title: Dist. 20, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XX)

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

source_text:
<!-- page 432 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Iuste illo deserente, peccantem peccati auctor illico invasit.* Hoc enim videtur inconvenienter dictum. Sicut enim Adam peccavit in[^p432-3] consentiendo, ita diabolus peccavit seducendo: ergo sicut fuit iustum, hominem tradi in potestatem diaboli, ita iustum fuit, diabolum tradi in potestatem hominis. — Item, gravius peccavit peccati auctor quam consentiens in peccatum: ergo multo fortius debuit tradi diabolus in potestatem hominis, quam homo in potestatem diaboli.

Sed contra hoc est, quod[^p432-6b] est summe iustus et summe potens: ergo nihil potest facere nisi iuste et potenter. — Item, esto quod Deus fuisset usus potentia in liberatione hominis; cum diabolus nullum ius haberet in eo, nullam iniuriam fecisset diabolo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est ad hoc, quod tam diabolum quam Adam invasit sententia iudicis condemnantis; uterque enim punitus fuit, sicut scribitur tertio[^p432-4] Genesis; sed tamen magis decebat secundum ordinem divinae iustitiae, hominem subiugari, quam e converso, propter hoc quod homo sponte subiecit se illi consentiendo[^p432-5].

Dicendum, quod in auctoritate praemissa non separatur iustitia a potentia, ita quod una sit sine altera in operatione divina; sed in hoc[^p432-7] innuitur, quod aliquod est opus, in quo per excellentiam manifestatur iustitia; aliquod, in quo per excellentiam manifestatur potentia; et Deus illum modum elegit, in quo manifestatur iustitia, ut nobis daret imitandi formam. — Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum si liberasset per potentiam, fuisset ibi iustitia; dicendum, quod sic; sed tamen non fuisset ita manifesta[^p432-8].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Remissio peccatorum, per sanguinem Christi data, a diabolo eruit, ut sic iustitia vincatur diabolus, non potentia.* Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod Deus possit[^p433-1] facere per iustitiam aliquid et non per potentiam, et e converso.

<!-- page 433 -->

**Respondeo:** [Cf. supra Dub. I, ad fin.]

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Legitur, quod Christus traditus sit a Patre, et quod semetipsum tradidit.* Hoc enim videtur falsum. Si enim Deus tradidit eum in mortem, videtur, quod Iudaei eum occiderunt auctoritate Dei: ergo Deus particeps fuit in illo homicidio. Si tu dicas, quod tradidit eum, quia permisit, eum occidi; similiter posset dici de quolibet, qui occiditur, quia quemlibet, qui occiditur, permittit Deus occidi. — Item, qui potest alium liberare ab occisione, et non liberat, dicitur eum occidere interpretative: ergo cum Deus Pater potuerit liberare Filium, ut non occideretur; videtur, quod saltem interpretative debet dici eum occidisse.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mors est privatio vitae, et haec[^p433-1b] habet comparationem ad inferentem, et ad eum qui sustinet. Et secundum hoc aliquis potest dupliciter tradere alium in mortem: aut quia facit, ut alii inferant ei mortem, aut quia facit, ut ipse sustineat mortem. Quoniam ergo sustinentia mortis fuit a Deo Patre et fuit a Christo, quia Deus Pater voluit, quod ipse sustineret mortem, et ipse voluntarie sustinuit; hinc est, quod traditus dicitur a Patre, traditus etiam dicitur a se. Rursus, quia Iudas et Iudaei procuraverunt, ut alii inferrent ei mortem; hinc est, quod traditus dicitur a Iuda et a Iudaeis. Et quoniam sustinentia mortis fuit laudabilis, illatio autem fuit vituperabilis; hinc est, quod traditio Dei et Christi laudatur, traditio Iudae et Iudaeorum vituperatur. Et sic patet, quod mors a parte sustinentis fuit Deo placita et accepta, sed a parte infligentium fuit tantum permissa[^p433-2]. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum obiectum.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod permittens alium occidi, cum possit prohibere, est particeps homicidii; dicendum, quod illud fallit in Deo, qui potest peccata omnia prohibere, et non prohibet; hoc enim spectat ad regimen suae providentiae, sicut in primo et in secundo libro fuit ostensum[^p433-3].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Actus Iudae et Iudaeorum mali, quibus operati sunt passionem, quae est bonum.* Videtur enim implicare duo opposita. Si enim actus recipit denominationem a termino[^p433-4]; et passio Christi fuit bona: videtur ergo, quod actus eorum fuerunt boni. — Item, mors et vita opponuntur; sed Christi vita et generatio fuit bona: ergo mors et corruptio fuit mala. — Item, iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum simpliciter dicendum sit, quod passio Christi fuit bona, vel mala. Cum enim habeat auctorem bonum et malum, sicut supra[^p433-5] dictum est; non est maior ratio, quare magis debeat ab hoc quam ab illo denominari. — Quaeritur etiam, dato quod passio sit bona, utrum concedendum sit, quod Iudaei operati sint bonum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum quaerimus de bonitate passionis, non quaerimus de bonitate vel malitia in genere naturae, sed in genere moris[^p433-6]. De hac igitur bonitate absque dubio est concedendum, quod passio Christi fuit simpliciter bona. Si enim pretiosa est in conspectu Domini mors Sanctorum eius[^p433-7], multo magis mors Christi fuit pretiosissima. — Triplici autem ex causa debet dici mors Christi simpliciter bona: una est strenuitas virtutis ex parte sustinentis. Sustinebat enim illam passionem virtuosissime, quia patientissime et constantissime. — Secunda est utilitas redemptionis ex parte humani generis, quia per illam totum genus humanum est liberatum. — Tertia est honestas causae moriendi. Mortuus enim fuit pro veritate dicenda; unde Pilatus scripsit super eum causam: *Iesus Nazarenus, rex Iudaeorum*[^p433-8]. — Quamvis autem passio Christi sit bona simpliciter, tamen actio Iudaeorum fuit mala simpliciter, quia ex mala voluntate et radice processit; nec propter bonitatem passionis, quae exinde secuta est, bona dicenda est; hoc enim fuit praeter intentionem ipsorum per operationem divinam, per quam Deus de multis malis elicit multa bona[^p433-9].

Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Primum enim patet, quod non est ibi implicatio incompossibilium, sicut iam ostensum est. — Secundum etiam patet, quod mors et vita non opponuntur in genere moris, sed in genere naturae. — Tertium etiam patet, quare passio Christi dicitur simpliciter bona. Passio enim dicitur, ut est in patiente[^p433-10]; et ideo magis dicitur passio esse bona, ut est a bona voluntate patientis, quam mala, ut est a mala voluntate inferentis.

Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Iudaei operati sint bonum, dicendum, quod est opus operans et est opus operatum[^p433-11]. Cum ergo quaeritur, utrum Iudaei operati sint bonum; bonum potest dicere bonitatem circa opus operans, vel circa opus operatum. Si circa opus operans, simpliciter est negandum, quia tale opus in Iudaeis simpliciter fuit malum. — Si circa opus operatum, quod quidem fuit mors et passio Christi, hoc dupliciter potest intelligi: aut primo et per se; et sic falsum est[^p433-12], quod Iudaei operati sunt bo-

<!-- page 434 -->

num. Illud enim opus operatum bonitatem non habuit ex intentione Iudaeorum. Si autem intelligatur per accidens et ex consequenti, sic habet veritatem. Iudaei enim fuerunt operati passionem Christi, quae quidem fuit maximum bonum et saluberrimum toti mundo[^p434-1].

---

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

### Doubt I.

In this part are the doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning what he says: *Justly, when He abandoned [him], the author of sin straightway invaded the sinner.* For this seems unfittingly said. For just as Adam sinned in[^p432-3] consenting, so the devil sinned in seducing: therefore just as it was just that the man be handed over into the power of the devil, so it was just that the devil be handed over into the power of the man. — Likewise, the author of sin sinned more gravely than the one consenting to sin: therefore much more strongly ought the devil to have been handed over into the power of the man, than the man into the power of the devil.

But against this is, that He[^p432-6b] is supremely just and supremely powerful: therefore He can do nothing except justly and powerfully. — Likewise, suppose that God had used power in the liberation of man; since the devil had no right in him, He would have done no injury to the devil.

**I respond:** It must be said to this, that the sentence of the condemning judge invaded both the devil and Adam; for each was punished, as is written in the third [chapter] of[^p432-4] Genesis; but nevertheless it more befitted, according to the order of divine justice, that the man be subjugated, rather than the converse, on account of the fact that the man of his own accord subjected himself to him by consenting[^p432-5].

It must be said that in the aforesaid authority justice is not separated from power, such that the one would be without the other in the divine operation; but in this[^p432-7] it is implied, that there is some work, in which justice is manifested by excellence; some, in which power is manifested by excellence; and God chose that mode, in which justice is manifested, so that He might give us a form to imitate. — To that which is asked, whether, if He had liberated by power, justice would have been there; it must be said that yes; but nevertheless it would not have been so manifest[^p432-8].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *The remission of sins, given through the blood of Christ, snatched [man] from the devil, so that thus the devil is conquered by justice, not by power.* For according to this it seems, that God could[^p433-1] do something by justice and not by power, and conversely.

<!-- page 433 -->

**I respond:** [Cf. above, Doubt I, at the end.]

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *It is read, that Christ was handed over by the Father, and that He handed Himself over.* For this seems false. For if God handed Him over to death, it seems, that the Jews killed Him by the authority of God: therefore God was a participant in that homicide. If you say, that He handed Him over, because He permitted Him to be killed; likewise it could be said of anyone, who is killed, since God permits anyone, who is killed, to be killed. — Likewise, he who can liberate another from being killed, and does not liberate, is said to kill him interpretatively: therefore since God the Father could have liberated the Son, that He not be killed; it seems, that at least interpretatively He must be said to have killed Him.

