title: Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 445 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum propter mortem carnis sit mors personae Verbi attribuenda.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum propter mortem carnis sit mors personae Verbi attribuenda. Et quod sic, ostenditur.

1. Dicitur enim in Symbolo[^p445-7]: «Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus»; hoc autem dicitur de Filio Dei unigenito. Et hoc ipsum dicit Ambrosius expresse, et habetur supra distinctione decima octava[^p445-8]: «Tantum fuit peccatum nostrum, ut salvari non possemus, nisi unigenitus Dei Filius moreretur pro nobis debitoribus mortis».

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *ratione.* Carne nascente et concepta, Filius Dei *natus* dicitur et *conceptus:* ergo pari ratione, carne mortua, Filius Dei debet dici mortuus[^p445-9]: ergo vere et convenienter potest mors attribui Dei Verbo, ut dicatur Filius Dei *mortuus* et *sepultus* pro nobis.

3. Item, satisfactio pro peccato nostro fuit per passionem et mortem; sed nullus potuit pro peccato nostro satisfacere, nisi esset Deus[^p445-10]: ergo si pro peccatis nostris per mortem illam satisfactum est, vere Filius Dei fuit mortuus.

4. Item, unio illa facit communicationem idiomatum; sed propter separationem animae a carne verum et necessarium fuit, illum hominem mori.

**Sed contra:**

1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera ultimo capitulo[^p445-11]: «Si quis dixerit atque crediderit Deum passum, anathema sit»; sed cui non potest attribui passio, non potest attribui mors: si igitur non est credendum, Filium Dei passum, sicut dicit; non est credendum neque dicendum, Filium Dei fuisse mortuum.

2. Item, idiomata *partis* non communicantur personae Verbi[^p445-12] — quamvis enim caro fuerit separata ab anima, non tamen propter hoc Filius Dei separatus fuit ab illa anima, quam assumsit — ergo si per passionem Christi non est mortua nisi sola caro, quia anima semper vixit; non videtur, quod Filio Dei vere possit attribui *mors;* aut si attribuitur ei *mors,* tunc est quaestio: quare non similiter attribuitur ei separatio?

3. Item, propter repugnantiam idiomatum non recipitur communiter: Filius Dei est creatura; sed multo magis repugnat vitae *mors,* quam intentio
<!-- page 446 -->
*creaturae* intentioni Creatoris: ergo si Filius Dei est ipsa vita[^p446-1], videtur, quod nullo modo sit mors ei attribuenda.

4. Item, quicumque diceret, summe sapientem esse stultum, blasphemaret; similiter qui diceret, summe bonum esse iniquum: ergo pari ratione qui dicit, summe potentem esse infirmum; sed hoc dicit qui dicit, Filium Dei esse mortuum: ergo qui hoc dicit[^p446-2] blasphemat Deum.

### Conclusio.

> Concedendum est, Filium Dei pro nobis fuisse mortuum secundum humanam naturam, et quidem per idiomatum communionem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio concedendum est, Filium Dei pro nobis fuisse mortuum; et hoc quidem sibi vere attribuitur non secundum naturam *divinam,* sed secundum *humanam,* non per *essentiam,* aut per *inhaerentiam*[^p446-3], sed per idiomatum communicantiam. Et hoc in nullo derogat divinae *dignitati* et multum consonat *pietati.* Nullum enim verbum maioris dignationis resonare potest in auribus cordis nostri, quam quod unigenitus Dei Filius mortuus fuerit pro nobis debitoribus mortis. Et ideo non tantum est hoc credendum et asserendum tanquam verum, sed etiam frequentissime recolendum. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de auctoritate Augustini, satis convenienter respondet Magister in littera[^p446-4]. Non enim intendit removere passionem a persona Verbi *simpliciter,* sed secundum divinam *naturam.*

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idiomata partis non communicantur personae Verbi; dicendum, quod mori non tantum convenit carni, sed etiam toti homini assumto. In separatione enim animae a carne non solum moritur caro, sed etiam totus homo. Et ideo ratio illa procedit ex suppositione falsi[^p446-5].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non communicantur idiomata, ubi est repugnantia; dicendum, quod verum est, ubi est talis repugnantia, quae non tollitur mediante convenientia; sic autem non est in proposito. Mors enim dat praeintelligere humanitatem, quae sine repugnantia potest dici de persona Christi; unde Filius Dei dicitur fuisse mortuus, quia fuit homo, in quo fuit passio mortis.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod blasphemia est dicere, Filium Dei esse mortuum; dicendum, quod hoc videtur auribus infidelium, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios primo[^p446-6]: *Praedicamus Iesum Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam.* Et ratio huius est: quia non credunt ipsius *humanationis* Filii Dei benignissimam dignationem, nec intelligunt illius humiliationis altissimam rationem. Si enim haec intelligerent, viderent, quod illud *quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus;* et illud *quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est* omnibus *hominibus.* His igitur duobus pensatis, videlicet ipsa Verbi *incarnatione* et *ratione,* ob quam incarnatus est, non est blasphemia, immo laus, dicere, quod Filius Dei pro nobis fuit mortuus secundum naturam assumtam. Per hoc enim decentissime, sicut in praecedentibus[^p446-7] est ostensum, reparatum est genus humanum. Nec est simile de stultitia et malitia; non enim valebant ad nostram redemptionem, sicut passionis et mortis tolerantia. — Et per hoc patent quaesita[^p446-8].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether on account of the death of the flesh death is to be attributed to the person of the Word.*

Thirdly it is asked whether, on account of the death of the flesh, death is to be attributed to the person of the Word. And that it is so, is shown.

1. For it is said in the Creed[^p445-7]: «He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried»; but this is said of the only-begotten Son of God. And Ambrose says this very thing expressly, and it is found above in the eighteenth distinction[^p445-8]: «So great was our sin, that we could not be saved unless the only-begotten Son of God should die for us who were debtors of death».

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by reason.* When the flesh is born and conceived, the Son of God is said to be *born* and *conceived:* therefore by parity of reasoning, when the flesh is dead, the Son of God ought to be said to be dead[^p445-9]: therefore truly and fittingly death can be attributed to God the Word, so that the Son of God is said to be *dead* and *buried* for us.

3. Likewise, satisfaction for our sin was made through passion and death; but no one could make satisfaction for our sin unless he were God[^p445-10]: therefore if satisfaction was made for our sins through that death, the Son of God was truly dead.

4. Likewise, that union effects a communication of idioms; but on account of the separation of the soul from the flesh it was true and necessary that that man should die.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine says, and it is found in the text in the last chapter[^p445-11]: «If anyone should say and believe that God suffered, let him be anathema»; but to him to whom passion cannot be attributed, death cannot be attributed: if therefore it is not to be believed that the Son of God suffered, as he says, it is not to be believed nor said that the Son of God was dead.

2. Likewise, the idioms *of a part* are not communicated to the person of the Word[^p445-12] — for although the flesh was separated from the soul, yet not on this account was the Son of God separated from that soul which He assumed — therefore if through the passion of Christ only the flesh died, since the soul ever lived; it does not seem that *death* can truly be attributed to the Son of God; or if *death* is attributed to Him, then there is a question: why is separation not likewise attributed to Him?

3. Likewise, on account of the repugnance of idioms it is not commonly admitted [to say]: The Son of God is a creature; but *death* is far more repugnant to life than the intention
<!-- page 446 -->
*of a creature* [is repugnant] to the intention of the Creator: therefore if the Son of God is life itself[^p446-1], it seems that death is in no way to be attributed to Him.

4. Likewise, whoever should say that the supremely wise is foolish would blaspheme; likewise one who should say that the supremely good is unjust: therefore by parity of reasoning one who says that the supremely powerful is weak; but this is said by one who says that the Son of God is dead: therefore he who says this[^p446-2] blasphemes God.

### Conclusion.

> It must be conceded that the Son of God died for us according to His human nature, and indeed through the communion of idioms.

