belong to the judgement itself. In the second, however, as regards the things annexed to it, there: *But since it is read in the Gospel*[^p970-2]. The first part has two. In the first he determines the order of time. In the second, the order of dignity, there: *But Christ will not judge alone*; where the order of those who will be judged is shown, and among those to be judged there will still be four orders.

*But since it is read in the Gospel.* This is the second part, in which he determines the order as regards the things annexed; and because certain things go before, such as the sending ahead of the Angels and of the fire; and certain things follow, such as the tormenting of the damned: therefore he first determines what those things will be which will precede the judgement, and what the order will be, showing that Angels will go before the coming of Christ, and that the fire of the conflagration will nonetheless go before as well. Secondly, whether the ministry of the demons in tormenting is to come after the judgement, there: *And it is customarily asked whether in hell* etc. — And thus two things are touched upon here: the first is about the order of the judgement; the second, however, is about those things which are annexed, and especially about that fire which precedes the face of the judge.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present distinction, according to the two things which the Master determines in it, two things are principally asked.

First it is asked about those who judge and those who are to be judged.

Second, about the fire which will precede the face of the judge.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First, as regards those who judge, it is asked whether the Apostles judge.

Second, whether the Angels judge.

Likewise, as regards those to be judged, two things are asked[^p970-3].

First it is asked whether all will be judged.

Second, whether the Angels will be judged.

---

la: Codd. N aa *In prima determinat de ordine iudicii, in secunda de forma et qualitate.*

en: Codices N aa read *In the first he determines concerning the order of the judgement, in the second concerning the form and quality.*

la: Cod. B alteram huius primae partis divisionem subiungit, qua tamen posita, ea quae immediate sequitur divisio superfluere videtur. Mox pro *ordinem temporis* edd. *modum publicationis.* Subinde post verba *qui iudicabuntur,* quibus codd. G aa praemittunt *qui iudicabunt* (aa *iudicant*) *et,* edd. prosequuntur: *erunt enim in iudicandis ordines.*

en: Codex B subjoins another division of this first part, which however, once posited, makes the division that immediately follows seem superfluous. Shortly after, for *the order of time* the editions read *the manner of publication.* Then, after the words *who will be judged,* before which codices G aa put *who will judge* (aa *who judge*) *and,* the editions continue: *for there will be orders among those to be judged.*

la: Edd. prosequuntur: *ubi tertio quaeritur, utrum omnes iudicabuntur, tam boni quam mali. Quarto, utrum Angeli iudicabuntur.*

en: The editions continue: *where thirdly it is asked whether all will be judged, both the good and the wicked. Fourthly, whether the Angels will be judged.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L103093–103173 (IA djvu OCR), verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p970-{L,R}-{1,2}.png`. No bands were regenerated. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter claimed `printed_pages: [970, 971]`. Band verification shows this chunk's body ends on **p.970** with `Secundo, utrum iudicabuntur Angeli.` (bottom of p.970-R). Page 971 opens with the `ARTICULUS I.` header, which belongs to `a1-q1`. Frontmatter reduced to `[970]` / `[990]`.

**Apparatus split map — p.970.** The printed page carries exactly **three** numbered footer notes (1–3), and all three anchor in *this* chunk's body: note 1 at *ipsius iudicis*, note 2 at *Cum autem in Evangelio legatur*, note 3 at *quaeruntur duo*. Derived independently from the p.970 L-2 and R-2 footer bands, not from the littera writer's account. **The `littera` chunk (L102921–L103092), which occupies the top of p.970, therefore claims none of p.970's footers** — the sequence starts at 1 inside the divisio. Note 2 begins in the L footer band and continues into the R footer band; it is rendered as a single entry. No p.971 notes are claimed here.

**Hand-off forwarded.** `a1-q1` takes the whole of p.971, including its full footer sequence, and folds in the `ARTICULUS I. / De iudicantibus et iudicandis / QUAESTIO I. / Utrum Apostoli iudicent` headers at L103174ff.

**Unmapped / structural note.** The brief anticipated that the TRACTATIO would also list the four questions of Article II *De igne conflagrationis*. **It does not.** The printed TRACTATIO stops after `Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor` and its four sub-items (2 on the judges, 2 on the judged), ending at `Secundo, utrum iudicabuntur Angeli.` There is no `Circa secundum quaeruntur quatuor` on p.970; the Article II question-listing must sit at the `ARTICULUS II.` opener (~L103677) and should be folded into `a2-q1` per the standard opener rule. Reported for the coordinator.