**I respond:** It must be said, that death is the privation of life, and this[^p433-1b] has a relation to the one inflicting [it], and to him who undergoes [it]. And according to this someone can hand another over to death in two ways: either because he brings it about, that others inflict death on him, or because he brings it about, that he himself undergoes death. Since therefore the undergoing of death was from God the Father and was from Christ, because God the Father willed, that He undergo death, and He of His own will underwent [it]; hence it is, that He is said to be handed over by the Father, He is also said to be handed over by Himself. Again, because Judas and the Jews procured, that others inflict death on Him; hence it is, that He is said to be handed over by Judas and by the Jews. And since the undergoing of death was praiseworthy, but the infliction was blameworthy; hence it is, that the handing over of God and of Christ is praised, [but] the handing over of Judas and of the Jews is blamed. And thus it is clear, that death on the part of the one undergoing it was pleasing and acceptable to God, but on the part of those inflicting it was only permitted[^p433-2]. — And by this the response to the first objection is clear.

But to that which is objected, that one who permits another to be killed, when he could prohibit [it], is a participant in homicide; it must be said, that this fails in [the case of] God, who can prohibit all sins, and does not prohibit [them]; for this pertains to the governance of His providence, as was shown in the first and in the second book[^p433-3].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *The acts of Judas and of the Jews [were] evil, by which they wrought the passion, which is a good.* For this seems to imply two opposites. For if an act receives its denomination from its terminus[^p433-4]; and the passion of Christ was good: it seems therefore, that their acts were good. — Likewise, death and life are opposed; but the life and generation of Christ was good: therefore death and corruption was evil. — Likewise, along with this it is asked, whether it must be said without qualification, that the passion of Christ was good, or evil. For since it has an author good and evil, as was said above[^p433-5]; there is no greater reason, why it should be denominated more from the one than from the other. — It is also asked, granted that the passion is good, whether it must be conceded, that the Jews wrought a good.

**I respond:** It must be said, that when we ask concerning the goodness of the passion, we are not asking concerning goodness or malice in the genus of nature, but in the genus of morals[^p433-6]. Concerning this goodness, therefore, it is without doubt to be conceded, that the passion of Christ was without qualification good. For if precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His Saints[^p433-7], much more was the death of Christ most precious. — Now from a threefold cause the death of Christ must be called without qualification good: one is the strenuousness of virtue on the part of the one undergoing it. For He underwent that passion most virtuously, because most patiently and most constantly. — The second is the usefulness of the redemption on the part of the human race, because through it the whole human race was liberated. — The third is the honorableness of the cause of dying. For He died for the truth to be spoken; whence Pilate wrote over Him the cause: *Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews*[^p433-8]. — But although the passion of Christ is good without qualification, nevertheless the action of the Jews was evil without qualification, because it proceeded from an evil will and root; nor on account of the goodness of the passion, which followed from it, is it to be called good; for this was beyond their intention, through the divine operation, by which God draws many goods out of many evils[^p433-9].

And by this the response to the objections is clear. For the first is clear, that there is no implication of incompossibles there, as has already been shown. — The second also is clear, that death and life are not opposed in the genus of morals, but in the genus of nature. — The third also is clear, why the passion of Christ is called good without qualification. For it is called a passion, as it is in the one suffering[^p433-10]; and therefore the passion is rather called to be good, as it is from the good will of the one suffering, than evil, as it is from the evil will of the one inflicting.

To that which is asked last, whether it must be conceded, that the Jews wrought a good, it must be said, that there is the work as operating and there is the work as operated[^p433-11]. When therefore it is asked, whether the Jews wrought a good; "good" can signify goodness with respect to the work as operating, or with respect to the work as operated. If with respect to the work as operating, it must be denied without qualification, because such a work in the Jews was without qualification evil. — If with respect to the work as operated, which indeed was the death and passion of Christ, this can be understood in two ways: either firstly and per se; and thus it is false[^p433-12], that the Jews wrought a good.

<!-- page 434 -->

For that work as operated did not have goodness from the intention of the Jews. But if it is understood per accidens and consequently, thus it has truth. For the Jews wrought the passion of Christ, which indeed was the greatest good and most healthful to the whole world[^p434-1].

---

la: Codd. AK omittunt *in*, quam praepositionem edd. subinde praefigunt verbo *seducendo*.

en: Codices AK omit *in*, which preposition the editions thereafter prefix to the word *seducendo* ("seducing").

la: Vers. 14. seqq. — Mox codd. C D L N X aa verbo *subiugari* praemittunt *diabolo*.

en: Verse 14 ff. — Presently codices C D L N X aa prefix *diabolo* ("to the devil") to the word *subiugari* ("to be subjugated").

la: Cfr. supra d. 19. dub. 3. — De hoc dubio cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, d. 19, dub. 3. — Concerning this doubt cf. B. Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Supple cum cod. V *Deus*. — De obiect. seq. cfr. supra d. 19. dub. 3.

en: Supply with codex V *Deus* ("God"). — Concerning the following objection cf. above, d. 19, dub. 3.

la: Edd. *sed hic*, cod. W *sed ex hoc*, alii codd. *sed hoc*. Nostra lectio sumta est ex codd. AK. — Paulo inferius pro *in quo manifestatur* [cod. V *manifestaretur*] *iustitia* cod. K *in quo manifestaret iustitiam*. Subinde pro *imitandi* cod. M *vivendi*, cod. O *vincendi*.

en: The editions [read] *sed hic*, codex W *sed ex hoc*, the other codices *sed hoc*. Our reading is taken from codices AK. — A little below, for *in quo manifestatur* [codex V *manifestaretur*] *iustitia* codex K [reads] *in quo manifestaret iustitiam*. Thereafter for *imitandi* ("to imitate") codex M [reads] *vivendi* ("of living"), codex O *vincendi* ("of conquering").

la: Edd. *manifestata*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra q. 6; B. Albert., hic a. 9; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: The editions [read] *manifestata*. — Concerning this doubt cf. above, q. 6; B. Albert, here a. 9; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Codd. A H L aa bb *possimus*. Paulo superius pro *potuit liberare* edd. *potuit liberari*.

en: Codices A H L aa bb [read] *possimus* ("we could"). A little above, for *potuit liberare* ("could liberate") the editions [read] *potuit liberari* ("could be liberated").

la: Cod. K *et in hoc*, alii codd. *et hoc*.

en: Codex K [reads] *et in hoc*, the other codices *et hoc*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. seq.

la: Libr. I. d. 47. q. 3. Cfr. ibid. d. 46. q. 2. seqq., et II. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 7; B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 8; Richard. a Med., hic q. 6.

en: Book I, d. 47, q. 3. Cf. ibid. d. 46, q. 2 ff., and II Sent. d. 23, a. 1, q. 1. — Concerning this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 18, m. 7; B. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 8; Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 6.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 174, nota 5. et pag. 192, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, p. 174, note 5, and p. 192, note 2.

la: Dub. praeced. — Paulo superius pro *fuit bona* non pauci codd. *fuerit bona*. Paulo inferius post *dato quod passio* codd. L aa supplent *Christi*.

en: The preceding Doubt. — A little above, for *fuit bona* ("was good") not a few codices [read] *fuerit bona* ("may have been good"). A little below, after *dato quod passio* ("granted that the passion") codices L aa supply *Christi* ("of Christ").

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 5.

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 36, dub. 5.

en: Matthew 27:37, and John 19:19.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. seq. — Mox pro *ibi implicatio* edd. *multiplicatio*. Subinde pro *quod mors* edd. cum pluribus codd. *quia mors*. Demum pro *Tertium etiam* cod. P *Tertium autem*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5 f. — Presently for *ibi implicatio* ("there an implication") the editions [read] *multiplicatio* ("a multiplication"). Thereafter for *quod mors* ("that death") the editions with several codices [read] *quia mors* ("because death"). Lastly for *Tertium etiam* ("Thirdly also") codex P [reads] *Tertium autem* ("but thirdly").

la: Ut insinuat Aristot., III. Phys. text. 19. (c. 3.), nec non Gilbertus Porret., de Sex Princip. c. de Passione.

en: As Aristotle intimates, Physics III, text 19 (c. 3), and also Gilbert of Poitiers, On the Six Principles, the chapter On Passion.

la: Vel aliis verbis: ipsa agentis operatio et effectus actionis. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 43. q. 3. ad 1. et II. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.

en: Or in other words: the operation itself of the agent and the effect of the action. Cf. I Sent. d. 43, q. 3, ad 1, and II Sent. d. 37, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2.

la: Codd. A K P Q V bb addunt *adhuc*.

en: Codices A K P Q V bb add *adhuc* ("still").

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 12. seq.; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard., hic circa lit.

en: Concerning this doubt cf. B. Albert, here a. 12 f.; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard [of Mediavilla], here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p43{2,3,4}-{L,R}-*`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 30057–30176). Fresh literal English. Apparatus rendered per-page from the printed footers.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.432** (PDF 454): `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header (raw 30057). **Dub. I** runs L column → R column (objections + *Sed contra* + *Respondeo*; the R-column continuation `set facere per iustitiam…` to `ita manifesta` is the tail of Dub. I's response). **Dub. II** opens at the bottom of L column. **Dub. III** opens at the bottom of R column. Footers: L column nn.1–5, R column nn.6–8. **Notes 1–2 were captured by q6** (the q6 hand-off); this chunk picks up **nn.3–8** (n.3 *seducendo*; n.4 *subiugari/diabolo*; n.5 `Cfr. supra d.19 dub.3`; n.6 *Deus*; n.7 *sed hic/manifestatur*; n.8 *manifestata*). Footers carried as `[^p432-3..8]` (n.6 → `[^p432-6b]` to avoid collision with q6's `[^p432-6]` had one existed; per-page restart preserved).
- **p.433** (PDF 455, running head `DIST. XX. DUBIA. 433` at raw 30101): Dub. II's wrap, **Dub. III** body + *Respondeo*, **Dub. IV** body + *Respondeo* (most of the question). Footers: L column nn.1–6, R column nn.7–12 → `[^p433-1..12]` (Dub. III's `haec` note carried as `[^p433-1b]`).
- **p.434** (PDF 456, head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): three lines closing Dub. IV (`num. Illud enim opus operatum…`) + R-column wrap `Iudaei enim fuerunt operati… mundo`. Single footer note n.1 → `[^p434-1]`. `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` immediately below the dubia footer belongs to **DISTINCTIO XXI**, not here.