**I respond:** It must be said that beyond doubt it is to be conceded that the Son of God died for us; and this indeed is truly attributed to Him not according to the *divine* nature, but according to the *human,* not by *essence,* nor by *inherence*[^p446-3], but by the communicating of idioms. And this in no way derogates from the divine *dignity* and accords greatly with *piety.* For no word of greater condescension can resound in the ears of our heart than that the only-begotten Son of God died for us who were debtors of death. And therefore this is not only to be believed and asserted as true, but also most frequently to be recalled. — And the reasons which show this are to be conceded.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected from the authority of Augustine, the Master replies fittingly enough in the text[^p446-4]. For he does not intend to remove passion from the person of the Word *absolutely,* but according to the divine *nature.*

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the idioms of a part are not communicated to the person of the Word; it must be said that to die belongs not only to the flesh, but also to the whole assumed man. For in the separation of the soul from the flesh not only does the flesh die, but also the whole man. And therefore that argument proceeds from the supposition of a falsehood[^p446-5].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that idioms are not communicated where there is repugnance; it must be said that this is true where there is such repugnance as is not removed by means of a fittingness; but it is not so in the case at hand. For death gives [us] to understand beforehand the humanity, which can be said of the person of Christ without repugnance; whence the Son of God is said to have been dead, because He was the man in whom there was the passion of death.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that it is blasphemy to say that the Son of God is dead; it must be said that this seems so to the ears of unbelievers, according to what is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the first [chapter][^p446-6]: *We preach Jesus Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, but to the Gentiles foolishness.* And the reason of this is: that they do not believe the most benign condescension of the *becoming-man* of the Son of God, nor do they understand the most lofty ground of that humiliation. For if they understood these things, they would see that *that which is the weakness of God is stronger than men;* and *that which is the foolishness of God is wiser than* all *men.* These two things therefore being weighed, namely the very *incarnation* of the Word and the *reason* for which He was incarnate, it is not blasphemy, nay rather it is praise, to say that the Son of God died for us according to the assumed nature. For through this most becomingly, as has been shown in the preceding [questions][^p446-7], the human race was repaired. Nor is the case similar with regard to foolishness and malice; for these did not avail toward our redemption, as did the endurance of passion and death. — And through this what was sought is made plain[^p446-8].

---

la: Scilicet Apostolorum.

en: Namely [the Creed] of the Apostles.

la: Cap. 5.

en: Chapter 5.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 20. q. 3.

en: As was shown above, d. 20, q. 3.

la: Vide supra pag. 14, nota 3.

en: See above, p. 14, note 3.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. et d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Paulo inferius Vat. omittit *Dei,* et cod. K pro *ab illa anima* exhibet *ab ipsa anima.*

en: Cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6, and d. 7, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2. — A little below the Vatican edition omits *Dei,* and codex K, for *from that soul,* gives *from the soul itself.*

la: Cfr. Ioan. I, 4. et 14, 6. — De maiori vide supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2. et d. 11. a. 2. q. 1. — In maiori edd. verbis *non recipitur* praemittunt *haec.*

en: Cf. John 1:4 and 14:6. — On the major [premise] see above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1, ad 2, and d. 11, a. 2, q. 1. — In the major [premise] the editions prefix *haec* to the words *non recipitur.*

la: Cod. D *diceret,* et dein idem cod. D cum codd. G I L V aa *blasphemaret Deum.*

en: Codex D [reads] *diceret,* and then the same codex D with codices G I L V aa [reads] *blasphemaret Deum.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro *dignitati* edd. *maiestati,* et deinde pro *cordis nostri* Vat. *cordis hominis.*

en: Cf. above, d. 7, a. 1, q. 1. — Presently, for *dignitati* the editions [read] *maiestati,* and then, for *cordis nostri,* the Vatican edition [reads] *cordis hominis.*

la: Hic c. 2, ubi H solutio seq. obiect. innuitur.

en: Here, c. 2, where the solution of the following objection is intimated.

la: Scil., quod solummodo *corpori,* quod est *pars hominis, mors* tribuatur (cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3, scholion).

en: Namely, that *death* is attributed only to the *body,* which is *a part of the man* (cf. above, a. 1, q. 3, the scholion).

la: Vers. 23. — Seq. testimonium ibid. v. 25. — Inferius pro *Si enim haec* edd. cum plurimis cod. *Si enim hoc.*

en: Verse 23. — The following testimony [is] in the same place, v. 25. — Below, for *Si enim haec,* the editions with most of the codices [read] *Si enim hoc.*

la: Dist. 20. q. 2. et 5. — Paulo superius pro *ob quam* edd. *ob quam causam,* et pro *fuit mortuus* codd. A H I L T V aa *fuerit mortuus.*

en: D. 20, q. 2 and q. 5. — A little above, for *ob quam* the editions [read] *ob quam causam,* and for *fuit mortuus* codices A H I L T V aa [read] *fuerit mortuus.*

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaestionem.

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands of printed pp.445–446 (PDF 467–468; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 30946–31022). The IA OCR cascade-shatters this quaestio badly (two-column bleed across the q2/q3 seam at the foot of p.445 L-column and across the q3/dubia seam on p.446), so the PDF column bands are authoritative for the body and footers per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override; the OCR served only as base for clean running prose and marker spacing.

**Opener alignment — VERIFIED.** raw 30946 reads `QUAESTIO III` / *Utrum propter mortem carnis sit mors personae Verbi attribuenda* / *Tertio quaeritur, utrum propter mortem carnis sit mors personae Verbi attribuenda* — the THIRD and LAST question of ARTICULUS II (matches the d.21 TRACTATIO listing; NOT q1's *impassibilis effecta*, NOT q2's *caro mortua an vitam habuerit*).

**Page-split map (printed → body):**
- **p.445** (foot of L-column → R-column): QUAESTIO III header + fundamenta 1–4 (fund.1–3 in p.445 L-column foot; fund.4 + Sed contra 1–2 + start of Sed contra 3 in p.445 R-column). The q2 Solutio fills the top of p.445 L-column; q3 opens below it (seam IN, see below).
- **page break** at *quam intentio* / *creaturae* (mid Sed contra 3, raw ~30982) → **p.446**: Sed contra 3 tail + Sed contra 4 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + Solutio Ad 1–4 (ending *Et per hoc patent quaesita⁸*). The d.21 DUBIA opens lower on p.446 (seam OUT, see below).

**Apparatus — 14 entries, per-page restart:**
- **p.445 R-band nn.7–12** (`[^p445-7..12]`) — INHERITED IN per the q2 hand-off (q2 owned p.445 L-band nn.1–6; q3 owns the whole R-band footer). n.7 *Symbolo* (fund.1), n.8 *octava* (fund.1 Ambrose), n.9 *mortuus* (fund.2), n.10 *Deus* (fund.3), n.11 *capitulo* (Sed contra 1), n.12 *idiomatum* (Sed contra 2 / fund.2 in oppos.).
- **p.446 nn.1–8** (`[^p446-1..8]`) — q3's own p.446 footer sequence. n.1 *ipsa vita* (Sed contra 3), n.2 *blasphemat* (Sed contra 4), n.3 *inhaerentiam* (Respondeo), n.4 *littera* (Ad 1), n.5 *suppositione falsi* (Ad 2), n.6 *Corinthios* (Ad 4), n.7 *praecedentibus* (Ad 4), n.8 *quaesita* (Ad 4 end).

**Shared-page footer split at the q3/dubia seam (p.446).** p.446 carries a single footer block nn.1–9. nn.1–8 belong to q3 (above); **n.9** (*Cfr. supra d. 20. dub. 3. — Huius dubii solutionem habes etiam apud B. Albert., hic a. 2, apud S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.*) anchors on Dub. I's *Et sic patet illud⁹* and **forwards to the d.21 dubia chunk**.

**Scholion — has_scholion: FALSE (VERIFIED eyes-on).** q3 carries no scholion of its own; it is forward-covered by ARTICULUS II's FIRST question scholion. Confirmed by q3's closing footer n.8 (*Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaestionem*) and footer n.5 (*cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3, scholion*), both pointing back to earlier scholia. No SCHOLION block prints between q3's body and the DUBIA on p.446.

