title: Pars 5, Cap. 7

source_text:
<!-- page 260 -->

### Capitulum VII. *De exercitio gratiae respectu credendorum.*

Quarto igitur restat considerare gratiam quantum ad *exercitia meritorum*. Et circa haec consideranda sunt quatuor. Primo, de exercitatione gratiae in *credendis*, cuiusmodi sunt articuli fidei; secundo, in *diligendis*, cuiusmodi sunt illa quae spectant ad ordinem diligendi; tertio, in *exsequendis*, cuiusmodi sunt praecepta legis divinae; quarto in *postulandis*, cuiusmodi sunt petitiones orationis dominicae[^p260-4].

De *articulis* autem *fidei* haec tenenda sunt, quod licet per fidem astringamur credere plurima, quae sunt supra rationem, et *generaliter* omnia, quae continentur et afferuntur in canone sacrae Scripturae; *specialiter* tamen et proprie articuli fidei dicuntur illi qui continentur in serie Symboli apostolici; qui uno modo sunt *duodecim*, si habeatur respectus ad eos, qui Symbolum ediderunt, alio modo *quatuordecim*, si consideremus, quae radicaliter credenda sunt tanquam omnium credendorum fundamenta[^p260-5].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum primum principium in se ipso sit summe *verum* et *bonum*, in opere vero suo sit summe *iustum* et *misericors*; et summe *vero* debeatur firma assensio, summe *bono* fervens dilectio, summe *iusto* universalis[^p260-6] subiectio, summe *misericordi* fiducialis invocatio; et gratia sit ordinativa mentis nostrae ad primi principii culturam debitam: hinc est, quod ipsa dirigit et regulat ad debita et meritoria exercitia in *credendis, amandis, exsequendis* et *postulandis*, secundum quod requirit summa veritas, bonitas, iustitia et misericordia in Trinitate beata.

Quoniam igitur *veritati* est credendum, et maiori veritati magis credendum, et summae veritati per consequens summe credendum; et veritas primi principii in infinitum maior est omni veritate creata et luminosior omni lumine intellectus nostri: hinc est, quod ad hoc, quod intellectus noster recte sit ordinatus in credendis, necesse est, quod plus credat summae veritati quam sibi, et quod se redigat in obsequium Christi[^p260-7]; ac per hoc, quod non solum credat quae sunt *secundum rationem*, verum etiam quae sunt *supra rationem* et *contra sensuum experientiam*; quod si recusat, non exhibet summae veritati debitam reverentiam, dum iudicium industriae propriae praefert dictamini lucis aeternae; quod esse non potest absque tumore superbiae et elationis improbandae.

Rursus, quia veritas *supra* rationem sive *praeter* rationem est veritas non visa nec apparens, sed magis occulta et ad credendum difficillima; ideo ad hoc, quod firmiter credatur, necessaria est *illustratio veritatis* animam elevans, necessaria est etiam *testificatio auctoritatis* animam firmans. Primum fit per *fidem infusam*, secundum per *Scripturam authenticam*, quarum utraque est a veritate summa

<!-- page 261 -->
per Iesum Christum, qui est Splendor et Verbum[^p261-1], et per Spiritum sanctum, qui veritatem ostendit et docet et nihilominus credere facit. Hinc est, quod *auctoritas* praebet fulcimentum fidei, et *fides* assentit auctoritati. Et quia auctoritas principaliter residet in sacra Scriptura, quae per Spiritum sanctum est condita tota ad dirigendam fidem catholicam; hinc est, quod vera fides a Scriptura non dissonat, sed ei assentit assensione non ficta.