**DUB count.** Four dubia: **DUB. I–IV** (no DUB. V; the next header is `DISTINCTIO XXI`).

**Hand-offs picked up.** p.432 footer **nn.3–5** (and the remaining p.432 R-column nn.6–8), per the q6 hand-off which held p.432 nn.1–2. No body migrated in (q6's scholion §I–II ended above the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header on p.432 L/R).

**Hand-offs forwarded.** **None — DIST. XX is COMPLETE on this promotion.** DISTINCTIO XXI begins at **raw line 30177** (`DISTINCTIO XXI.`), printed p.434 → its `Cap. I.` opener *Si in Christi morte separata fuit anima, vel caro a Verbo.* The seam is clean: the dubia close grammatically at `…saluberrimum toti mundo` (Dub. IV's last sentence, complete), and DISTINCTIO XXI opens a fresh `Cap. I.` with its own `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` apparatus header — no body or footnote straddles the boundary.

**Editorial note.** Dub. II's printed *Respondeo* is not given separately in the source: the Master's text underlying Dub. II (whether God acts by justice and not by power, and conversely) is answered jointly with Dub. I, as the apparatus and the shared `Sed contra…Respondeo` block on p.432 make plain. The chunk preserves Dub. II's objection verbatim and points to Dub. I's response (`[Cf. supra Dub. I, ad fin.]` / `[Cf. above, Doubt I, at the end.]`) rather than inventing a separate solution.

**[?] flags.** None — the 450 dpi bands were fully legible across all three pages.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 21

title_alt: DISTINCTIO XXI — textus Magistri (littera, Cap. I–II)

title_alt: Distinction XXI — the Master's text (Cap. I–II)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 434 -->

# DISTINCTIO XXI.

### Cap. I.

*Si in Christi morte separata fuit anima, vel caro a Verbo.*

Post praedicta considerandum est, utrum in morte[^p434-1] a Verbo sit separata anima, vel caro. — Quidam putaverunt, carnem, sicut ab anima, ita a Divinitate in morte fuisse divisam. Si enim, inquiunt, anima media Divinitas carnem sibi univit, sicut superius[^p434-2] praetaxatum est: ergo quando divisa est caro ab anima, divisa est etiam a Divinitate, quia non potuit ab anima seiungi, per quam Verbo erat unita, quin a Verbo divideretur. Fuit autem divisa ab anima in morte, alioquin vera mors ibi non fuisset, quia, ut ait Augustinus[^p434-3], «mors, quam timent homines, separatio est animae a carne; mors autem, quam non timent, separatio est animae a Deo. Utraque vero diaboli suasu homini propinata est». Si ergo in Christo homine vera mors fuit, divisa est ibi anima ac per hoc Divinitas a carne. Huic suae probabilitati addunt auctoritatis testimonium. Ambrosius[^p434-4] enim, tractans de Christi derelictione, qui in cruce, voce magna clamans, dixit: *Deus, Deus meus! ut quid me dereliquisti?* ait: «Clamat homo separatione Divinitatis moriturus. Nam cum Divinitas mortis libera sit, utique mors ibi esse non poterat, nisi vita discederet, quia Divinitas est». — Hic videtur tradi, quod Divinitas separata sit in morte ab homine, quae nisi discessisset, homo ille mori non posset. Quod illi ad *carnem* referunt, quam dicunt a Deo separatam. — Quibus respondemus, illam *separationem* sic esse accipiendam, sicut intelligitur *derelictio*, quae illis verbis significatur: *Ut quid me dereliquisti?* Quomodo igitur Christus *derelictus* erat a Patre, cum in cruce se derelictum clamabat? Non recesserat Deus ab homine, ita quod esset soluta unio Dei et hominis. Alioquin fuit quoddam tempus, quando Christus, adhuc vivus, *homo* erat et non *Deus*; quia, adhuc vivus, se *derelictum* clamabat, non *derelinquendum*. Si ergo illa derelictio unionis intelligatur *solutio*, ante facta fuit solutio Dei et hominis, quam Christus mortuus esset; sed quis hoc dicat? Fateamur igitur, Deum quodam modo illum hominem in morte deseruisse, quia potestati persequentium eum exposuit ad tempus, non suam potentiam exercendo illum defendit, ut non moreretur. Separavit se Divinitas, quia subtraxit protectionem, sed non solvit unionem; separavit se foris, ut non adesset ad defensionem, sed non intus defuit ad unionem. Si non ibi cohibuisset potentiam, sed exercuisset; non moreretur Christus. Mortuus est Christus, Divinitate recedente, id est effectum potentiae in defendendo non exhibente. Hic est hircus apopompaeus, qui, altero hirco immolato, in solitudinem mittebatur, ut legitur in Levitico[^p434-5]. «Duo enim hirci humanitas et Divinitas Christi intelliguntur. Humanitate igitur immolata, Divinitas in solitudinem abiit, id est in caelum. Unde Hesychius super Leviticum: In solitudinem, id est in caelum, tempore passionis Divinitas abiisse dicitur, non locum mutans, sed quodam modo virtutem cohibens, ut possent impii consummare passionem. Abiit ergo, id est, virtutem cohibuit, et portavit iniquitates nostras, non ut haberet, sed ut consumeret. Deus enim ignis consumens est». — Ex his satis ostenditur, praemissa verba Ambrosii sic esse accipienda, ut praediximus.

Alii quoque auctoritati innituntur, qui asserunt, Divinitatem in morte recessisse ab homine secundum carnem. Ait enim Athanasius[^p434-6]: «Maledictus, qui totum hominem, quem assumsit Dei Filius, denuo assumtum vel liberatum, tertia die a mortuis resurrexisse non confitetur. Fiat, fiat». Si, inquiunt, denuo assumtus est homo in resurrectione, quem assumserat in incarnatione; deposuit ergo eum in morte: separata ergo fuit Divinitas in morte ab humanitate. — Quibus respondemus, quod si his verbis assumtio talis intelligatur, quae sit[^p434-7] secundum *unionem*; non carnem tantum, sed totum hominem, id est animam et carnem, denuo sibi univit in resurrectione, quia non simpliciter *hominem*, sed *totum hominem assumtum* dicit. Totum igitur hominem in morte deposuit, id est animam et carnem. Sed quod, nisi hostis veritatis, dicat *animam* a Verbo *depositam*? Et tamen, nisi hoc fateantur, quod *totus* homo sit assumtus, non pro eis facit illa auctoritas, quae *totum* dicit assumtum. Sciendum est igitur, Athanasium id dixisse contra illorum perfidiam, qui resurrectionem Christi negabant putantes, morte detineri qui solus *inter mortuos liber*[^p434-8] est. Ideo illum maledicit, qui non confitetur, *totum* hominem, denuo assumtum, resurrexisse, id est, Christum animam denuo corpori coniunxisse et in illis duobus, denuo coniunctis in resurrectione, vere secundum ho-

<!-- page 435 -->

-minem vixisse, sicut ante mortem. Nam in morte separata est anima a carne — unde vere dicitur Christus mortuus — sed neutrum separatum est a *Verbo Dei*; sicut Augustinus super Ioannem[^p435-1] docet, tractans illud Domini verbum: *Ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam. Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a me ipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam et iterum sumendi eam.* Hic animam dicit *emissam*. A quo emissa est? A *se ipsa* non est emissa, quia se ipsam non posuit; nec *Verbum* animam posuit, vel carnem. *Caro* ergo animam posuit, sed potestate in se manentis Deitatis. Potentia ergo Deitatis anima divisa est a carne, sed neutrum a Verbo Dei. Unde Augustinus[^p435-2]: «Verbum, ex quo suscepit hominem, id est carnem et animam, nunquam deposuit animam, ut esset anima a Verbo separata, sed caro posuit animam, quando exspiravit, qua redeunte surrexit. Mors ergo ad tempus carnem et animam separavit, sed neutrum a Verbo Dei. *Caro* igitur ponit et sumit animam, non potestate sua, sed potestate inhabitantis carnem Deitatis». — Hic evidenter traditur, nec animam nec carnem a Verbo Dei in morte esse divisam, ut aliquo modo soluta fuerit unio. Unde Augustinus contra Felicianum[^p435-3]: «Absit, ut Christus sic senserit mortem, ut, quantum in se est, vita vitam perdiderit. Si enim hoc ita esset, vitae fons aruisset. Sensit igitur mortem participatione humani affectus, quem sponte susceperat; non naturae suae perdidit potentiam, per quam cuncta vivificat. Sic in sepulcro carnem suam commoriendo non deseruit, sicut in utero Virginis connascendo formavit. Mortuus est ergo, non discedente vita; sicut passus est, non pereunte potentia. Nemo tollit animam eius ab eo, quia potestatem habet ponendi et sumendi». — Ecce et hic habes, Christum non deseruisse carnem in morte, et vitam non discessisse a mortuo, et quod sponte tradidit spiritum, non alius extorsit. Unde Ambrosius[^p435-4]: «Emisit Christus spiritum, et tamen quasi arbiter exuendi suscipiendique corporis emisit spiritum, non amisit; pendebat in cruce et omnia commovebat». «Sed unde emisit? Ex carne. Quo emisit? Ad Patrem».