**Seam status.**
- **IN (q2 → q3): CLEAN.** q2 closes *…et ideo non cogit illa ratio* (raw 30945, p.445 R-band top); q3 opens fresh *Tertio quaeritur* (raw 30946) at the foot of p.445's L-column.
- **OUT (q3 → d.21 dubia): CLEAN.** q3 closes *…Et per hoc patent quaesita⁸* (raw ~31022, p.446 R-column); DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI / Dub. I opens fresh below (raw 31023, p.446).

**[?] flags:** none — pp.445–446 fully legible at 450 dpi.

**Hand-off OUT → bon-sent-III-d21-dubia (raw 31023):** DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI opens at raw 31023, printed p.446 (PDF 468). Dub. I (*Nemo tollit animam meam, sed ego pono eam a me ipso*) + Dub. II (*Caro animam posuit, quando exspiravit*) + further dubia. **Inherits p.446 footer n.9** (Dub. I's *Et sic patet illud⁹*). After the d.21 dubia closes, **DISTINCTIO XXI is COMPLETE** → next is the d.22 littera.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 21, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XXI)

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 446 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nemo tollit animam meam, sed ego pono eam a me ipso.* Si ergo nemo potuit animam suam tollere, nemo potuit eum per violentiam occidere: ergo ipse non fuit mortuus per alienam violentiam, sed per propriam potentiam: ergo fuit homicida sui ipsius.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Dominus in isto verbo non vult excludere violentiam crucifigentium respectu naturae, sed respectu voluntatis divinae. Et in hoc vult ostendere, quod nemo posset ipsum occidere, nisi ipse vellet mortem sustinere secundum dispositionem voluntatis suae. Unde *ponere animam* ibi non est per exsecutionem, sed per voluntariam permissionem. Et sic patet illud[^p446-9].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Caro animam posuit, quando exspiravit.* Videtur enim, quod potius deberet dicere e converso, quod anima posuit carnem, quia plus habet virtutem anima super carnem, quam caro super animam. — Item, in resurrectione potius dicitur anima resumsisse carnem, quam caro animam: ergo in morte potius deberet dici anima[^p447-1] posuisse carnem, quam e converso.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod magis dicitur de carne, quod posuerit animam, quam e converso, non quia caro virtutem habuit[^p447-2] super animam, sed quia, carne remanente, anima a carne discessit; et quia per animam intelligitur vita, quae magis habet rationem pretii; et quoniam etiam anima praesidebat carni: ideo magis de carne dicitur deponi, quam e converso.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Non enim dicitur caro posuisse animam, quasi hoc[^p447-3] caro propria virtute fecerit; sed quia virtus divina aderat unita carni, sine cuius permissione anima non poterat deponi de carne[^p447-4].

<!-- page 447 -->

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Idem patiebatur et non patiebatur, moriebatur et non moriebatur.* Hoc enim videtur falsum: quia principium primum est in Prima Philosophia[^p447-5], quod «impossibile est, simul et semel de uno et eodem dici duo contradictorie opposita»: ergo si haec est vera: *Christus moriebatur,* haec simpliciter erit falsa: *Christus non moriebatur.* Si tu dicas, quod non est ibi contradictio, quia hoc attribuitur ei secundum diversas naturas, et ad hoc, quod sit contradictio, oportet, quod opposita non solum attribuantur eidem, sed etiam secundum idem[^p447-6]; hoc non solvit, quia si aliquis diceret, Petrum esse album, quia est albus secundum corpus, et non esse album, quia non est albus secundum animam; nihil diceret. Prima enim esset simpliciter vera, secunda simpliciter falsa: ergo si haec est vera secundum humanitatem: *Christus est mortuus;* ista erit simpliciter falsa: *Christus non est mortuus.* — Item, haec absque dubio est vera: *Christus homo est passus et mortuus;* si ergo est communicatio idiomatum, haec erit vera: *Deus est mortuus:* ergo Christus, homo et Deus, est mortuus. Si igitur haec est vera omni modo: *Christus est mortuus,* erit opposita eius simpliciter falsa.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio illud quod convenit Christo secundum naturam humanam et[^p447-7] secundum divinam, simpliciter et vere potest ei attribui. Unde vere dicitur: *Christus est creator omnium, Christus natus est de Virgine;* vere etiam dicitur: *Christus est mortalis, Christus est immortalis.* Quamvis autem aliquid conveniat Christo secundum naturam assumtam, quod non convenit ei secundum naturam divinam; non potest tamen *simpliciter removeri* ab eo, quia plus tollit negatio, quam ponat affirmatio[^p447-8]. Et ideo affirmativae concedendae sunt tanquam verae; negativae vero negandae sunt tanquam falsae, nisi proponantur vel intelligantur cum *addita determinatione.* Unde haec est vera: *Christus non est mortuus secundum Deitatem;* haec autem simpliciter prolata: *Christus non est mortuus,* falsa est. — Ambrosius[^p447-9] autem et Magister praedictas locutiones intelligunt cum *determinatione adiuncta,* quod patet per finem auctoritatis. Praeterea, ex hoc ipso quod proponit istas simul: «*moriebatur et non moriebatur*», arctatur pars affirmativa ad humanam naturam et negativa ad divinam. Ideo non est ibi contradictio, quia non est secundum idem. — Et per hoc patet satis responsio ad obiecta[^p447-10].

---

english:
<!-- page 446 -->

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part are questions concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning what he says: *No one takes away my soul, but I lay it down of myself.* If, then, no one could take away his soul, no one could kill him by violence: therefore he was not put to death by another's violence, but by his own power: therefore he was the slayer of his very self.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord in this word does not wish to exclude the violence of the crucifiers with respect to nature, but with respect to the divine will. And in this he wishes to show that no one could kill him, unless he himself willed to undergo death according to the disposition of his own will. Hence *to lay down the soul* there is not by execution, but by voluntary permission. And thus that is made clear.[^p446-9]

### Doubt II.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *The flesh laid down the soul, when it expired.* For it seems that he ought rather to say the opposite, namely that the soul laid down the flesh, because the soul has more power over the flesh than the flesh over the soul. — Likewise, in the resurrection the soul is rather said to have taken up the flesh again than the flesh the soul: therefore in death it ought rather to be said that the soul[^p447-1] laid down the flesh than the converse.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is rather said of the flesh that it laid down the soul than the converse — not because the flesh had power[^p447-2] over the soul, but because, the flesh remaining, the soul departed from the flesh; and because by the soul life is understood, which has more the character of a thing of price; and because also the soul presided over the flesh: therefore it is rather said of the flesh that it is laid down than the converse.

And by this the reply to the objections is made clear. For the flesh is not said to have laid down the soul as though it[^p447-3] did this by its own proper power; but because the divine power was present, united to the flesh, without whose permission the soul could not be laid down from the flesh.[^p447-4]

<!-- page 447 -->

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *The same one was suffering and not suffering, dying and not dying.* For this seems false: because the first principle in First Philosophy[^p447-5] is that «it is impossible that two things contradictorily opposed be said at one and the same time of one and the same thing»: therefore if this is true: *Christ was dying,* this will be simply false: *Christ was not dying.* If you should say that there is no contradiction there, because this is attributed to him according to diverse natures, and that for there to be a contradiction it is required that the opposites be attributed not only to the same thing, but also according to the same respect[^p447-6]; this does not resolve it, because if someone should say that Peter is white, because he is white according to the body, and is not white, because he is not white according to the soul; he would say nothing. For the first would be simply true, the second simply false: therefore if this is true according to humanity: *Christ is dead;* that will be simply false: *Christ is not dead.* — Likewise, this is without doubt true: *Christ as man suffered and died;* if, then, there is a communication of idioms, this will be true: *God is dead:* therefore Christ, man and God, is dead. If, then, this is true in every mode: *Christ is dead,* its opposite will be simply false.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt that which belongs to Christ according to the human nature and[^p447-7] according to the divine can be attributed to him simply and truly. Hence it is truly said: *Christ is the creator of all things, Christ was born of the Virgin;* it is also truly said: *Christ is mortal, Christ is immortal.* But although something may belong to Christ according to the assumed nature which does not belong to him according to the divine nature; nevertheless it cannot be *simply removed* from him, because negation takes away more than affirmation posits.[^p447-8] And therefore the affirmatives are to be conceded as true; but the negatives are to be denied as false, unless they are proposed or understood with an *added determination.* Hence this is true: *Christ is not dead according to the Deity;* but this, simply uttered: *Christ is not dead,* is false. — Now Ambrose[^p447-9] and the Master understand the aforesaid locutions with an *adjoined determination,* which is clear from the end of the authority. Moreover, by the very fact that he proposes these together: «*was dying and was not dying*», the affirmative part is restricted to the human nature and the negative to the divine. Therefore there is no contradiction there, because it is not according to the same respect. — And by this the reply to the objections is sufficiently made clear.[^p447-10]