Postremo, quia veritas, ad quam credendam arctamur per fidem, et de qua sacra Scriptura agit principaliter, non est veritas quaecumque, sed veritas divina, vel ut est in natura propria, vel ut est in natura assumta — nam in huius veritatis cognitione consistit et praemium patriae et meritum viae[^p261-2] — hinc est, quod articuli fidei, qui sunt fidei fundamenta, aut spectant ad *Divinitatem*, aut ad *humanitatem*. Et quoniam *Divinitas* habet considerari in *tribus personis*, scilicet Patre generante, Filio genito et Spiritu sancto procedente, et *quadriformi operatione*, scilicet creatione in *esse* naturae, recreatione in *esse* gratiae, resuscitatione in reparatione vitae et glorificatione in collatione gloriae; hinc est, quod articuli spectantes ad *Divinitatem* sunt septem. — Similiter, quia Christi *humanitas* habet considerari ut concepta de Spiritu sancto, ut nata de Virgine, ut patiens in cruce, ut descendens ad infernum, ut resurgens a morte, ut ascendens in caelum, ut veniens ad iudicium finale; hinc est, quod septem sunt articuli *humanitatis*, et sic in universo *quatuordecim*, ad modum septem stellarum et septem candelabrorum aureorum, in quorum medio Filius hominis ambulabat[^p261-3].

Quoniam ergo unus est Christus in divina natura et humana; et una tantum est veritas summa, quae est ratio credendi una, prima, summa et sola, quae non mutatur per tempora: hinc est, quod de omnibus praedictis articulis una tantum est fides de eadem, non mutata tam in praesentibus quam in praeteritis quam in futuris, licet magis clara sit et explicita in eis qui Christum sequuntur, quam in eis qui praecesserunt eius adventum; sicut novum testamentum est clarius quam vetus, in quibus praedicti articuli continentur[^p261-4].

Et quia Spiritus sanctus hos articulos fidei in Scripturarum profunditate contentos in unum compegit per duodecim Apostolos tanquam per testes firmissimos; hinc est, quod praedicti articuli in unum Symbolum Apostolorum collecti fuerunt. Et ideo secundum Apostolos componentes *duodecim* articuli dici possunt, quia quilibet Apostolus in aedificationem fidei posuit unum articulum quasi lapidem unum vivum; quod Spiritus sanctus recte praefiguravit in duodecim viris, qui duodecim lapides de Iordanis alveo extraxerunt ad altare dominicum construendum[^p261-5].

---

english:
### Chapter VII. *On the exercise of grace with respect to the things to be believed.*

Fourthly, then, it remains to consider grace as regards the *exercises of merits*. And concerning these, four things are to be considered. First, the exercise of grace in *things to be believed*, of which sort are the articles of faith; second, in *things to be loved*, of which sort are those things which pertain to the order of loving; third, in *things to be carried out*, of which sort are the precepts of the divine law; fourth, in *things to be asked for*, of which sort are the petitions of the Lord's Prayer[^p260-4].

Concerning the *articles* of *faith*, these things are to be held: that although through faith we are bound to believe many things which are above reason, and *generally* all things which are contained and set forth in the canon of sacred Scripture, nevertheless *specially* and properly those are called articles of faith which are contained in the series of the apostolic Creed; which in one way are *twelve*, if regard be had to those who issued the Creed, in another way *fourteen*, if we consider what things are radically to be believed as the foundations of all things to be believed[^p260-5].

Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since the first principle, in itself, is supremely *true* and *good*, while in its own work it is supremely *just* and *merciful*; and since to the supremely *true* there is owed a firm assent, to the supremely *good* a fervent love, to the supremely *just* a universal[^p260-6] subjection, to the supremely *merciful* a trustful invocation; and since grace is ordinative of our mind toward the worship due to the first principle: hence it is that grace directs and regulates toward the due and meritorious exercises in *things to be believed, to be loved, to be carried out* and *to be asked for*, according as the supreme truth, goodness, justice and mercy in the blessed Trinity requires.