### Cap. II.

*Qua ratione dicitur Christus mortuus vel passus.*

«Recedente vero anima, mortua est caro Christi; et quia caro mortua est, mortuus est Christus. Sicut enim mortuus dicitur Deus, quando mortuus est homo; ita mortuus dicitur homo, quando mortua est caro. Separatio animae mors carnis fuit». — Propter carnem ergo unitam Verbo, quae mortua est, dicitur Deus mortuus, et propter carnem et animam, quae utraque dolorem sensit, dicitur Deus *passus*, cum Divinitas omnis doloris exors existeret. Unde Augustinus[^p435-5]: «Verbum caro factum est, ut per carnem panis caelestis ad infantes transiret; et secundum hoc ipsum Verbum crucifixum est, sed non est mutatum in hominem; homo in illo mutatus est, ut melior fieret, quam erat. Per id ergo quod *homo* erat, mortuus est Deus, et per id quod Deus erat, homo excitatus est et resurrexit. Quidquid passus est homo, non potest dici non passus Deus, quia *Deus* erat homo. Quomodo potes dicere, te non esse passum iniuriam, si vestis tua conscindatur, quamvis vestis tua non sis tu? Multo magis ergo, quidquid patitur caro unita Verbo, debet dici pati Deus, licet Verbum nec mori nec corrumpi nec mutari potuerit. Sed quidquid horum passus est, in carne passus est». De hoc etiam Ambrosius in libro tertio de Spiritu sancto[^p435-6] ait: «Quod Verbi caro patiebatur, manens in carne Verbum in se, pro corporis assumptione referebat, ut pati diceretur, quia caro patiebatur, sicut scriptum est: *Christo in carne passo*». — Hic docetur, qua ratione Deus vel Dei Filius *passus* vel *mortuus* dicitur, non quia mortem senserit, in quantum Deus est, sed quia caro ei unita mortua est. Secundum quam rationem dicit Augustinus[^p435-7]: «Si quis dixerit atque crediderit, Filium Dei Deum passum, anathema sit». Cuius dicti causam, ex qua intelligentia sumenda sit, aperiens in eodem subdit: «Si quis dixerit, quod in passione dolorem sentiebat Filius Dei Deus, et non caro tantum cum anima, quam sibi acceperat, anathema sit». — Sane igitur dici potest, quod mortuus est Deus et non mortuus, passus est Dei Filius et non passus, passa est tertia[^p435-8] persona et non passa, crucifixum est Verbum et non crucifixum: secundum alteram naturam passus est, secundum alteram impassibilis. Unde Ambrosius[^p435-9]: «Generalis ista est fides, quia Christus est Dei Filius et natus ex Virgine, quem quasi gigantem Propheta describit, eo quod biformis geminaeque naturae unus sit, consors Divinitatis et corporis». «Idem ergo patiebatur et non patiebatur, moriebatur et non moriebatur, sepeliebatur et non sepeliebatur, resurgebat et non resurgebat; resurgebat secundum carnem, quae mortua fuerat, non secundum Verbum, quod apud Deum semper manebat».

---

english:
<!-- page 434 -->

# DISTINCTION XXI.

### Chapter I.

*Whether in Christ's death the soul, or the flesh, was separated from the Word.*

After the foregoing, it must be considered whether in death[^p434-1] the soul, or the flesh, was separated from the Word. — Some have supposed that the flesh was divided in death from the Divinity just as it was from the soul. For if, they say, the Divinity united the flesh to itself with the soul as intermediary, as was set forth above[^p434-2]: then when the flesh was divided from the soul, it was also divided from the Divinity, since it could not be sundered from the soul — through which it was united to the Word — without being divided from the Word. But it was divided from the soul in death, otherwise there would not have been a true death there, because, as Augustine says[^p434-3], «the death which men fear is the separation of the soul from the flesh; but the death which they do not fear is the separation of the soul from God. And both were brought near to man by the devil's persuasion». If, then, there was a true death in Christ the man, the soul, and through this the Divinity, was there divided from the flesh. To this their plausible view they add the testimony of an authority. For Ambrose[^p434-4], treating of Christ's forsakenness — he who on the cross, crying out with a loud voice, said: *My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?* — declares: «The man cries out as about to die by the separation of the Divinity. For since the Divinity is free of death, assuredly death could not be there unless life withdrew, because the Divinity is life». — Here it seems to be handed down that the Divinity was separated in death from the man, and that unless it had departed, that man could not die. This they refer to the *flesh*, which they say was separated from God. — To them we reply that that *separation* must be understood just as the *forsaking* is understood, which is signified by those words: *Why hast thou forsaken me?* In what way, then, was Christ *forsaken* by the Father, when on the cross he cried out that he was forsaken? God had not withdrawn from the man in such a way that the union of God and man was dissolved. Otherwise there would have been some time when Christ, while still alive, was *man* and not *God*; because, while still alive, he cried out that he was *forsaken*, not *to be forsaken*. If, then, that forsaking is understood as a *dissolution* of the union, the dissolution of God and man would have taken place before Christ had died; but who would say this? Let us therefore confess that God in a certain manner abandoned that man in death, because he exposed him for a time to the power of his persecutors, not exercising his own power to defend him so that he might not die. The Divinity separated itself, because it withdrew protection, but it did not dissolve the union; it separated itself outwardly, so as not to be present for defense, but it was not inwardly absent from the union. If it had not there restrained its power, but had exercised it, Christ would not have died. Christ died with the Divinity withdrawing, that is, not exhibiting the effect of its power in defending. This is the scapegoat (hircus apopompaeus), which, when the other goat had been immolated, was sent into the wilderness, as we read in Leviticus[^p434-5]. «For by the two goats the humanity and the Divinity of Christ are understood. When therefore the humanity had been immolated, the Divinity went off into the wilderness, that is, into heaven. Whence Hesychius on Leviticus: Into the wilderness, that is into heaven, the Divinity is said to have gone off at the time of the passion, not changing place, but in a certain manner restraining its power, that the wicked might be able to consummate the passion. It went off, then, that is, it restrained its power, and *bore our iniquities*, not that it might have them, but that it might consume them. For our God is a consuming fire». — From these things it is sufficiently shown that the aforesaid words of Ambrose are to be understood as we have said.

Others too rely on an authority, who assert that the Divinity withdrew in death from the man according to the flesh. For Athanasius says[^p434-6]: «Cursed be he who does not confess that the whole man, whom the Son of God assumed, was assumed anew, or set free, and rose again from the dead on the third day. Be it, be it». If, they say, the man was assumed anew in the resurrection whom he had assumed in the incarnation, then he laid him down in death: therefore the Divinity was separated in death from the humanity. — To them we reply that, if by these words an assumption be understood which is[^p434-7] according to *union*; he united to himself anew in the resurrection not the flesh only, but the whole man, that is, the soul and the flesh, since he says not simply *the man*, but *the whole man assumed*. He laid down, therefore, the whole man in death, that is, the soul and the flesh. But who, save an enemy of the truth, would say that the *soul* was *laid down* by the Word? And yet, unless they confess that the *whole* man was assumed, that authority does not serve them which says that the *whole* was assumed. It must therefore be known that Athanasius said this against the perfidy of those who denied the resurrection of Christ, supposing that he was held by death who alone is *free among the dead*[^p434-8]. Therefore he curses him who does not confess that the *whole* man, assumed anew, rose again — that is, that Christ rejoined the soul to the body anew, and in those two, joined anew in the resurrection, truly lived as a man, as before death.

<!-- page 435 -->

For in death the soul was separated from the flesh — whence Christ is truly said to have died — but neither was separated from the *Word of God*; as Augustine teaches on John[^p435-1], treating that word of the Lord: *I lay down my soul, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own self, and I have power to lay it down and to take it up again.* Here he calls the soul *sent forth*. By whom was it sent forth? It was not sent forth *by itself*, because it did not lay down itself; nor did the *Word* lay down the soul, or the flesh. The *flesh*, therefore, laid down the soul, but by the power of the Deity remaining in it. By the power of the Deity, therefore, the soul was divided from the flesh, but neither from the Word of God. Whence Augustine[^p435-2]: «The Word, from when it took up the man — that is, flesh and soul — never laid down the soul, so that the soul should be separated from the Word, but the flesh laid down the soul when it expired, and on its return rose again. Death, then, separated flesh and soul for a time, but neither from the Word of God. The *flesh*, therefore, lays down and takes up the soul, not by its own power, but by the power of the Deity dwelling in the flesh». — Here it is plainly handed down that neither the soul nor the flesh was divided from the Word of God in death, so that the union was in any way dissolved. Whence Augustine against Felician[^p435-3]: «Far be it that Christ should so have undergone death that, so far as in him lay, life should have lost life. For if it were so, the fount of life would have dried up. He felt death, therefore, by the participation of human affection, which he had taken on willingly; he did not lose the power of his own nature, by which he gives life to all things. Thus in the sepulchre, by dying together with it, he did not desert his own flesh, just as in the Virgin's womb, by being born together with it, he formed it. He died, therefore, with life not departing; just as he suffered, with power not perishing. No one takes his soul from him, because he has power to lay it down and to take it up». — Behold, here too you have it that Christ did not desert the flesh in death, and that life did not depart from the dead one, and that he willingly handed over the spirit, and no other forced it from him. Whence Ambrose[^p435-4]: «Christ sent forth the spirit, and yet, as one who is master of putting off and taking up the body, he sent forth the spirit, he did not lose it; he hung upon the cross and moved all things». «But whence did he send it forth? From the flesh. Whither did he send it? To the Father».