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 20. dub. 3. — Huius dubii solutionem habes etiam apud B. Albert., hic a. 2, apud S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, d. 20, dub. 3. — The solution of this doubt you have also in B. Albert, here a. 2, in St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: In cod. N adiectum est *Christi*, in edd. *ipsa.*

en: In codex N *Christi* ("of Christ") is added; in the editions, *ipsa* ("it").

la: Codd. A G H L T V *habuerit.* Paulo superius pro *posuerit* edd. cum aliquot codd. *posuit.*

en: Codices A G H L T V read *habuerit.* A little above, for *posuerit* the editions with some codices read *posuit.*

la: Pro *quasi hoc* edd. *propter hoc quod.* In fine edd. habent *deponi a carne,* codd. C X *deponere carnem.*

en: For *quasi hoc* the editions read *propter hoc quod.* At the end the editions have *deponi a carne* ("to be laid down from the flesh"), codices C X *deponere carnem* ("to lay down the flesh").

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, et Richard. a Med., hic d. 16. q. 4; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, to [objection] 1, and Richard of Mediavilla, here d. 16, q. 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Vide Aristot., IV. Metaph. text. 9. seqq. (III. c. 3. seqq.), ubi principium contradictionis monstratur.

en: See Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IV, text 9 ff. (III, c. 3 ff.), where the principle of contradiction is demonstrated.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 205, nota 5.

en: Cf. above, p. 205, note 5.

la: Edd. *etiam,* perperam. Mox pro *ei* cod. W *eidem.*

en: The editions read *etiam* ("also"), wrongly. Presently, for *ei* codex W reads *eidem.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 11. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. et 4. nec non q. 3. ad 4. — Pro *ab eo* edd. *ab ea.*

en: Cf. above, d. 11, a. 2, q. 2, to [objections] 3 and 4, as also q. 3, to [objection] 4. — For *ab eo* the editions read *ab ea.*

la: Ex quo textus huius dubii (in lit. Magistri, c. 2.) sumtus est. — Paulo inferius pro *Praeterea* edd. *primo.*

en: From whom the text of this doubt (in the text of the Master, c. 2) is taken. — A little below, for *Praeterea* the editions read *primo.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. ad 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. concerning this doubt B. Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, to [objection] 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3, and on the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p446-{L,R}-*`, `vol3-p447-{L,R}-*`) cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (raw lines 31023–31086). Printed pp.446–447 (PDF 468–469; offset pdf = printed + 22).

**Structure / dubia count.** **DUB. I, II, III only — there is NO DUB. IV.** Confirmed by scanning raw 31023→31217: the only `Dub.` markers before the d.22 COMMENTARIUS (raw 31217) are Dub. I (raw 31025), Dub. II (raw 31032, OCR-garbled `Dcjb. II.`), and Dub. III (raw 31070). `type: dubia`, `has_scholion: false` (dubia carry no scholion).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.446** holds the *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* header, Dub. I (whole, L→R column), and the Dub. II opener (R column, bottom). Footer note used here: **n.9** (inherited — see below).
- **p.447** holds the remainder of Dub. II (Respondeo, L column top) and Dub. III (whole). Footer sequence **nn.1–10**.
- Page break placed at the Dub. II → Dub. III column boundary (raw ~31070): p.446 R-column ends with the Dub. II opener; p.447 L-column resumes the Dub. II Respondeo and proceeds to Dub. III. (The Dub. II Respondeo tail physically sits at the head of p.447's left column, below the p.446→447 page turn; the `<!-- page 447 -->` break is set at the visible structural boundary before Dub. III, with the Dub. II body kept whole under p.446 for reading continuity — apparatus markers nn.1–4 belong to p.447's footer sequence and are so numbered.)

**Apparatus (11 entries, per-page restart).**
- **p.446 n.9** — INHERITED IN from the a2-q3 hand-off. It is Dub. I's only footer (`Et sic patet illud⁹`): *Cfr. supra d. 20. dub. 3.* + parallels (B. Albert, S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med.). p.446 nn.1–8 were q3's, captured in the prior chunk.
- **p.447 nn.1–10** — Dub. II footers nn.1–4 (n.1 *Christi* var. on *anima*; n.2 *habuerit* on *habuit*; n.3 *propter hoc quod* var.; n.4 cross-ref on *carne⁴*); Dub. III footers nn.5–10 (n.5 Aristotle *Metaph.* IV on *Prima Philosophia⁵*; n.6 *pag. 205* on *secundum idem⁶*; n.7 *etiam* var. on *et⁷*; n.8 cross-ref on *affirmatio⁸*; n.9 source of the *dubium* on *Ambrosius⁹*; n.10 parallels on *obiecta¹⁰*).

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up IN:* p.446 footer **n.9** (Dub. I's first/only note), forwarded from a2-q3.
- *Forwarded OUT:* none — DUB. III closes the dubia and the distinction; p.447 nn.1–10 are fully consumed here.

**Seam status.** CLEAN both ends. IN: a2-q3 closes *…Et per hoc patent quaesita⁸* (raw ~31022) on p.446; the DUBIA header opens fresh below (raw 31023) on the same printed page. OUT: Dub. III closes *…Et per hoc patet satis responsio ad obiecta¹⁰* (raw ~31086); the next semantic unit is the d.22 littera `Cap. I. Si Christus in morte fuit homo` then `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII` (raw 31217). The `DISTINCTIO XXII.` strings at raw 31047/31087 are page-top running heads on p.447, NOT the d.22 body — verified. Dubia close grammatically before XXII opens.

**`[?]` flags.** None — 450 dpi bands fully legible across both pages.

**Distinction status.** With this chunk, **DISTINCTIO XXI is COMPLETE** (all 9 chunks Tier-2: littera, divisio, a1-q1/q2/q3, a2-q1/q2/q3, dubia).

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. 22

title_alt: Distinctio XXII — textus Magistri (Cap. I–IV)

title_alt: Distinction XXII — Lombard's text (Chapters I–IV)

source_text:
<!-- page 447 -->

### Cap. I.
### *Si Christus in morte fuit homo.*

Hic quaeritur, utrum in illo triduo mortis Christus fuerit homo. — Quod non videtur quibusdam, quia mortuus erat, et homo mortuus non est homo. Addunt etiam, quod si tunc erat homo, vel mortalis, vel immortalis. Sed mortalis non, quia mortuus; nec immortalis, quia tantum post resurrectionem[^p447-1]. — Quibus respondemus, quia, licet homo mortuus fuerit, erat tamen in morte Deus-homo, nec mortalis quidem nec immortalis, et tamen vere erat homo. Illae enim et huiusmodi argutiae in creaturis locum habent, sed fidei sacramentum a philosophicis argumentis est liberum. Unde Ambrosius[^p447-2]: «Aufer argumenta, ubi fides quaeritur. In ipsis gymnasiis suis iam dialectica taceat; piscatoribus creditur, non dialecticis». Dicimus ergo, in

<!-- page 448 -->

morte Christi Deum vere fuisse hominem, et tamen mortuum. Et hominem quidem nec mortalem nec immortalem, quia unitus erat animae et carni seiunctis. Alia enim ratione dicitur Deus homo, vel homo Deus, quam Martinus vel Ioannes. Homo enim dicitur Deus et e converso propter susceptionem hominis, id est animae et carnis. Unde Augustinus[^p448-1]: «Talis erat illa susceptio, quae Deum hominem faceret, et hominem Deum». Cum ergo illa susceptio per mortem non defecerit, sed Deus homini et homo Deo, sicut ante, unitus erat vere; et tunc Deus erat homo et e converso, quia unitus animae et carni; et homo mortuus erat, quia anima a carne divisa erat. Propter separationem animae a carne mortuus[^p448-2], sed propter utriusque secum unionem homo. Non autem sic erat homo, ut ex anima et carne simul iunctis subsisteret, ex qua ratione dicitur aliquis alius homo. Et ipse forte ante mortem hoc etiam modo erat homo[^p448-3], et post resurrectionem fuit; in morte vero homo erat tantum propter animae et carnis secum unionem, et mortuus propter inter illa duo divisionem.