Since, therefore, *truth* is to be believed, and a greater truth more to be believed, and the supreme truth consequently to be supremely believed; and since the truth of the first principle is infinitely greater than every created truth and more luminous than every light of our intellect: hence it is that, in order that our intellect be rightly ordered in things to be believed, it is necessary that it believe the supreme truth more than itself, and that it bring itself into the obedience of Christ[^p260-7]; and through this, that it believe not only those things which are *according to reason*, but also those which are *above reason* and *against the experience of the senses*; and if it refuses this, it does not render to the supreme truth the reverence due, while it prefers the judgment of its own industry to the dictate of the eternal light — which cannot be without the swelling of pride and of a blameworthy elation.

Again, because the truth which is *above* reason, or *beyond* reason, is a truth not seen nor apparent, but rather hidden and most difficult to believe, therefore, in order that it be firmly believed, there is necessary an *illumination of the truth* raising the soul, and there is necessary also a *testimony of authority* strengthening the soul. The first comes about through *infused faith*, the second through *authentic Scripture*, both of which are from the supreme truth

<!-- page 261 -->
through Jesus Christ, who is the Splendor and the Word[^p261-1], and through the Holy Spirit, who shows and teaches the truth and nonetheless makes us believe. Hence it is that *authority* affords the support of faith, and *faith* assents to authority. And because authority resides principally in sacred Scripture, which was wholly established by the Holy Spirit for the directing of the catholic faith, hence it is that true faith does not disagree with Scripture, but assents to it with an assent not feigned.

Last, because the truth to the believing of which we are constrained by faith, and of which sacred Scripture treats principally, is not just any truth, but the divine truth — either as it is in its proper nature, or as it is in the assumed nature — for in the knowledge of this truth consists both the reward of the fatherland and the merit of the way[^p261-2] — hence it is that the articles of faith, which are the foundations of faith, either regard the *Divinity* or the *humanity*. And since the *Divinity* has to be considered in *three persons*, namely the Father generating, the Son begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeding, and in a *fourfold operation*, namely creation in the *being* of nature, re-creation in the *being* of grace, resuscitation in the repair of life and glorification in the conferring of glory: hence it is that the articles regarding the *Divinity* are seven. — Likewise, because Christ's *humanity* has to be considered as conceived of the Holy Spirit, as born of the Virgin, as suffering on the cross, as descending into hell, as rising from the dead, as ascending into heaven, as coming to the final judgment: hence it is that the articles of the *humanity* are seven, and thus in all *fourteen*, after the manner of the seven stars and the seven golden candlesticks, in the midst of which the Son of man was walking[^p261-3].

Since, therefore, Christ is one in the divine nature and the human; and there is only one supreme truth, which is the one, first, supreme and sole reason of believing, which is not changed through the ages: hence it is that of all the foresaid articles there is only one faith concerning the same, unchanged as much in things present as in things past as in things future, although it is clearer and more explicit in those who follow Christ than in those who went before his coming; just as the new testament is clearer than the old, in which the foresaid articles are contained[^p261-4].

And because the Holy Spirit compacted into one these articles of faith, contained in the depth of the Scriptures, through the twelve Apostles as through most firm witnesses: hence it is that the foresaid articles were gathered into one Symbol of the Apostles. And therefore, according to the Apostles who composed it, the articles can be called *twelve*, since each Apostle placed one article for the building up of faith as one living stone; which the Holy Spirit rightly prefigured in the twelve men who drew twelve stones from the bed of the Jordan for the constructing of the altar of the Lord[^p261-5].