### Chapter II.

*By what account Christ is said to have died or suffered.*

«But when the soul withdrew, the flesh of Christ died; and because the flesh died, Christ died. For just as God is said to have died, when the man died; so the man is said to have died, when the flesh died. The separation of the soul was the death of the flesh». — On account, then, of the flesh united to the Word, which died, God is said to have died; and on account of the flesh and the soul, which both felt pain, God is said to have *suffered*, although the Divinity was free of all pain. Whence Augustine[^p435-5]: «The Word was made flesh, that through the flesh the bread of heaven might pass to little ones; and according to this very thing the Word was crucified, but it was not changed into the man; the man was changed in him, that he might become better than he was. By that, then, which was *man*, God died, and by that which was God, the man was raised up and rose again. Whatever the man suffered cannot be said not to be suffered by God, because *God* was man. How can you say that you have not suffered an injury, if your garment is torn, although your garment is not you? Much more, then, whatever the flesh united to the Word suffers, God must be said to suffer, although the Word could neither die nor be corrupted nor be changed. But whatever of these he suffered, he suffered in the flesh». Of this also Ambrose in the third book *On the Holy Spirit*[^p435-6] says: «What the flesh of the Word suffered, the Word, remaining in the flesh, referred to itself, on account of the assumption of the body, so that it was said to suffer, because the flesh was suffering, as it is written: *Christ having suffered in the flesh*». — Here it is taught by what account God, or the Son of God, is said to have *suffered* or *died*: not because he felt death insofar as he is God, but because the flesh united to him died. According to which account Augustine says[^p435-7]: «If anyone shall say and believe that the Son of God, God, suffered, let him be anathema». And, opening up the reason of this saying, from what understanding it is to be taken, he adds in the same place: «If anyone shall say that in the passion the Son of God, God, felt pain, and not the flesh only with the soul which he had taken to himself, let him be anathema». — Rightly, therefore, it can be said that God both died and did not die, that the Son of God both suffered and did not suffer, that the third[^p435-8] Person both suffered and did not suffer, that the Word was both crucified and not crucified: according to the one nature he suffered, according to the other he is impassible. Whence Ambrose[^p435-9]: «This is the general faith, that Christ is the Son of God and born of the Virgin, whom the Prophet describes as it were a giant, in that he is one of twofold and twin nature, a partaker of Divinity and of body». «The same, therefore, both suffered and did not suffer, both died and did not die, was both buried and not buried, both rose again and did not rise again; he rose again according to the flesh, which had died, not according to the Word, which abode ever with God».

---

la: Vat. cum aliquibus edd. hic addit *Christi*, et infra post *putaverunt* adiicit *tunc*. — Cfr. de hac dist. Hugo de S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. I. c. 19.

en: The Vatican edition, with some editions, here adds *of Christ*, and further on, after *putaverunt* (have supposed), adds *tunc* (then). — Cf. on this distinction Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. I, c. 19.

la: Dist. II. c. 2. — Pro *praetaxatum* edd. 1, 8 *praetactum*.

en: Dist. II, c. 2. — For *praetaxatum* (set forth) editions 1, 8 read *praetactum* (touched on before).

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 48. serm. 2. n. 2. — In quo textu edd. 1, 8 pro *suasu* habent *suasionibus*, originale vero *persuasione*. — Infra post *ibi anima* Vat. et edd. 2, 6, 7 addunt *a carne*.

en: *Enarration on Psalm 48*, sermon 2, n. 2. — In which text editions 1, 8 for *suasu* (persuasion) have *suasionibus*, but the original *persuasione*. — Below, after *ibi anima* (the soul there), the Vatican edition and editions 2, 6, 7 add *a carne* (from the flesh).

la: In Evang. Lucae X. n. 127, ubi respicitur Matth. 27, 46.

en: *On the Gospel of Luke* X, n. 127, where Matt. 27:46 is referred to.

la: Cap. 16, 6-10. Apopompaeus (ἀποπομπαῖος) est *emissarius*. Quae sequuntur sunt in Glossa ad praetactum locum apud Lyranum et apud Hesychium ad eundem locum, sed mutato propositionum ordine. Ibi respicitur Isai. 53, 11; Deuter. 4, 24.

en: [Leviticus] c. 16:6-10. *Apopompaeus* (ἀποπομπαῖος, Greek) means *emissary* [the goat sent away]. What follows is found in the Gloss on the aforesaid passage in Lyra and in Hesychius on the same passage, but with the order of the clauses altered. There Isa. 53:11 and Deut. 4:24 are referred to.

la: Apud Vigilium Taps. VI. de Trin., cuius VI. libri titulus est *de Beatitudine fidei et de proscriptione sectae pessimae*. Exhibetur ibi haeretico respondens Athanasius, in cuius tamen operibus excusis haec verba non inveniuntur. Magister ista transcripsit ex Hugone loc. cit., qui tamen cum Alexandro Hal. falso nominat *Anastasium* pro *Athanasio*.

en: In Vigilius of Thapsus, *On the Trinity* VI, whose sixth book has the title *On the Blessedness of Faith and on the Proscription of a Most Wicked Sect*. There Athanasius is presented answering a heretic, though in his printed works these words are not found. The Master transcribed these things from Hugh, at the place cited, who however, together with Alexander of Hales, wrongly names *Anastasius* in place of *Athanasius*.

la: Vat. et edd., exceptis 4, 8, cum cod. E *fit*.

en: The Vatican edition and the editions, except 4, 8, with codex E read *fit* [for *sit*].

la: Tract. 47. n. 11, sententialiter, sed magis ad verbum apud Hugonem, II. de Sacram. p. I. c. 11. Verba Scripturae sunt Ioan. 10, 17. 18.

en: [Augustine, *Tractates on John*] tract. 47, n. 11, according to the sense, but more verbatim in Hugh, *On the Sacraments* II, p. I, c. 11. The words of Scripture are John 10:17-18.

la: Ibid., sed ad verbum apud Lyranum Ioan. 10, 17.

en: Ibid. [tract. 47], but verbatim in Lyra on John 10:17.

la: De Unitate Trin. c. 14. (inter opera August.).

en: *On the Unity of the Trinity* c. 14 (among the works of Augustine).

la: De Incarnat. dominicae sacram. c. 5. n. 39. In quo loco codd. ABCD et edd., exceptis 4, 8 et Vat., perperam habent *eruendi suspendendique* pro *exuendi suscipiendique*, quod habet originale. — Seq. locus est Hugonis a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. I. c. 11, qui excurrit in sequens capitulum.

en: *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation* c. 5, n. 39. In which place codices ABCD and the editions, except 4, 8 and the Vatican, wrongly have *eruendi suspendendique* for *exuendi suscipiendique* (of putting off and taking up), which the original has. — The following passage is from Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. I, c. 11, which runs over into the next chapter.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 130. n. 10. In quo textu post *resurrexit* sola Vat. cum originali adiicit *et ascendit in caelum*.

en: *Enarration on Psalm 130* [131], n. 10. In which text, after *resurrexit* (rose again), the Vatican edition alone, with the original, adds *and ascended into heaven*.

la: Nunc inscripto *de Incarnat. dominicae sacram.* c. 5. n. 44, ubi respicitur I. Petr. 4, 1.

en: Now entitled *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation* c. 5, n. 44, where 1 Pet. 4:1 is referred to.

la: Serm. 233. (alias 129. de Temp.) n. 2, nunc invenitur in appendice. — Pro *sumenda sit*, codd. BCDE et edd. 1, 7, 8 *sumenda est*. — Seq. locus ibid. n. 3.

en: Sermon 233 (otherwise 129, *de Tempore*) n. 2, now found in the appendix [to Augustine's works]. — For *sumenda sit*, codices BCDE and editions 1, 7, 8 read *sumenda est*. — The following passage is ibid., n. 3.

la: Cfr. pag. 299, nota 2.

la: De Incarnat. dominicae sacram. c. 5. n. 35, ubi respicitur Ps. 18, 6. Seq. locus est ibid. n. 36.

en: *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation* c. 5, n. 35, where Ps. 18 [19]:6 is referred to. The following passage is ibid., n. 36. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.434–435 (PDF 456–457), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` raw lines 30177–30323). Per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override, the heavily two-column-shattered OCR was treated as secondary; the PDF column bands are authoritative for the running prose, and the OCR was used for cross-checking footnote-marker spacing.

**Type.** `littera` (the Master's / Lombard's text for DISTINCTIO XXI), Cap. I–II. `has_scholion: false` (littera carries no scholion). `has_apparatus: true` — the per-page *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* footers.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.434** (PDF 456): DISTINCTIO XXI opens at the top of this page (in the R column, immediately after the d.20-dubia tail *…saluberrimum toti mundo¹* — that note belongs to d.20, NOT here). **Cap. I.** *Si in Christi morte separata fuit anima, vel caro a Verbo* runs the full L column (*Post praedicta…* → *Determinatio vera*) and the full R column (*…protectionem… → …vere secundum ho-*). Footer = *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* **nn.1–8** (`[^p434-1..8]`).
- **p.435** (PDF 457): Cap. I continues (*-minem vixisse…* → *…Ad Patrem*), then **Cap. II.** *Qua ratione dicitur Christus mortuus vel passus* runs to the littera's close *…apud Deum semper manebat ».*. Footer = *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* **nn.1–9** (`[^p435-1..9]`). Page-break placed at the mid-word seam *vere secundum ho-* / *-minem vixisse* (raw 30248→30252).