### Cap. II.
### *Si Christus, ubicumque est, sit homo.*

Hic quaeritur, si Christus in morte alicubi erat homo; et si, ubicumque est, homo sit. — Ad quod dicimus, quia non, ubicumque erat, homo erat, nec modo, ubicumque est, homo est; quia ubique est secundum Deitatem, nec ubique homo, quia non[^p448-4] ubique homini unitus; sed ubicumque est secundum hominem, ibi homo est. Tempore autem mortis et ubique erat secundum Deum, et in sepulcro secundum hominem, et in inferno secundum hominem; sed in inferno secundum animam, et in sepulcro secundum carnem tantum. In sepulcro ergo erat homo, quia humanitati erat unitus, etsi non toti, quia carni tantum; et in inferno erat homo, quia humanitati unitus, sed non toti, quia animae tantum. Sed si in inferno animae tantum et in sepulcro carni tantum unitus erat; ergo nec in inferno unitus erat animae et carni nec in sepulcro. Quomodo ergo hic vel ibi homo esse dicitur? Quae est ratio dicti? Quia una eademque unione unitus erat animae in inferno et carni in sepulcro; et sic erat illis duobus tunc separatis unitus, sicut ante separationem, id est ante mortem. — Ad hoc autem opponitur: si Christus animam tantum, vel carnem tantum assumsisset, non fuisset verus homo; sed propter utriusque assumtionem verus homo fuit: sic ergo, ubi carnem et animam sibi unitam non habebat, verus homo ibi non erat[^p448-5]. Sed tempore mortis nusquam illa duo unita habebat, quia nec in sepulcro nec in inferno nec alibi: nusquam ergo erat homo. — Ad quod dicimus, quia Christus utique verus homo non fuisset, si carnem et animam non assumsisset; sed tamen, quia ex quo assumsit, neutrum deposuit, sed cum utroque eandem unionem indesinenter tenuit, quam assumendo contraxit: ideo non incongrue, ubicumque animae vel carni vel utrique unitus est, ibi homo esse dicitur, quia ibi humanatus est. Ergo et in sepulcro erat homo et in inferno erat homo, quia utrobique humanatus erat Christus et unam eandemque cum anima et carne, licet separatis, habebat unionem, et uno eodemque tempore in sepulcro iacuit Christus et ad infernum descendit; sed in sepulcro iacuit secundum solam carnem et in infernum descendit secundum solam animam. Unde Augustinus[^p448-6]: «Quis non est derelictus in inferno? Christus, sed in anima sola. Quis iacuit in sepulcro? Christus, sed in carne sola; quia in his singulis Christus est: Christum in his omnibus et in singulis confitemur». — Ex his evidenter ostenditur, quod carni iacenti in sepulcro unitus erat Christus, sicut animae in inferno; alioquin, si carni mortuae non esset unitus, non in ea diceretur iacuisse in sepulcro. Anima igitur ad infernum descendit, caro in sepulcro iacuit, Sapientia cum utroque permansit, quae «in inferno positis, ut ait Ambrosius[^p448-7], lumen vitae fundebat aeternae. Radiabat illic lux vera Sapientiae, illuminabat infernum, sed in inferno non claudebatur. Quis enim locus est Sapientiae? de qua scriptum est: Nescit homo vias eius, nec inventa est in terra suaviter viventium; abyssus dicit: Non est in me; mare dicit: Non est mecum: ergo nec in tempore nec in loco Sapientia est, cui nec mors tribuenda est». «In ligno enim caro, non illa operatrix omnium substantia divina, pendebat». — Confitemur tamen, Christum pependisse in ligno et iacuisse in sepulcro, sed in carne; et fuisse in inferno, sed in anima sola.

### Cap. III.
### *Quod Christus ubique totus est, sed non totum; ut totus est homo vel Deus, sed non totum.*

Et utique totus eodem tempore erat in inferno, totus in caelo, totus ubique. Persona enim illa aeterna non maior erat, ubi carnem et animam simul unitam[^p448-8] sibi habebat, quam ubi alterum tantum; nec maior erat, ubi utrumque simul, vel alterum tantum unitum habebat, quam ubi erat neutrum habens unitum. Totus ergo Christus et perfectus ubique erat. Unde Augustinus[^p448-9]: «Non dimisit Patrem Christus, cum venit in Virginem, ubique totus, ubique perfectus. Uno igitur

<!-- page 449 -->

eodemque tempore totus erat in inferno, totus in caelo. Erat apud inferos resurrectio mortuorum, erat super caelos vita viventium; vere mortuus, vere vivus, in quo et mortem susceptio mortalitatis excepit, et vitam Divinitas non perdidit». «Mortem igitur Dei Filius et in anima non pertulit et in maiestate non sensit; sed tamen participatione infirmitatis Rex gloriae crucifixus est». — Ex his apparet, quod Christus eodem tempore totus erat in sepulcro, totus in inferno, totus ubique, sicut et modo totus est, ubicumque est, sed non totum. Nec in sepulcro nec in inferno totum erat, etsi totus; sicut Christus totus est Deus, totus homo, sed non totum, quia non solum est Deus vel homo, sed et Deus et homo. Totum enim ad naturam refertur, totus autem ad hypostasim, sicut aliud et aliquid ad naturam, alius vero et aliquis ad personam referuntur. Unde Ioannes Damascenus: «Totus Christus est Deus perfectus, non autem totum Deus est. Non enim solum Deus est, sed et homo; et totus homo perfectus, non autem totum homo, non enim solum homo, sed et Deus. Totum enim naturae repraesentativum est, totus autem hypostaseos; sicut aliud quidem est naturae, alius autem hypostaseos». Sic et huiusmodi.

### Cap. IV.
### *Si ea quae dicuntur de Deo vel de Filio Dei, possint dici de homine illo vel de filio hominis.*

Solet etiam quaeri, si congruenter dici possit filius hominis, vel ille homo descendisse de caelo, vel ubique esse, sicut dicitur Filius Dei vel Deus de caelo venisse, vel ubique esse. — Ad quod dicimus, si ad unitatem personae referatur dicti intelligentia, sane dici potest; si vero ad distinctionem naturarum, nullatenus concedendum est. Unde Augustinus: «Una persona est Christus, Deus et homo. Ideo dicitur: Nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, etc. Si ergo attendas distinctionem substantiarum, Filius Dei descendit, et filius hominis crucifixus est; si vero unitatem personae, et filius hominis descendit, et Filius Dei est crucifixus. Propter hanc unitatem personae non solum filium hominis descendisse de caelo, sed etiam dixit esse in caelo, cum loqueretur in terra». «Propter hanc eandem dicitur Deus gloriae crucifixus, qui tamen ex forma servi tantum crucifixus est, non secundum hoc, quod Deus gloriae est et secundum quod glorificat suos; et tamen dicitur Deus gloriae crucifixus, recte quidem non ex virtute Divinitatis, sed ex infirmitate carnis. Quid ergo, propter quid, et quid secundum quid dicatur, prudens et diligens et pius lector intelligat». — Haec de corrigia calceamenti dominici dicta sufficiant[^p449-1], ne ossa regis Idumaeae consumantur usque in cinerem.

english:
<!-- page 447 -->

### Chapter I.
### *Whether Christ in death was a man.*

Here it is asked whether in that three-day span of death Christ was a man. — That he was not seems so to certain men, because he was dead, and a dead man is not a man. They add further that, if he was then a man, he was either mortal or immortal. But not mortal, because he was dead; nor immortal, because [he became immortal] only after the resurrection[^p447-1]. — To these we respond that, although he was a dead man, yet in death he was God-man, neither mortal indeed nor immortal, and yet truly he was a man. For these and suchlike subtleties have their place among creatures, but the sacrament of faith is free of philosophical arguments. Hence Ambrose[^p447-2]: «Take away arguments where faith is sought. In their very schools let dialectic now be silent; one believes the fishermen, not the dialecticians». We say therefore that in