**`[?]` flags.** None. The bands were clean at both edges; the only OCR-vs-band divergences were routine garbles (`dal^itur` → `dabitur`, `distincliooe` → `distinctione`, `deterrainat` → `determinat`, `ordinera` → `ordinem`, `quaei'unlur` → `quaeruntur`, `indicabuntur` → `iudicabuntur`, `ermil` → `erunt`, `Qaarlo` → `Quarto`, `uiruni` → `utrum`), all resolved at band time. The OCR also dropped the tail of the `Non autem solus` lemma; the band supplies `Non autem solus Christus iudicabit`, restored above.


title: Dist. 47, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum Apostoli iudicent
Whether the Apostles will judge

source_text:
<!-- page 971 -->

### Articulus I. *De iudicantibus et iudicandis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Apostoli iudicent.*

> **Nota de apparatu.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The notes below are therefore labelled by page: notes 1–10 belong to the footer of page 971, notes 1–3 to the footer of page 972. Notes 4–7 of page 972 anchor in the following question and are rendered there.

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod Apostoli iudicent.

1. Matthaei decimo nono[^p971-1]: *Sedebitis super sedes duodecim* etc. *Si dicas*, quod solum assistent iudici et non iudicabunt; *contra:* Matthaei duodecimo Dominus, loquens de Apostolis, Iudaeis dicit: *Ipsi iudices vestri erunt;* Glossa ibi dicit, quod habebunt auctoritatem iudicandi.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione:* quia, si solum iudicabunt comparatione, hoc non esset praerogativa; mali enim iudicabunt comparatione, secundum quod dicitur Matthaei duodecimo[^p971-2]: *Viri Ninivitae et regina austri surgent in iudicio contra generationem hanc.*

3. Item, hoc videtur: quia Dominus ideo dedit iudicium Filio, quia ipse, cum esset iustus, iudicatus est tanquam impius, Iob trigesimo sexto[^p971-3]: *Causa tua quasi impii iudicata est, iudicium causamque recipies;* sed Apostoli, cum essent iusti, iudicati sunt tanquam impii: ergo et pari modo iudicabunt.

4. Item, quamvis Christus esset redemptor et salvator noster, ipse tamen salutem animarum nobis per praedicationem Apostolorum dispensavit: ergo si gloria debet gratiae respondere, videtur, quod similiter per Apostolos proferat sententiam retributionis.

**Contra:** 1. Actuum decimo[^p971-4]: *Ipse est, qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum:* ergo ipsi soli Christo debetur iudicium, non ergo Apostolis.

2. Item, iudex debet esse immunis a peccato, de quo alterum damnat[^p971-5]; sed solus Christus fuit absque omni contagione peccati: ergo ipsius solius est iudicare.

Item, quaeritur: quare magis Apostolis attribuitur potestas iudiciaria quam aliis Sanctis, cum dicatur Sapientiae tertio[^p971-6]: *Iudicabunt Sancti nationes et dominabuntur?*

Item, si omnes Apostoli habebunt potestatem iudiciariam, quare dicit: *super sedes duodecim?* quia secundum hoc, cum Paulus non fuerit de duodecim, videtur, quod ad ipsum non pertineat iudicare[^p971-7].

Item, cum non habeant potestatem super alias tribus quam super *tribus Israel*, quomodo dicit: *iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel*[^p971-8]?

### Conclusio

> *Solus Christus feret sententiam in iudicio; Apostoli autem eorumque perfecti imitatores sunt iudices ut assistentes iudicanti et approbantes.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iudex in aliquo dicitur duplici ratione: aut quia ipsius est *ferre sententiam*, aut quia *assistit ferenti*, secundum quod aliqui iudices assistunt et quodam modo consulunt iudici principali. Qui ergo fert sententiam, ille est iudex principalis; et talis est solus Christus, sicut patet Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p971-9], ubi exprimitur, quomodo fert sententiam. Qui autem assistunt iudicanti etiam nomen et dignitatem *iudicantis* sortiuntur; et tales sunt viri perfecti, qui ultra opera necessitatis praeceptorum supererogaverunt perfectionem consiliorum; tales autem sunt Apostoli principaliter tanquam capita et eorum perfecti imitatores. Assistentia autem illa non erit ad consulendum, quia Dominus consilio non indiget; sed erit tanquam ad quendam honorem et appropinquationem ad iudicem, quam possumus appellare iuxta verbum Domini[^p971-10] *honorabilem consessionem.*

<!-- page 972 -->

Ratio autem huius honorabilis consessionis *meritoria* est perfectio supererogationis; ratio autem *finalis* est ad condemnationem malorum ex vitae suae comparatione, et ad gloriam Christi per sententiae eius approbationem. Sententiam enim Domini ut iustam approbabunt et malorum vitam sua comparatione condemnabunt.