**Apparatus count.** 17 entries total (p.434 nn.1–8; p.435 nn.1–9). Numbering restarts per printed page.

**Hand-off picked up.** From d.20 dubia (commit 2d8e02c): the d.20 dubia close at *…saluberrimum toti mundo* sits in p.434's R-column top; DISTINCTIO XXI opens fresh below it with its own *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM*. Seam confirmed CLEAN — no grammatical splice, no migrating footer (the p.434 note ¹ above the littera NOTAE header, *Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert…*, is the d.20-dubia footer, already held by the d.20-dubia chunk).

**Hand-off forwarded.** See `next-session-resume.md`: next chunk is **d21-divisio** (COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXI + DIVISIO TEXTUS) at raw line **30324**, printed **p.436** (PDF 458).

**[?] flags.** None — pp.434–435 fully legible at 450 dpi.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 21, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XXI — De ipsa pretiosissima morte Christi

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XXI — On the most precious death of Christ

source_text:
<!-- page 436 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXI.
### *De ipsa pretiosissima morte Christi.*

*Post praedicta considerandum est etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de sacratissima Christi[^1] passione. In hac parte agit de pretiosissima eius morte, quae consistit in separatione animae a carne. Dividitur autem ista pars in duas partes. In quarum prima determinat de ipsa separatione. In secunda agit de consequentibus ipsam separationem, *infra* distinctione vigesima secunda: *Hic quaeritur, utrum in illo triduo* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima agit de separatione animae a carne in comparatione ad Deitatem. In secunda agit de separatione animae a carne secundum comparationem, quam habent ad invicem, ibi: *Decedente*[^2] *vero anima, mortua est caro Christi.* Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima inquirit, utrum in morte anima, vel caro sit separata a Verbo, determinans veritatem. In secunda parte hoc confirmat per auctoritatem, ibi: *Sicut Augustinus docet super Ioannem.* Prima pars dividitur in quatuor partes. In quarum prima proponit Magister quaestionem et opponit ad partem falsam[^3]. In secunda vero subiungit determinationem, ibi: *Quibus respondemus, illam separationem* etc. In tertia vero resumit obiectionem partis adversae, ibi: *Alii quoque auctoritati innituntur* etc. In quarta vero et ultima ponit determinationem et expositionem auctoritatis inductae, ibi: *Quibus respondemus, quod si in his verbis* etc. — Subdivisiones autem illarum 4[^4] partium satis manifestantur in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa duo.

Primo enim quaeritur de ipsa separatione, quae facta est in morte per comparationem ad unionis vinculum.

Secundo per comparationem ad effectum ipsius separationis.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in morte fuerit anima separata a Deitate.

Secundo vero, utrum Deitas fuerit separata a carne.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Verbum fuerit unitum carni et animae duplici unione.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXI.
### *On the most precious death of Christ.*

*After the foregoing, it must be considered, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the most sacred passion of Christ[^1]. In this part he treats of his most precious death, which consists in the separation of the soul from the flesh. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the separation itself. In the second he treats of what follows upon the separation, *below* in the twenty-second distinction: *Here it is asked whether in that triduum,* etc.

The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he treats of the separation of the soul from the flesh in comparison to the Deity. In the second he treats of the separation of the soul from the flesh according to the comparison which they have to one another, there: *When the soul had departed*[^2], *the flesh of Christ died.* The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he inquires whether in death the soul, or the flesh, was separated from the Word, determining the truth. In the second part he confirms this by authority, there: *As Augustine teaches on John.* The first part is divided into four parts. In the first of these the Master proposes the question and argues toward the false side[^3]. In the second he subjoins the determination, there: *To which we respond, that that separation,* etc. In the third he resumes the objection of the adverse side, there: *Others too rely on the authority,* etc. In the fourth and last he sets down the determination and the exposition of the authority brought forward, there: *To which we respond, that if in these words,* etc. — But the subdivisions of those four[^4] parts are sufficiently made plain in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there arises here a question concerning two things.

For, first, it is asked concerning the separation itself, which was made in death, by comparison to the bond of union.

Second, by comparison to the effect of the separation itself.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether in death the soul was separated from the Deity.

Second, whether the Deity was separated from the flesh.

Third it is asked whether the Word was united to the flesh and the soul by a twofold union.

---

la: Codd. G H I L T U V Z aa bb *Dei*.

en: Codices G H I L T U V Z aa bb read *of God* [i.e. *Christi Dei*, "of Christ God"].

la: Cod. K cum Magistro *Recedente*.

en: Codex K, with the Master, reads *Recedente* ["the soul withdrawing"].

la: Edd. *oppositam*.

en: The editions read *oppositam* ["the opposite (part)"].

la: Pro *illarum*, quod codd. H T omittunt, multi codd. *aliarum*, subinde pro *manifestantur* cod. X *manifestae sunt*.

en: For *illarum* ["of those"], which codices H T omit, many codices read *aliarum* ["of the other"]; and further on, for *manifestantur* ["are made plain"], codex X reads *manifestae sunt* ["are made manifest"].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.436 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p436-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 30324–30356 of `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`). The OCR cascade-interleaves the two columns of p.436; the PDF column read is authoritative for reflow. PDF page 458 (offset pdf = printed + 22).

**Page-split map.** Single printed page (p.436). All of the COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM sit on p.436. Apparatus: p.436 footer prints nn.1–6; **nn.1–4 belong to this divisio** (n.1 *Christi*[^1] and n.2 *Decedente*[^2] anchor in the DIVISIO TEXTUS; n.3 *partem falsam*[^3] and n.4 *illarum*[^4] anchor in the right-column DIVISIO TEXTUS continuation). **nn.5–6 forward to a1-q1**: n.5 (*Vers. 18.*) anchors on q1's *Ioannis decimo*⁵ in fund. 1, and n.6 (*Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3…*) anchors on q1's *idiomatum*⁶ in fund. 2 — both in QUAESTIO I's body, which opens at the foot of p.436 (right column).

**Hand-off picked up.** From d21-littera: COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS begins at raw 30324, printed p.436. **No footers migrate in** — the littera fully consumed its p.435 NOTAE (nn.1–9); the COMMENTARIUS picks up p.436's own fresh per-page NOTAE sequence. Confirmed: the divisio's opening sentence (*Supra egit Magister de sacratissima Christi passione…*) is grammatically self-contained; the littera's p.435 close is not spliced into it.

**Hand-off forwarded.** To d21-a1-q1 (raw 30357, printed p.436): ARTICULUS I (*De separatione, facta in morte, per comparationem ad unionis vinculum*) / QUAESTIO I (*Utrum in morte anima Christi separata fuerit a Deitate*) opens at the foot of p.436's right column. **Migrating footers: p.436 nn.5–6 belong to a1-q1's body** (n.5 *Vers. 18.* on *Ioannis decimo*⁵; n.6 *Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3…* on *idiomatum*⁶). q1 then continues onto p.437+ with its own per-page footers.

**q-count verification — RESULT: PASS, matches skeleton.** TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM divides into two members ("quaestio circa duo"): (1) separation by comparison to the bond of union → **ARTICULUS I** (raw 30357), "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" — **q1** *utrum in morte fuerit anima separata a Deitate*, **q2** *utrum Deitas fuerit separata a carne*, **q3** *utrum Verbum fuerit unitum carni et animae duplici unione*; (2) by comparison to the effect of the separation → **ARTICULUS II** (raw ~30740), "Consequenter quaeritur de effectu illius separationis," three questions — **q1** *utrum post instans separationis…*, **q2** *utrum ex illa separatione caro fuerit…*, **q3** *utrum propter mortem carnis…*; then **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** (raw ~31023). This exactly matches the skeleton set (a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3 + dubia). No missing, extra, or mis-aligned questions.

**[?] flags.** None (450 dpi legible throughout).


title: Dist. 21, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 436 -->

### Articulus I. *De separatione, facta in morte, per comparationem ad unionis vinculum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum in morte anima Christi separata fuerit a Deitate.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in morte anima separata fuerit a Deitate. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ioannis decimo[^p436-5]: *Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam;* sed ponere ibi animam non est aliud quam deponere: ergo si iste sermo est personae Filii Dei, videtur, quod Filius Dei animam deposuerit in morte: ergo in morte anima fuit separata a Verbo.

2. Item, unio facit communicationem idiomatum[^p436-6]; sed in morte idiomata Dei non communicabantur animae: ergo in morte non mansit unio animae ad Deitatem.

<!-- page 437 -->

3. Item, in morte dividuntur quae in nativitate coniunguntur; sed Divinitas iuncta est ipsi animae Christi in ipsius conceptione et nativitate in utero[^p437-1]: ergo separata fuit ab ea in morte.

4. Item, Divinitas non potuit animae esse unita, quin anima ipsa frueretur et delectaretur in ea; sed in morte remota fuit delectatio ab anima, quam habebat in ipsa Divinitate: ergo separata fuit omnino ab anima. Maior propositio per se manifesta est; minor probatur per illud quod dicitur Matthaei vigesimo sexto[^p437-2]: *Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem;* Glossa: «Remota delectatione aeternae Divinitatis, taedio humanae calamitatis afficitur»: ergo secundum istam Glossam delectatio removebatur: ergo unio solvebatur.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus[^p437-3] et Damascenus: «Anathema sit qui dicit, Verbum deposuisse quod semel assumsit»: si ergo animam assumsit, nunquam deposuit animam.

2. Item, Filius Dei dicitur descendisse ad inferos post mortem[^p437-4]; sed constat, quod secundum Divinitatem non potest dici nec secundum carnem: ergo oportet, quod dicatur secundum animam: ergo anima post mortem fuit sibi unita, non ergo in morte fuit separata.

3. Item, si anima fuit separata in morte a Verbo; cum non haberet gloriam fruitionis nisi per unionem sui ad Divinitatem, ergo anima Christi desiit esse beata; et si desiit esse beata, nunquam fuit beata, quia beatitudo est bonum, quod nunquam potest amitti[^p437-5]: si igitur hoc est inconveniens, anima non fuit separata a Divinitate.