<!-- page 448 -->

the death of Christ God was truly a man, and yet dead. And a man indeed neither mortal nor immortal, because he was united to the soul and the flesh while these were sundered. For God is said to be a man, or a man God, by another account than that by which Martin or John [is said to be a man]. For God is called man and conversely on account of the assumption of the man, that is, of soul and flesh. Hence Augustine[^p448-1]: «Such was that assumption, that it made God a man, and a man God». Since therefore that assumption did not fail through death, but God was truly united to the man and the man to God, as before; then too God was a man and conversely, because he was united to the soul and the flesh; and the man was dead, because the soul had been divided from the flesh. He was dead through the separation of the soul from the flesh[^p448-2], but a man through the union of both with himself. Yet he was not a man in such a way that he subsisted out of soul and flesh joined together at once, by which account some other man is so called. And he himself perhaps before death was a man in this mode also[^p448-3], and after the resurrection was; but in death he was a man only on account of the union of soul and flesh with himself, and dead on account of the division between those two.

### Chapter II.
### *Whether Christ, wherever he is, is a man.*

Here it is asked whether Christ in death was anywhere a man; and whether, wherever he is, he is a man. — To which we say that not wherever he was, was he a man, nor now, wherever he is, is he a man; because he is everywhere according to the Deity, yet not everywhere a man, because he is not[^p448-4] everywhere united to a man; but wherever he is according to the man, there he is a man. At the time of death he was everywhere according to God, and in the sepulcher according to the man, and in hell according to the man; but in hell according to the soul, and in the sepulcher according to the flesh only. In the sepulcher therefore he was a man, because he was united to the humanity, though not to the whole, because to the flesh only; and in hell he was a man, because united to the humanity, but not to the whole, because to the soul only. But if in hell he was united to the soul only and in the sepulcher to the flesh only; then neither in hell was he united to soul and flesh nor in the sepulcher. How then is he said to be a man here or there? What is the ground of the saying? Because by one and the same union he was united to the soul in hell and to the flesh in the sepulcher; and thus he was united to those two, then separated, as before the separation, that is, before death. — But against this it is objected: if Christ had assumed soul only, or flesh only, he would not have been a true man; but on account of the assumption of both he was a true man: thus therefore, where he did not have flesh and soul united to himself, there he was not a true man[^p448-5]. But at the time of death nowhere did he have those two united, because neither in the sepulcher nor in hell nor elsewhere: nowhere therefore was he a man. — To which we say that Christ would indeed not have been a true man, if he had not assumed flesh and soul; but yet, because from the time he assumed them he laid neither aside, but kept unceasingly with each the same union which he contracted in assuming: therefore not incongruously, wherever he is united to the soul or to the flesh or to both, there he is said to be a man, because there he is made man. Therefore both in the sepulcher he was a man and in hell he was a man, because in both places Christ was made man and had one and the same union with soul and flesh, though separated, and at one and the same time Christ lay in the sepulcher and descended to hell; but in the sepulcher he lay according to the flesh alone and into hell he descended according to the soul alone. Hence Augustine[^p448-6]: «Who was not forsaken in hell? Christ, but in the soul alone. Who lay in the sepulcher? Christ, but in the flesh alone; because in these singly Christ is: Christ in all these and in each we confess». — From these it is evidently shown that Christ was united to the flesh lying in the sepulcher, as to the soul in hell; otherwise, if he were not united to the dead flesh, he would not be said to have lain in it in the sepulcher. The soul therefore descended to hell, the flesh lay in the sepulcher, Wisdom remained with both, which «among those set in hell, as Ambrose says[^p448-7], poured forth the light of eternal life. There the true light of Wisdom shone, it illumined hell, but in hell it was not enclosed. For what place is there of Wisdom? of which it is written: Man knows not its ways, nor is it found in the land of those living sweetly; the abyss says: It is not in me; the sea says: It is not with me: therefore Wisdom is neither in time nor in place, to which neither death is to be ascribed». «For on the wood the flesh, not that divine substance which works all things, was hanging». — Yet we confess that Christ hung on the wood and lay in the sepulcher, but in the flesh; and that he was in hell, but in the soul alone.

### Chapter III.
### *That Christ is everywhere whole, but not the whole; as he is wholly man or God, but not the whole.*

And indeed he was at the same time wholly in hell, wholly in heaven, wholly everywhere. For that eternal Person was not greater where he had flesh and soul together united[^p448-8] to himself, than where [he had] one only; nor was he greater where he had both together, or one only, united, than where he was having neither united. Wholly therefore and perfectly was Christ everywhere. Hence Augustine[^p448-9]: «Christ did not forsake the Father, when he came into the Virgin, everywhere whole, everywhere perfect. At one therefore

<!-- page 449 -->

and the same time he was wholly in hell, wholly in heaven. Among the dead was the resurrection of the dead, above the heavens was the life of the living; truly dead, truly alive, in whom the assumption of mortality took up death, and the Divinity did not lose life». «The Son of God therefore neither bore death in the soul nor felt it in the majesty; but yet by participation of infirmity the King of glory was crucified». — From these it appears that Christ at the same time was wholly in the sepulcher, wholly in hell, wholly everywhere, as also now he is wholly, wherever he is, but not the whole. Neither in the sepulcher nor in hell was he the whole, though whole; as Christ is wholly God, wholly man, but not the whole, because he is not only God or man, but both God and man. For "the whole" refers to nature, but "wholly" to the hypostasis, as "another thing" (*aliud*) and "something" (*aliquid*) refer to nature, but "another one" (*alius*) and "someone" (*aliquis*) to the person. Hence John Damascene: «Christ is wholly perfect God, but not the whole is God. For he is not only God, but also man; and wholly perfect man, but not the whole is man, for he is not only man, but also God. For "the whole" is representative of nature, but "wholly" of the hypostasis; as "another thing" indeed belongs to nature, "another one" to the hypostasis». And so of suchlike.

### Chapter IV.
### *Whether those things which are said of God or of the Son of God can be said of that man or of the son of man.*

It is also wont to be asked whether the son of man, or that man, can fittingly be said to have descended from heaven, or to be everywhere, as the Son of God or God is said to have come from heaven, or to be everywhere. — To which we say that if the meaning of the saying be referred to the unity of the person, it can soundly be said; but if to the distinction of natures, it is by no means to be conceded. Hence Augustine: «Christ is one person, God and man. Therefore it is said: No one ascends into heaven, except him who descended from heaven, etc. If therefore you attend to the distinction of substances, the Son of God descended, and the son of man was crucified; but if to the unity of the person, both the son of man descended, and the Son of God was crucified. On account of this unity of the person he said not only that the son of man had descended from heaven, but also that he was in heaven, while he was speaking on earth». «On account of this same [unity] the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, who yet from the form of the servant only was crucified, not according to that whereby he is the Lord of glory and according to which he glorifies his own; and yet the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, rightly indeed not by the power of the Divinity, but by the infirmity of the flesh. What therefore is said, on account of what, and according to what, let the prudent and diligent and pious reader understand». — Let these things said of the strap of the Lord's sandal suffice[^p449-1], lest the bones of the king of Idumaea be consumed even to ashes.

la: Cod. E et edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt *ergo non erat homo*; paulo superius post *immortalis, quia* cod. D bene addit *hoc*. — Cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., II. *de Sacram.* p. I. c. 11, ex quo Magister multa excerpsit.

en: Codex E and editions 1, 8 add *therefore he was not a man*; a little above, after *immortal, because*, codex D rightly adds *this*. — Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. I, c. 11, from which the Master excerpted much.

la: Libr. I. *de Fide*, c. 13. n. 84, qui locus sub nomine S. Hieronymi allegatus est in Prooemio ad I. libr. Sent. q. 2. arg. 6. ad opposit.; vide tom. I. pag. 10, nota 5.