Et ex his patent obiecta ad primam partem. Concedo enim, quod quidam[^p972-1] dignitate iudicabunt, non tamen ut Christus. Rationes ad oppositum similiter patent; concludunt enim, quod ipsorum non sit ferre sententiam.

Ad illud vero quod quaeritur, quare magis Apostolis, et in duodecimo numero; patet responsio ex dictis: per *Apostolos* enim *duodecim* omnes viri perfecti intelliguntur, et per *duodecim tribus* universitas iudicandorum. — Sed cum *septenario numero* universitas designetur[^p972-2], quare non dixit: *in septenario numero?* Et responsio ad hoc est, quia in *septenario* notatur universitas, quae componitur ex tribus et quatuor. Ista in se ducta faciunt duodecimum numerum. — Ratio autem, quare magis duodecim quam septem, duplex est: *litteralis*, quia ad Apostolos loquebatur, qui erant duodecim; sed *mystica* est, quia duodenarius est numerus abundans, partes enim eius superexcrescunt[^p972-3]; et *rursus*, dividitur in duos senarios, in quo significatur perfectio in duplici vita, scilicet in activa et contemplativa cum supererogatione consiliorum; et ista est quae vindicat sibi iudiciariam dignitatem: ergo etc.

english:
### Article I. *On those who judge and those who are judged.*
### Question I. *Whether the Apostles will judge.*

As to the first point, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the Apostles will judge.

1. Matthew nineteen[^p971-1]: *You shall sit upon twelve seats* etc. *If you say* that they will only assist the judge and will not judge; *on the contrary:* in Matthew twelve the Lord, speaking of the Apostles, says to the Jews: *They shall be your judges;* the Gloss there says that they will have the authority of judging.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by reason:* because, if they were to judge only by comparison, this would not be a prerogative; for the wicked too will judge by comparison, according to what is said in Matthew twelve[^p971-2]: *The men of Nineveh and the queen of the south shall rise up in judgement against this generation.*

3. Likewise, this seems so: because the Lord gave judgement to the Son for this reason, that He, though He was just, was judged as though impious, Job thirty-six[^p971-3]: *Thy cause hath been judged as that of the impious; cause and judgement thou shalt recover;* but the Apostles, though they were just, were judged as though impious: therefore they too will judge in like manner.

4. Likewise, although Christ was our redeemer and saviour, He nevertheless dispensed to us the salvation of souls through the preaching of the Apostles: therefore if glory ought to correspond to grace, it seems that He will likewise pronounce the sentence of retribution through the Apostles.

**Contra:** 1. Acts ten[^p971-4]: *He it is who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead:* therefore judgement is owed to Christ alone, and therefore not to the Apostles.

2. Likewise, a judge ought to be free from the sin of which he condemns another[^p971-5]; but Christ alone was without every contagion of sin: therefore it belongs to Him alone to judge.

Likewise, it is asked: why is judiciary power attributed to the Apostles rather than to the other Saints, since it is said in Wisdom three[^p971-6]: *The Saints shall judge nations and shall have dominion?*

Likewise, if all the Apostles will have judiciary power, why does He say: *upon twelve seats?* because according to this, since Paul was not of the twelve, it seems that it does not pertain to him to judge[^p971-7].

Likewise, since they do not have power over other tribes than over the *tribes of Israel*, how does He say: *judging the twelve tribes of Israel*[^p971-8]?

### Conclusion

> *Christ alone will pronounce the sentence in the judgement; but the Apostles and their perfect imitators are judges as assisting the one who judges and as approving.*

**I respond:** It must be said that someone is called a judge in a matter for a twofold reason: either because it belongs to him *to pronounce the sentence*, or because he *assists the one pronouncing it*, according as some judges assist and in a certain manner advise the principal judge. He therefore who pronounces the sentence, he is the principal judge; and such is Christ alone, as is clear in Matthew twenty-five[^p971-9], where it is expressed how He pronounces the sentence. But those who assist the one judging also obtain the name and the dignity of *one judging;* and such are perfect men, who beyond the works of the necessity of the precepts have supererogated the perfection of the counsels; and such are the Apostles principally, as heads, and their perfect imitators. That assistance, however, will not be for advising, because the Lord has no need of counsel; but it will be as it were for a certain honour and an approach to the judge, which, according to the word of the Lord[^p971-10], we may call an *honourable session together.*

The *meritorious* ground of this honourable session together is the perfection of supererogation; but the *final* ground is directed to the condemnation of the wicked by the comparison of their own life, and to the glory of Christ by the approbation of His sentence. For they will approve the sentence of the Lord as just, and by comparison with themselves will condemn the life of the wicked.