4. Item, si separata fuit, aut *volens,* aut *nolens.* Si *nolens;* cum hoc non meruisset, facta fuit sibi iniuria. Si *volens;* sed velle separari a Deo non potest homo nisi iniuste: ergo anima illa fuit iniusta: cum igitur hoc sit falsum et impium, restat etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Anima Christi in morte a Verbo non fuit separata.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in morte[^p437-6] non fuit anima separata a Verbo. Et ratio huius est: quia nec *Deum decebat,* nec *nobis expediebat,* nec illi *animae congruebat.* — *Deum non decebat,* quia indissolubili matrimonio sibi eam coniunxerat. Unde sicut non decet virum relinquere uxorem, sic non decuit Verbum Dei ab anima separari[^p437-7]. — *Nobis non expediebat,* quia, si facta fuisset separatio, anima illa nec habuisset *potentiam* ad eripiendum genus captivum nec *mediatricis officium* ad reconciliandum; et neutrum erat nobis expediens, sed potius eius oppositum[^p437-8]. — *Animae* etiam illi *non congruebat,* tum quia *innocentissima,* tum etiam quia *beatissima.* Quia *beatissima* erat, non poterat *velle* separari a Verbo; quia *innocentissima* erat, non poterat *contra voluntatem* suam separari ab eo. — Et ideo concedendum est, quod in morte anima a Verbo separata non fuit. Nam si quis contrarium diceret, iniuriam faceret *Deitati* et *nobis* et *animae Christi,* et ideo dignus esset anathematizari. Et ideo hoc[^p437-9] dicit Damascenus, quod quicumque hoc dixerit, anathema sit. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p437-10], verbum illud est personae Filii Dei ratione carnis assumtae. Et *si tu obiicias,* quod carni non competit ponere animam, cum non habeat *posse* super ipsam; dicendum, quod hoc attribuitur ipsi carni ratione «manentis in se Deitatis». Unde attendendum est, quod ibi *deponens,* et *unde deponit*[^p437-11]; *deponens* est virtus divina; *unde* vero *deponit* est caro assumta. Voluit enim Christus, animam suam separari non a se, sed a carne sua; et sicut dictum est de depositione, ita intelligendum est de resumtione.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de idiomatum communicatione, dicendum, quod unio facit, idiomata communicari non *partibus* rei unibilis, sed magis ipsi *rei naturae,* quae nominat totam naturam, ut in supposito; unde idiomata Filii Dei non communicantur ipsi *animae,* sed communicantur ipsi *homini;* et quoniam anima unitur ipsi Verbo ut *pars* humanae naturae, ideo non oportet ipsi idiomata communicari[^p437-12].

<!-- page 438 -->

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illa dividuntur in morte, quae coniuncta sunt in nativitate; dicendum, quod est coniunctio *naturalis,* et est coniunctio *supernaturalis.* Quando ergo dicitur, quod illa in morte dividuntur, quae in nativitate coniuncta sunt, hoc intelligitur de unione *naturali.* Unio autem Divinitatis ad animam non erat *naturalis,* sed *supernaturalis;* et ideo de ista unione verbum illud non habet intelligi.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod remota est delectatio in morte ab anima; dicendum, quod sicut *lux* potest dupliciter offuscari: vel *in se,* vel *in sua irradiatione;* sic et *delectatio* potest dupliciter removeri ab anima rationali: aut quia ipsa desinit in se delectari, aut quia desinit redundare in partem inferiorem. Cum ergo dicitur, quod delectatio Deitatis remota fuit in morte ab anima Christi, hoc non intelligitur ea ratione, quod mens eius desineret frui Divinitate, sed quod dispensative subtracta fuit redundantia in partem sensibilem et exposita fuit passioni acerbissimae. Propter quod clamat in passione: *Deus meus, Deus meus! ut quid dereliquisti me*[^p438-1]? quod non intelligitur, quia dereliquerit solvendo vinculum unionis, sed exponendo ad supplicium passionis.

english:
### Article I. *On the separation, made in death, by comparison to the bond of union.*
### Question I. *Whether in death the soul of Christ was separated from the Deity.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether in death the soul was separated from the Deity. And that it was, seems [to be the case]:

1. John the tenth[^p436-5]: *I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it up again;* but to lay down the soul there is nothing other than to put it off: therefore if that saying belongs to the person of the Son of God, it seems that the Son of God put off the soul in death: therefore in death the soul was separated from the Word.

2. Likewise, union makes a communication of idioms[^p436-6]; but in death the idioms of God were not communicated to the soul: therefore in death the union of the soul to the Deity did not remain.

3. Likewise, in death those things are divided which are joined together in nativity; but the Divinity was joined to the very soul of Christ in his conception and nativity in the womb[^p437-1]: therefore it was separated from it in death.

4. Likewise, the Divinity could not be united to the soul without the soul itself enjoying and delighting in it; but in death the delight which it had in the Divinity itself was withdrawn from the soul: therefore it was separated altogether from the soul. The major proposition is manifest of itself; the minor is proved by that which is said in Matthew the twenty-sixth[^p437-2]: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death;* the Gloss: «The delight of the eternal Divinity being withdrawn, it is afflicted by the weariness of human calamity»: therefore according to that Gloss the delight was withdrawn: therefore the union was dissolved.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine[^p437-3] and the Damascene [say]: «Let him be anathema who says that the Word put off what it once assumed»: if therefore it assumed the soul, it never put off the soul.

2. Likewise, the Son of God is said to have descended to the lower regions after death[^p437-4]; but it is established that this cannot be said according to the Divinity nor according to the flesh: therefore it must be said according to the soul: therefore after death the soul was united to him, therefore in death it was not separated.

3. Likewise, if the soul was separated in death from the Word; since it would not have the glory of fruition except through its union to the Divinity, then the soul of Christ ceased to be blessed; and if it ceased to be blessed, it was never blessed, since blessedness is a good which can never be lost[^p437-5]: if therefore this is unfitting, the soul was not separated from the Divinity.

4. Likewise, if it was separated, [it was] either *willing* or *unwilling.* If *unwilling;* since it did not deserve this, an injury was done to it. If *willing;* but a man cannot will to be separated from God except unjustly: therefore that soul was unjust: since therefore this is false and impious, it remains etc.

### Conclusion.

> *The soul of Christ in death was not separated from the Word.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in death[^p437-6] the soul was not separated from the Word. And the reason for this is: because it neither *befitted God,* nor *was expedient for us,* nor *was suitable for that soul.* — *It did not befit God,* because he had joined it to himself in indissoluble matrimony. Hence just as it is not fitting for a husband to abandon his wife, so it did not befit the Word of God to be separated from the soul[^p437-7]. — *It was not expedient for us,* because, if a separation had been made, that soul would have had neither the *power* to rescue the captive race nor the *office of mediatrix* for reconciling; and neither was expedient for us, but rather the opposite of it[^p437-8]. — Likewise it *was not suitable* for that *soul,* both because it was *most innocent* and also because it was *most blessed.* Because it was *most blessed,* it could not *will* to be separated from the Word; because it was *most innocent,* it could not *against its will* be separated from him. — And therefore it must be granted that in death the soul was not separated from the Word. For if anyone were to say the contrary, he would do injury to the *Deity* and to *us* and to the *soul of Christ,* and therefore he would deserve to be anathematized. And therefore[^p437-9] the Damascene says this, that whoever shall have said this, let him be anathema. — Therefore the reasons which are on this side must be granted.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 1.* To that which is first objected to the contrary, it must be said that, as Augustine says[^p437-10], that saying belongs to the person of the Son of God by reason of the assumed flesh. And *if you object* that it does not belong to the flesh to lay down the soul, since it does not have *power* over it; it must be said that this is attributed to the flesh itself by reason of «the Deity remaining in it». Hence it must be observed that there is a *one who lays down,* and a *that from which he lays down*[^p437-11]; the *one who lays down* is the divine power; the *that from which he lays down* is the assumed flesh. For Christ willed his soul to be separated not from himself, but from his flesh; and as has been said of the laying-down, so it must be understood of the resumption.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the communication of idioms, it must be said that union makes the idioms be communicated not to the *parts* of the unitable thing, but rather to the *thing's nature* itself, which names the whole nature, as in a supposit; hence the idioms of the Son of God are not communicated to the *soul* itself, but are communicated to the *man* himself; and since the soul is united to the Word as a *part* of the human nature, therefore the idioms need not be communicated to it[^p437-12].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that those things are divided in death which are joined together in nativity; it must be said that there is a *natural* conjunction and a *supernatural* conjunction. When therefore it is said that those things are divided in death which are joined together in nativity, this is understood of the *natural* union. But the union of the Divinity to the soul was not *natural,* but *supernatural;* and therefore that saying is not to be understood of this union.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the delight was withdrawn from the soul in death; it must be said that just as *light* can be darkened in two ways: either *in itself,* or *in its irradiation;* so too *delight* can be removed from the rational soul in two ways: either because it itself ceases to delight in itself, or because it ceases to overflow into the lower part. When therefore it is said that the delight of the Deity was withdrawn in death from the soul of Christ, this is not understood in the sense that his mind ceased to enjoy the Divinity, but that by dispensation the overflow into the sensible part was withdrawn and it was exposed to the most bitter passion. On account of which he cries out in the passion: *My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me*[^p438-1]? which is not understood [to mean] that he forsook [it] by dissolving the bond of union, but by exposing [it] to the torment of the passion.

la: Vers. 18.

en: [John 10,] verse 18.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3. — In minori pro *communicabantur animae* edd. *communicantur animae ad Deitatem.* Edd. 1, 2 omittunt conclusionem. Deinde et in seqq. codd. inter se differunt scribentes vel *Deitas* vel *Divinitas,* nec singuli sibi constant, unde non potuimus bene determinare primitivam lectionem.