en: [Ambrose,] *On the Faith* I, c. 13, n. 84, which passage is cited under the name of St. Jerome in the Prologue to Book I of the Sentences, q. 2, arg. 6, against the objection; see vol. I, p. 10, note 5.

la: Libr. I. *de Trin.* c. 13. n. 28.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Trinity* I, c. 13, n. 28.

la: Edd. 1, 8 praefigunt *homo*; inferius solae edd., exceptis 1, 8, post *utriusque* addunt *semper*.

en: Editions 1, 8 prefix *a man*; below, the editions alone, except 1 and 8, after *of both* add *always*.

la: De hac falsa opinione cfr. supra d. VI, et Comment. S. Bonav. ibid. post *divisionem textus*. Cod. Erf. hic addit: *De hac materia Hugo, II. de Sacram. p. 1. c. 11, et I. Sent. c. ult., et Gandolphus, libro III. c. 108.*

en: On this false opinion cf. above, d. VI, and the Commentary of St. Bonaventure there, after the division of the text. Codex Erfurt here adds: *On this matter [see] Hugh, On the Sacraments II, p. 1, c. 11, and Sent. I, last chapter, and Gandulph, book III, c. 108.*

la: Edd. 1, 8 *nec*; eaedem infra post *in inferno* legunt *secundum animam* et omittunt verba *sed in inferno secundum animam*. — Verba ista excerpta sunt ex Fulgentio, *de Fide ad Petrum*, c. 2. n. 11.

en: Editions 1, 8 read *nor*; the same below, after *in hell*, read *according to the soul* and omit the words *but in hell according to the soul*. — These words are excerpted from Fulgentius, *On the Faith, to Peter*, c. 2, n. 11.

la: Edd. 1, 9 *existebat*; inferius post *illa duo* Vat. cum plurimis edd. addit *vere*.

en: Editions 1, 9 read *was existing*; below, after *those two*, the Vatican edition with very many editions adds *truly*.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Gospel of John* (14:28), tract 78, n. 3.

la: *De Incarnat. dominic. sacramento*, c. 5. n. 41. 42, ubi locus Script. est Iob 28, 12. seqq. Seq. locus ibid. c. 6. n. 50.

en: [Ambrose,] *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation*, c. 5, nn. 41–42, where the Scripture passage is Job 28:12 ff. The following passage is in the same place, c. 6, n. 50.

la: Codd. *unita*, quo loquendi modo utitur Bonav. pag. 441.

en: The codices read *united* (fem.), a manner of speaking which Bonaventure uses on p. 441.

la: *De Unitate Trinit. contra Felician.* c. 14. (videtur esse opus Vigilii Taps.). Seq. locus ibid. c. 16, in quo pro *sed tamen* codd. habent *sed tantum*. Sed in originali aliter legitur: *Ergo, inquis, mortem Dei Filius et in anima non pertulit et in maiestate non sensit? Quid ergo dicebas esse quod pertulit? Sensit prorsus et pertulit, sed participatione morbi alieni, non proprietate vulneris sui.*

en: [Augustine,] *On the Unity of the Trinity, against Felician*, c. 14 (it seems to be a work of Vigilius of Thapsus). The following passage is in the same place, c. 16, in which for *but yet* the codices have *but only*. But in the original it reads otherwise: *Therefore, you say, the Son of God neither bore death in the soul nor felt it in the majesty? What then were you saying that he bore? He felt indeed and bore it, but by participation of another's affliction, not by the property of his own wound.*

la: Non pauci codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 minus recte *fuit*.

en: Not a few codices, as well as editions 1 and 2, less correctly [read] *fuit* ("was/let it be").

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (vol3 pp.447 / 448 / 449 = PDF 469 / 470 / 471), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 31090–31216). The IA OCR here is heavily cascade-shattered (two-column bleed + diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation across the whole Respondeo and the page footers), so the PDF read is authoritative per the Vol II/III OVERRIDE; the OCR served only as positional cross-check.

**Cap. coverage.** The DISTINCTIO XXII littera (Lombard's *textus*) spans **four chapters**: Cap. I *Si Christus in morte fuit homo* (p.447 → p.448), Cap. II *Si Christus, ubicumque est, sit homo* (p.448), Cap. III *Quod Christus ubique totus est, sed non totum…* (pp.448–449), Cap. IV *Si ea quae dicuntur de Deo vel de Filio Dei, possint dici de homine illo vel de filio hominis* (p.449). After Cap. IV closes (*…ne ossa regis Idumaeae consumantur usque in cinerem*) the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII** opens at raw line 31217 (printed p.449, *De consequentibus ad separationem in morte Christi*) — the next chunk (`bon-sent-III-d22-divisio`).

**Opener alignment — VERIFIED.** Cap. I rubric reads exactly *Si Christus in morte fuit homo*, body *Hic quaeritur, utrum in illo triduo mortis Christus fuerit homo*. The two `DISTINCTIO XXII.` strings at raw 31047 (= p.447 R-band running head) and raw 31087/31048 are page-top **running heads on p.447**, not the body — confirmed eyes-on; the actual Cap. I body opens at the foot of p.447's LEFT column (raw ~31090), below the d.21 Dub. III.

**Page-split map (apparatus numbering restarts each printed page):**
- **p.447** — Cap. I rubric + body (L-col lower → R-col, below the running head, to *Dicimus ergo, in*). Footer = *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* **nn.1–2** (`[^p447-1..2]`). The p.447 L-band footers nn.1–8 and R-band nn.9–10 belong to the **d.21 Dub. III** (already captured in `bon-sent-III-d21-dubia`), NOT to the littera — do not re-pull them.
- **p.448** — Cap. I tail (*morte Christi Deum…divisionem*) + Cap. II (full) + Cap. III rubric & body start (to *Uno igitur*). Footers: L-band **nn.1–4**, R-band **nn.5–9** (`[^p448-1..9]`).
- **p.449** — Cap. III tail (*eodemque tempore…Sic et huiusmodi*) + Cap. IV (full, to *…usque in cinerem*). The littera's own footer here is the single *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* **n.1** (`[^p449-1]`, *Non pauci codd…fuit*). The other p.449 footers (L-2 nn.1–3 *Libr. III. de Fide orthod.* / *Libr. II. contra Maximin.* / *Respicitur Ioan.*; R-2 nn.2–4) are **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** footnotes belonging to the COMMENTARIUS DIVISIO TEXTUS that opens lower on p.449 — they forward to `bon-sent-III-d22-divisio`.

**Marginal sigla trimmed.** The Quaracchi running-marginalia in the body bands (*Sententia 1.*, *Resp.*, *Augustinus*, *Ambrosius*, *Damascenus*, *Opponitur*, *Notandum.*, *Dubium 1./2./3./4./5.*) are editorial side-glosses, not Lombard's text — trimmed out per the OCR-cleanup rules.

**Hand-off picked up.** Per the d.21-dubia hand-off: no footer migrates IN to the littera — p.447 nn.1–10 were fully consumed by the d.21 Dub. I–III; the littera opens its own fresh *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* sequence on p.447. Seam IN (d.21 dubia → d.22 littera) CLEAN.

**Hand-off forwarded.** Next chunk `bon-sent-III-d22-divisio` = COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII, raw 31217, printed p.449 (PDF 471), opener *De consequentibus ad separationem in morte Christi.* … *Supra egit Magister de separatione facta in morte Christi. In hac vero parte agit de consequentibus ad separationem. Dividitur autem pars ista in tres partes…* The p.449 COMMENTARIUS footers (L-2 nn.1–3 + R-2 nn.2–4) migrate IN to the divisio. Seam OUT CLEAN — Cap. IV closes *…usque in cinerem*; COMMENTARIUS opens fresh below. Offset: pdf = printed + 22.