And from these things the objections to the first part are clear. For I concede that certain ones[^p972-1] will judge in dignity, yet not as Christ does. The reasons for the opposite side are likewise clear; for they conclude that it does not belong to them to pronounce the sentence.

But as to that which is asked, why rather to the Apostles, and in the number twelve; the answer is clear from what has been said: for by the *twelve Apostles* all perfect men are understood, and by the *twelve tribes* the totality of those to be judged. — But since totality is designated by the *septenary number*[^p972-2], why did He not say: *in the septenary number?* And the response to this is that in the *septenary* totality is noted, which is composed of three and four. These, multiplied into one another, make the number twelve. — But the ground why twelve rather than seven is twofold: the *literal*, because He was speaking to the Apostles, who were twelve; but the *mystical* is that the duodenary is an abundant number, for its parts exceed it[^p972-3]; and *again*, it is divided into two senaries, in which is signified perfection in the twofold life, namely in the active and the contemplative with the supererogation of the counsels; and it is this which claims for itself the judiciary dignity: therefore etc.

la: Vers. 28: *Sedebitis et vos super* etc. — Seq. locus est ibid. 12, 27, quem exponens Hieron. ait: « Ergo *ipsi iudices vestri erunt*, non potestate, sed comparatione; dum illi expulsionem daemonum Deo assignant, vos Beelzebub principi daemoniorum. Sin autem *de Apostolis* dictum est, quod et magis intelligere debemus, ipsi erunt iudices eorum, quia sedebunt in duodecim soliis, *iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel* (Matth. 19, 28.) ». Haec ultima verba respicit Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum sumta ex Beda, in Luc. 11, 19.

en: Verse 28: *You also shall sit upon* etc. — The following passage is ibid. 12, 27, expounding which Jerome says: « Therefore *they shall be your judges*, not by power, but by comparison; since they assign the expulsion of demons to God, and you to Beelzebub the prince of demons. But if it was said *of the Apostles*, which we ought rather to understand, they will be their judges, because they shall sit upon twelve thrones, *judging the twelve tribes of Israel* (Matth. 19, 28.) ». These last words the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra has in view, taken from Bede, on Luke 11, 19.

la: Vers. 41. seq.: *Viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio cum generatione ista... Regina austri surget* etc.

en: Verse 41 f.: *The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgement with this generation... The queen of the south shall rise* etc.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Vers. 42.

en: Verse 42.

la: Cfr. Rom. 2, 1. seqq. — Edd. *a peccato, ita quod ipse non committat quod in altero damnat.*

en: Cf. Rom. 2, 1 ff. — The editions read *from sin, so that he himself does not commit what he condemns in another.*

la: Vers. 8: *Iudicabunt nationes* etc.

en: Verse 8: *They shall judge nations* etc.

la: Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 86. n. 4. (refertur in Breviar. Roman. pro Communi Apostol. II. Noct. 2. loco).

en: Cf. Augustine, *Exposition on Psalm* 86, n. 4 (cited in the Roman Breviary for the Common of Apostles, II Nocturn, 2nd lesson).

la: Matth. 19, 28. — Pro *potestatem* codd. communiter ponunt *potestates.*

en: Matth. 19, 28. — For *potestatem* the codices commonly put *potestates.*

la: Vers. 31. seqq.

en: Verse 31 ff.

la: Matth. 19, 28: *Amen dico vobis, quod vos, qui secuti estis me... sedebitis et vos super sedes* etc. Apoc. 3, 21: *Qui vicerit, dabo ei sedere mecum in throno meo* etc. Cfr. lit. Magistri, hic c. 3. — Pro *consessionem... consessionis* non pauci codd. perperam *confessionem... confessionis.* Vide seq. scholion.

en: Matth. 19, 28: *Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me... you also shall sit upon seats* etc. Apoc. 3, 21: *He that shall overcome, I will give him to sit with me on my throne* etc. Cf. the text of the Master, here c. 3. — For *consessionem... consessionis* not a few codices wrongly have *confessionem... confessionis.* See the following scholion.