en: Cf. above p. 14, note 3. — In the minor, for *communicabantur animae* the editions read *communicantur animae ad Deitatem.* Editions 1, 2 omit the conclusion. Then also in what follows the codices differ among themselves, writing either *Deitas* or *Divinitas,* nor are the individual ones consistent with themselves, whence we have not been able to determine well the primitive reading.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.

en: Cf. above d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Vers. 38. — Glossa habetur apud Bedam super Marc. 14, 36, et delibata est ex Ambros., X. Exposit. Evang. Luc. 22, 42. seq. n. 56: *Sequestrata delectatione Divinitatis aeternae, taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur.* — In minori pro *remota* codd. U W *separata.* In conclus. pro *omnino,* quod e cod. A restituimus, alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 perperam *caro,* Vat. *Divinitas.*

en: Verse 38. — The Gloss is found in Bede on Mark 14, 36, and is drawn from Ambrose, X. *Exposition of the Gospel of Luke* 22, 42 ff., n. 56: *The delight of the eternal Divinity being set apart, he is afflicted by the weariness of my infirmity.* — In the minor, for *remota* the codices U W [read] *separata.* In the conclusion, for *omnino,* which we have restored from cod. A, the other codices and editions 1, 2 wrongly [read] *caro,* the Vatican [edition] *Divinitas.*

la: Sententialiter in Ioan. Evang. tr. 47. n. 10. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi de *assumtione* similis formula invenitur; vide pag. 434, nota 6. De Damasceno cfr. supra pag. 138, nota 8.

en: As to the substance, in [Augustine,] *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 47, n. 10. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, where concerning *assumption* a similar formula is found; see p. 434, note 6. Concerning the Damascene cf. above p. 138, note 8.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 22. q. 4. — In minori post *dici* cod. K addit *quia eius non est descendere vel ascendere;* cfr. Fulgent., II. ad Trasim. c. 10.

en: As is shown below d. 22, q. 4. — In the minor, after *dici* cod. K adds *because it does not belong to it to descend or ascend;* cf. Fulgentius, II. *to Trasimund* c. 10.

la: Vide August., XIII. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11.

en: See Augustine, XIII. *On the Trinity* c. 8, n. 11.

la: Cod. U adiicit *Christi.* Inferius pro *matrimonio* codd. Hbb (K a secunda manu) *vinculo.*

en: Cod. U adds *Christi.* Lower down, for *matrimonio* codices Hbb (K by a second hand) [read] *vinculo.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 2. q. 2. seq.

en: Cf. above d. 6, a. 2, q. 2 f.

la: Cfr. infra d. 22. q. 4. seq. — Paulo superius voci *genus* Vat. apponit *humanum.*

en: Cf. below d. 22, q. 4 f. — A little above, to the word *genus* the Vatican [edition] adds *humanum.*

la: Cod. W *Et propter hoc.*

en: Cod. W [reads] *And on account of this.*

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 47. n. 11. seqq., cuius sententiae summa habetur etiam hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. circa finem. — Post verbum *illud* cod. R addit *potestatem habere* scil. ponendi animam.

en: In [Augustine,] *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 47, n. 11 ff., the substance of whose opinion is also found here in the text of the Master, c. 1, near the end. — After the word *illud* cod. R adds *to have power,* namely of laying down the soul.

la: Fere omnes codd. *deponens.* Circa finem solut. plurimi codd. omittunt *de* ante *depositione;* tunc legendum *de positione.*

en: Nearly all the codices [read] *deponens.* Near the end of the solution most codices omit *de* before *depositione;* then it should be read *de positione.*

la: Vide supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. — Paulo superius post *Filii Dei* cod. K subiicit *omnino.*

en: See above d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6. — A little above, after *Filii Dei* cod. K subjoins *omnino.*

la: Matth. 27, 46. — De expositione, quae his verbis a S. Bonav. annectitur, vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Pro *solvendo vinculum* plurimi codd. *solummodo vinculum.* Paulo superius pro *partem sensibilem* cod. A *partem sensualem.*

en: Matthew 27, 46. — Concerning the exposition which is attached to these words by St. Bonaventure, see here the text of the Master, c. 1. — For *solvendo vinculum* most codices [read] *solummodo vinculum.* A little above, for *partem sensibilem* cod. A [reads] *partem sensualem.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione nulla inter catholicos est controversia. Ad rem et ad mentem S. Bonaventurae dicit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 2.): «Divinitas coniuncta fuit illi animae triplici vinculo: per gratiam inhabitationis, per gloriam fruitionis, per gratiam unionis personalis; et prima fuit dispositio secundae, et utraque tertiae. Unde cum prima non fuerit separabilis, quia solum peccatum separat eam, nec secunda fuit separabilis nec tertia» etc. — Arg. 1. ad oppositum eodem modo solvitur etiam a S. Thoma (S. III. q. 50. a. 3. ad 1.) aliisque. Tamen multi interpretes s. Scripturae cum S. Ioan. Chrysostomo volunt, quod *anima* hoc loco, iuxta usum loquendi in sacris libris non rarum, significet *vitam corporalem;* qua interpretatione evanescit tota difficultas. Haec solutio aliquatenus insinuatur etiam ab auctore nostro, hic dub. 2.

De hac (1.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. III. q. 19. m. 1. — Scot. hanc et seq. q. tangit hic q. unica, et d. 16. q. 2. arg. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2; S. art. cit. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

**II.** De seq. (2.) quaestione praeter citatos: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning this and the following (2nd) question there is no controversy among Catholics. To the matter and to the mind of St. Bonaventure Peter a Tarantasia speaks (here q. 1, a. 2): «The Divinity was joined to that soul by a threefold bond: by the grace of indwelling, by the glory of fruition, by the grace of personal union; and the first was the disposition of the second, and both [were the disposition] of the third. Hence since the first was not separable, because sin alone separates it, neither was the second separable nor the third» etc. — The 1st argument to the opposite is solved in the same way also by St. Thomas (S. III. q. 50, a. 3, ad 1) and by others. Yet many interpreters of sacred Scripture, with St. John Chrysostom, hold that *soul* in this place, according to a usage of speaking not uncommon in the sacred books, signifies *bodily life;* by which interpretation the whole difficulty vanishes. This solution is to some extent intimated also by our author, here in dub. 2.

Concerning this (1st) question: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q., S. p. III. q. 19, m. 1. — Scotus touches this and the following q. here in q. unica, and d. 16, q. 2, arg. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 2; S. art. cit. — B. Albert, on this and the following q. here a. 1. — Peter a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following q. here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following q. here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following qq. here q. unica.

**II.** Concerning the following (2nd) question, besides those cited: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — Peter a Tar., here q. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.436–438 (PDF 458–460; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 30357–30481). Where the OCR cascade-fragments the two-column Respondeo/Solutio and the page footers, the column-band PDF read is authoritative per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override.

**Opener alignment — VERIFIED.** The q1 body opens (foot of p.436, R-col) `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in morte anima separata fuerit a Deitate. Et quod sic, videtur.` This matches the divisio's TRACTATIO listing exactly (*Primo quaeritur, utrum in morte fuerit anima separata a Deitate*) and the QUAESTIO I title *Utrum in morte anima Christi separata fuerit a Deitate.* No q-swap. The short ARTICULUS I opener (*De separatione, facta in morte, per comparationem ad unionis vinculum*) is folded into q1 per the locked chunking convention; the article-listing TRACTATIO already lives in the d21-divisio chunk.

**Page-split map (per-page apparatus restart, 15 entries total):**
- **p.436** (raw 30357–30378): q1 fund. 1–2 (opener at foot, R-col). Footers **nn.5–6** (inherited from the divisio's page — nn.1–4 belong to the divisio). n.5 = *Vers. 18.* on *Ioannis decimo*; n.6 = *Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3…* on *idiomatum.*
- **p.437** (raw 30380–30450): fund. 3–4, Sed contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, Ad 1–2. Footers **nn.1–12** (full per-page sequence).
- **p.438** (raw 30452–30481): Ad 3–4, then SCHOLION §I–II. Footer **n.1** only (*Matth. 27, 46…* on *dereliquisti me*); the scholion runs unmarked.

**Page breaks** at raw 30379 (`DIST. XXI. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 437`) → `<!-- page 437 -->` placed before fund. 3; and at raw 30451 (`438 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`) → `<!-- page 438 -->` placed before Ad 3.

**Scholion coverage — has_scholion: true.** q1 carries its OWN scholion (§I–II) at the foot of p.438. **It forward-covers q2:** §I opens *De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione nulla inter catholicos est controversia* and lists authorities *de hac (1.) quaestione*; §II treats *De seq. (2.) quaestione.* **Prediction for the sibling: `bon-sent-III-d21-a1-q2` is `has_scholion: false`** — its scholion content lives here.

**Hand-offs picked up:** p.436 nn.5–6 (forwarded from the d21-divisio). **Forwarded:** see resume — q2 opens at raw 30482 (printed p.438 R-col, *Secundo quaeritur, utrum in morte Divinitas sit separata a carne*); q2 carries its own p.438 footer sequence (nn.1–4 visible on the p.438 L-band foot: n.1 *Matth. 27, 46…*; n.2 *Edd. addunt Christi*; n.3 *Art. 3. q. 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri…*; n.4 *Cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 54…*).

**Seam status — CLEAN.** Divisio closes at the TRACTATIO question listing (mid p.436); q1 opens fresh below it. q1 closes at the end of the scholion (foot p.438); QUAESTIO II opens fresh below with its own *videtur* arguments. No grammatical splice; no cascade-merge signature.

**No `[?]` flags** — the 450 dpi column bands were fully legible across pp.436–438.