**[?] flags:** none — all three pages legible at 450 dpi.


title: Dist. 22, Divisio Textus

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 449 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXII.
*De consequentibus ad separationem in morte Christi.*

*Hic quaeritur, utrum in illo triduo etc.*

### Divisio textus.

Supra egit Magister de separatione facta in morte Christi. In hac vero parte agit de consequentibus ad separationem. Dividitur autem pars ista in tres partes. In quarum prima inquirit Magister, utrum Christus fuerit homo in triduo. In secunda vero, ubi fuerit[^p449-1] in illo triduo, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, si Christus in morte alicubi erat homo.* In tertia vero ad maiorem explanationem inquirit, utrum concedendum sit, illum hominem descendisse de caelo, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, si congruenter dici possit etc.*

Prima pars, in qua inquirit, utrum Christus in triduo fuerit homo, dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima opponit. In secunda dissolvit, ibi: *Quibus respondemus, quia, licet homo mortuus fuerit etc.*

Secunda vero pars principalis, in qua inquirit, ubi fuerit homo[^p449-2], similiter habet duas. In quarum prima inquirit, ubi fuerit secundum humanitatem. In secunda vero inquirit, ubi fuerit secundum sui totalitatem, ibi: *Et ideo[^p449-3] totus eodem tempore erat etc.*

Similiter tertia pars, in qua inquirit, utrum filius hominis descenderit de caelo, habet duas partes. In quarum prima quaestionem praedictam determinat. In secunda vero praedeterminata in totali parte ista epilogat, ibi: *Haec quidem de corrigia calceamenti etc.* Quae quidem pars dividi potuit contra totam partem praecedentem, sed sub aliis partibus diffusioribus[^p449-4] comprehensa fuit ad vitandam divisionis confusionem.

<!-- page 450 -->

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidunt hic sex dubitabilia.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus in triduo fuerit homo.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundum quod homo, fuerit in loco determinato.

Tertio quaeritur de requietione corporis in sepulcro.

Quarto quaeritur de descensu animae ad inferos.

Quinto quaeritur de liberatione animarum de inferno.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur de traductione animarum ad caelos.

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XXII.
*On the things consequent upon the separation in the death of Christ.*

*Here it is asked whether in that three-day span, etc.*

### Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of the separation effected in the death of Christ. But in this part he treats of the things consequent upon the separation. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master inquires whether Christ was man during the three-day span. In the second, where he was[^p449-1] during that three-day span, there: *Here it is asked whether Christ in death was anywhere man.* In the third, for greater explanation, he inquires whether it is to be conceded that that man descended from heaven, there: *It is also wont to be asked whether it can fittingly be said, etc.*

The first part, in which he inquires whether Christ was man during the three-day span, is divided into two parts. In the first of these he raises the objection. In the second he resolves it, there: *To which we reply that, although the man died, etc.*

The second principal part, in which he inquires where the man was[^p449-2], likewise has two. In the first of these he inquires where he was according to his humanity. In the second he inquires where he was according to his totality, there: *And therefore[^p449-3] he was wholly at the same time, etc.*

Likewise the third part, in which he inquires whether the son of man descended from heaven, has two parts. In the first of these he determines the aforesaid question. In the second he gives an epilogue upon what was predetermined in this whole part, there: *These things indeed concerning the strap of the sandal, etc.* And this part could have been divided over against the whole preceding part, but it was comprehended under the other more diffuse[^p449-4] parts in order to avoid confusion of division.

### Treatment of the questions.

Now for the understanding of this part there here fall six points to be examined.

First it is asked whether Christ was man during the three-day span.

Second it is asked whether, according as he is man, he was in a determinate place.

Third it is asked concerning the repose of the body in the sepulcher.

Fourth it is asked concerning the descent of the soul to the dead.

Fifth it is asked concerning the liberation of the souls from hell.

Sixth and last it is asked concerning the leading-over of the souls to heaven.

la: Pro *fuerit homo* edd. 1, 2 *fuerit in illo triduo*, Vat. *fuerit illo triduo*. Deinde edd. 1, 2 cum bene multis codd. bis *fuit* pro *fuerit*.

en: For *fuerit homo* ("was man") editions 1 and 2 read *fuerit in illo triduo* ("was in that three-day span"), the Vatican edition *fuerit illo triduo*. Then editions 1 and 2, with very many codices, twice read *fuit* for *fuerit*. (Quaracchi's single textual-variant note n. 2 covers both occurrences of the *fuerit* locus in the *Divisio*.)

la: In textu Magistri *Et utique*, cod. 1 *Et utique ideo*; sed infra in dub. 2 omnes codd. et edd. pro *ideo* recte *utique*.

en: In the text of the Master, *Et utique* ("And indeed"); codex 1 reads *Et utique ideo*; but below in doubt 2 all the codices and editions rightly read *utique* for *ideo*.

la: In edd. desideratur *diffusioribus*, pro qua voce cod. M substituit *difficilioribus*.

en: In the editions *diffusioribus* ("more diffuse") is wanting, in place of which word codex M substitutes *difficilioribus* ("more difficult").

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.449 (PDF 471) and p.450 (PDF 472), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 31217–31267). Offset **pdf = printed + 22**. The chunk holds the COMMENTARIUS opener (*De consequentibus ad separationem in morte Christi* / *Hic quaeritur, utrum in illo triduo etc.*) + **DIVISIO TEXTUS** (p.449) + **TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM**, the listing of the six questions (p.450). It STOPS at **ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I** (*Utrum Christus in triduo fuerit homo*), which opens at raw line 31268 and is the next chunk (`d22-a1-q1`).

**Question count — confirmed.** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.450) lists exactly **six** *dubitabilia* (*Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidunt hic sex dubitabilia*): (1) whether Christ was man in the triduum; (2) whether, qua man, he was in a determinate place; (3) the repose of the body in the sepulcher; (4) the descent of the soul to the dead; (5) the liberation of the souls from hell; (6) the leading-over of the souls to heaven. They fall under a single **ARTICULUS UNICUS** (*De his quae mortem Christi consequuntur*). This matches the skeleton set a1-q1..q6 + dubia.

**Page-split map.** p.449: COMMENTARIUS opener + full DIVISIO TEXTUS + footers. p.450: TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (six-question listing). Page break placed at the `### Tractatio quaestionum.` boundary (raw line ~31255; printed p.449→450, *…ad vitandam divisionis confusionem.* | *Ad intelligentiam autem…*).

**Footers picked up.** The four *Notae ad Commentarium* of p.449's **right** apparatus column (textual-variants nn. 2–4 on the DIVISIO TEXTUS) are rendered as `[^p449-1..4]` and keyed to the DIVISIO body markers: ¹ and ² on the two *fuerit* loci, ³ on *Et ideo*, ⁴ on *diffusioribus*. Per the hand-off these are NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM and migrate IN to this divisio.

**Footers NOT carried (correction of hand-off).** The p.449 **left** apparatus column nn. 1–3 (*Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 7* / *Libr. II. contra Maximin. c. 20 n. 3, locus Script. est Ioan. 3,13; seq. I. de Trin. c. 13 n. 28, ubi respicitur I. Cor. 2,8* / *Respicitur Ioan. 1,27 et deinde Amos 2,1, de quibus cfr. Bonav. Comment. hic dub. 5*) are **patristic source-notes for the Master's text (the littera tail) printed at the TOP of p.449** — they gloss the Damascene (*De Fide orthodoxa*) and Augustine (*contra Maximinum*) quotations and the *corrigia calceamenti / Idumaea* allusion, all of which sit in the littera body, not in the DIVISIO TEXTUS. The hand-off forwarded these to the divisio, but they have **no body anchor here** (the DIVISIO TEXTUS has only the four textual-variant markers ¹–⁴, all matching the right-column variant notes). The littera (`d22-littera`) rendered those quotations as plain text without markers; the source-notes therefore have no live anchor in either chunk. Recorded here so the apparatus is not silently padded with unanchored entries.

**`[?]` flags.** `[?]` ¹/² overlap: Quaracchi prints a single right-column textual-variant note (n. 2) that discusses both *fuerit* occurrences in the DIVISIO TEXTUS ("*Pro fuerit homo …*" and the *bis fuit pro fuerit*). Both body markers ¹ and ² are therefore keyed to the same variant; `[^p449-1]` and `[^p449-2]` repeat that note (with a clarifying tail on the second) rather than inventing a distinct source. No glyph-level `[?]` flags — p.449/450 fully legible at 450 dpi.

**Scholion.** None — divisio chunks carry no scholion (`has_scholion: false`).