la: Codd. F L U X *quadam.*

en: Codices F L U X read *quadam.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 853, nota 6. — Ipsa *responsio* est secundum August., XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 5. n. 3.

en: Cf. above p. 853, note 6. — The *response* itself is according to Augustine, *On the City of God* XX, c. 5. n. 3.

la: August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 2. n. 4: Duodenarius vero partibus suis talibus simul ductis, non ipse consummatur, sed exceditur; ampliorem quippe duodenario numerum faciunt; nam usque ad sexdecim perveniunt. Habet enim eas quinque: duodecimam, sextam, quartam, tertiam, dimidiam; nam duodecima eius unum est, sexta duo... unum autem et duo et tria et quatuor et sex in summam ducta sexdecim sunt. Cfr. etiam I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion, ubi plura de antiqua circa numeros doctrina exhibentur.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* IV, c. 2. n. 4: But the duodenary, when such parts of it are taken together, is not itself completed, but is exceeded; for they make a number larger than twelve, since they reach as far as sixteen. For it has five such parts: a twelfth, a sixth, a fourth, a third, a half; for its twelfth is one, its sixth two... but one and two and three and four and six added into a sum are sixteen. Cf. also I Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion, where more is set out concerning the ancient doctrine about numbers. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Iudicium universale esse futurum, constat per S. Scripturam et Symbola. — De congruentia duplicis iudicii cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 88. a. 1; Bonav., infra q. 4. De Christo iudice vide d. 48. a. 1. — Antiqui Scholastici cum Magistro, S. Bonav. (hic q. 3.), S. Thom. (locis citt. quaestiunc. et art. 2.) communiter distinxerunt in hoc iudicio *examen* sive discussionem sive disceptationem a *prolatione sententiae*, et contra paucos probabilius esse docuerunt, hanc disceptationem esse simul *mentalem et vocalem.* — Supposita hac divisione, cum Magistro (hic c. 3.) distinxerunt quatuor *ordines iudicandorum;* et sibi constantes quaestionem (infra q. 3.), utrum *omnes* sint iudicandi, solverunt distinguendo. — Recentiores plures cum Suarez non admittunt praefatam distinctionem iudicandorum, unde infideles eodem iudicio disceptationis redarguendos esse dicunt. Agitur de re non magni momenti.

**II.** Quoad 1. quaestionem S. Thomas aliique magistri non tantum Apostolis, sed etiam perfectis eorum imitatoribus tribuunt quandam participationem iudiciariae potestatis, scilicet per « honorariam quandam consessionem », ut etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 89. a. 1.) se exprimit, ita ut sententiam latam confirment et pronuntient. Idem in sequenti quaestiunc. sive art. tribus rationibus explicat, quare voluntariae paupertati specialiter tribuatur iudiciaria potestas. Plerique Lombardi commentatores 1. et 2. quaestionem simul tractant. In solvenda 2. q. S. Thom. consentit nostro auctori.

De 1. et 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., 3. p. III. q. 25. m. 5. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 3. 4. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 1-3; Suppl. q. 89. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., de his et seq. q. hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., de toto articulo hic q. 1.

**III.** Quaestiones 3. et 4. secundum supra dicta ab antiquis magistris solvuntur.

De eisdem: Scot., hic q. 1. n. 5. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1-4; Suppl. q. 89. a. 5-8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. 6. — Durand., hic q. 1. n. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That a universal judgement is to come is established by Holy Scripture and the Creeds. — On the fittingness of the twofold judgement cf. St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1; Suppl. q. 88. a. 1; Bonaventure, below q. 4. On Christ as judge see d. 48. a. 1. — The ancient Scholastics, with the Master, St. Bonaventure (here q. 3.), St. Thomas (in the places cited, quaestiuncula and art. 2.), commonly distinguished in this judgement the *examination* or discussion or disputation from the *pronouncement of the sentence*, and against a few taught that it is more probable that this disputation is at once *mental and vocal.* — Supposing this division, with the Master (here c. 3.) they distinguished four *orders of those to be judged;* and, consistent with themselves, they solved the question (below q. 3.), whether *all* are to be judged, by distinguishing. — Many more recent authors with Suarez do not admit the aforesaid distinction of those to be judged, whence they say that unbelievers are to be convicted by the same judgement of disputation. The matter is of no great moment.

**II.** As to the 1st question, St. Thomas and other masters attribute a certain participation of judiciary power not only to the Apostles but also to their perfect imitators, namely through an « honorary session together », as St. Thomas too (here q. 1. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1; Suppl. q. 89. a. 1.) expresses himself, in such wise that they confirm and pronounce the sentence that has been passed. The same author in the following quaestiuncula or article explains by three reasons why judiciary power is specially attributed to voluntary poverty. Most commentators on Lombard treat the 1st and 2nd questions together. In solving the 2nd question St. Thomas agrees with our author.

On the 1st and 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, 3. p. III. q. 25. m. 5. — Scotus, here q. 1. n. 3. 4. — St. Thomas, here a. 2. quaestiuncula 1-3; Suppl. q. 89. a. 1-3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. 3. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, on these and the following q., here q. 1. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on the whole article here q. 1.

**III.** Questions 3 and 4 are solved by the ancient masters according to what has been said above.

On the same: Scotus, here q. 1. n. 5. seqq. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 3. quaestiuncula 1-4; Suppl. q. 89. a. 5-8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 4. 6. — Durandus, here q. 1. n. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L103174–L103338, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p97{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. No bands were regenerated — the supplied crops are clean-edged on both pages. Chunk folds the `ARTICULUS I.` opener (*De iudicantibus et iudicandis*) and the `QUAESTIO I.` header per the standing "short opener folds into that article's q1" convention. The scholion (raw L103303, header OCR-garbled `SCHOLIOK`) serves the whole of Article I and is rendered in full as the last subsection of both language blocks.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.971 — notes 1–10, all claimed here.** Page 971 carries no other chunk's body: the band read shows p.971 opening directly with the `ARTICULUS I.` header, so there is no shared footer with the preceding divisio. Body anchors run 1–5 in the left column and 6–10 in the right, matching the printed footer order exactly.
- **p.972 — 7 notes total; notes 1–3 claimed here** (anchors *quidam*¹, *designetur*², *superexcrescunt*³, all inside this question's *Ad argumenta*). **Notes 4–7 forwarded to `a1-q2`** — they anchor in *Utrum Angeli in die iudicii iudicabunt*, whose body begins in the lower left column of p.972: 4 = Matth. 25 vers. 31; 5 = I Tim. 6 vers. 14 + Glossa; 6 = *Vide quaest. praeced. arg. 2. ad oppos.*; 7 = Ioann. 5 vers. 27.

**Hand-offs picked up.** None. The backward seam was derived independently and resolves cleanly: the divisio's text ends on p.970 (its footers 1–3 sit above the p.971 running head in the raw), so no p.971 footer notes migrate into this chunk.

**Hand-offs forwarded.** To `a1-q2`: p.972 footer notes 4–7 (as itemised above). Its body opens *Secundo quaeritur, utrum Angeli iudicabunt. Et quod sic, videtur* — grammatically independent, so this chunk's close (*ergo etc.*) is a clean terminus.

**OCR-vs-band disagreements resolved at band time (not flagged).**
- The p.972 footer block is **entirely absent from the IA djvu OCR** — the raw jumps from the scholion straight to `QUAESTIO 11.` All three p.972 apparatus entries were recovered from the bands alone. This is the most consequential finding in the chunk; an OCR-only transcription would have silently shipped three unbound anchors.
- OCR read the p.971 right-column marker sequence as beginning at 5 (`terlio*`); the bands show 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Bound by content, not by position.
- Marginal glosses trimmed as editorial furniture, not body text: *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Duplex iudicium.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Ratio.*, *Ad argg.*, *Ad quaestiones incidentes.*, *Alia inci[dentia].*, *Resp.* The OCR had shattered several of these into the body (`mi3.des`, `«i- stilutus`, `dentes!`, `Raiio. rUoria`, `magisRaUo`).
- OCR `lob trigesimosexto` → band reads `Iob trigesimo sexto`; OCR `Sapientiae terlio` → `Sapientiae tertio`; OCR `a.pprobantes` → `approbantes`; OCR `Kecentiores` → `Recentiores`; OCR `Alex. Hal., 3. p. III. q. 2S. m. S.` → `q. 25. m. 5.`

**Structural note.** The scholion prints **three** numbered divisions, not two. The OCR labels the third `II.` (`II. Quaestiones 3. et 4. …`), duplicating the second's numeral; the band read of p.972-R-1 confirms the printed numerals are I, II, II — a Quaracchi typo. Rendered here as **I, II, III** for parser-safe uniqueness, with the source's own numbering recorded in this note.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Every reading in this chunk was resolved against a legible band.