---

la: De his quatuor agitur in hoc et 3 seqq. capp. — Superius pro *articuli* E *illa quae spectant ad articulum*.

en: These four are treated in this and the 3 following chapters. — Above, for *articuli* E has *illa quae spectant ad articulum*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23-25. — Superius pro *plurima* I K L V *plura*. Subinde pro *dicuntur* S *sunt dicendi*, et pro *ediderunt* L *condiderunt*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, dd. 23–25. — Above, for *plurima* I K L V have *plura*. Thereupon, for *dicuntur* S has *sunt dicendi*, and for *ediderunt* L has *condiderunt*.

la: E P W et 2 *humilis*.

en: E P W and edition 2 have *humilis*.

la: Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5. Cfr. supra pag. 52, nota 7. — Ante *redigat* M addit *totum*. Inferius pro *improbandae* O Q *improbitate* (plures codd. *improbatae*).

en: Reference is made to II Cor. 10, 5. Cf. above, p. 52, note 7. — Before *redigat* M adds *totum*. Below, for *improbandae* O Q have *improbitate* (several codices *improbatae*).

la: Cfr. Hebr. 1, 3. et Ioan. 1, 1. Ibid. 16, 13: Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem.

en: Cf. Hebr. 1, 3 and John 1, 1. Ibid. 16, 13: When that Spirit of truth is come, he will teach you all truth.

en: John 17, 3: Now this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

la: Apoc. 1, 12-16. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1, ubi etiam de fine huius cap. (12 articulis). — Superius pro *humanitatis* Vat., 1 et 3 *spectantes ad humanitatem*.

en: Apoc. 1, 12–16. Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 25, a. 1, q. 1, where also on the end of this chapter (with 12 articles). — Above, for *humanitatis* Vat. and editions 1 and 3 have *spectantes ad humanitatem*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 3; d. 24. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Superius post *eadem* supple: veritate.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 23, a. 1, q. 3; d. 24, a. 1, q. 2; and d. 25, a. 1, q. 1 and following. — Above, after *eadem* supply: veritate.

la: Ios. 4, 2. seqq. — Superius vocibus *secundum Apostolos* A interserit *duodecim*, et pro *aedificationem* 2 cum nonnullis codd. substituit *aedificatione*.

en: Josue 4, 2 and following. — Above, into the words *secundum Apostolos* A inserts *duodecim*, and for *aedificationem* edition 2, with several codices, substitutes *aedificatione*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 260–261, BOTH ENDS FIXED POSITIVELY FROM A HEADING ON THE BAND.** `Cap. VII. / De exercitio gratiae respectu credendorum.` stands about **two-thirds down p. 260's LEFT column**, immediately below Cap. VI's close, with a **ONE-line** subtitle, exactly where `bon-brev-p5-c6` placed it. Cap. VII fills the rest of p. 260's left column to `…quod licet per fidem astringamur credere plurima,`; crosses p. 260's gutter **AT A COMMA, STRANDING A NOUN FROM THE RELATIVE CLAUSE THAT QUALIFIES IT** (`credere plurima,` / `quae sunt supra rationem`); fills p. 260's right column entire to `…quarum utraque est a veritate summa`; breaks across the leaf **ON AN ABLATIVE PHRASE STRANDED FROM THE `per`-PHRASE THAT COMPLETES IT** (`a veritate summa` / `per Iesum Christum`); fills p. 261's left column entire to `…in Scripturarum profunditate contentos in unum compegit`; crosses p. 261's gutter **ON A VERB STRANDED FROM ITS INSTRUMENTAL `per`-PHRASE** (`in unum compegit` / `per duodecim Apostolos`); and closes about **one-third down p. 261's RIGHT column** at `…extraxerunt ad altare dominicum construendum⁵.` **★ The end is fixed POSITIVELY from the `Cap. VIII. / De exercitio gratiae respectu diligendorum.` heading standing immediately below it IN THE SAME RIGHT COLUMN**, with a ONE-line subtitle and Cap. VIII's own text following down that column. No claim here rests on white space, on a grammatically complete tail, or on a running head. ★ **THREE breaks in one capitulum and — for the first time in Pars V — TWO OF THE THREE ARE THE SAME SHAPE: both leaf and second-gutter breaks strand a `per`-phrase from what governs it (`a veritate summa` / `per Iesum Christum`; `compegit` / `per duodecim Apostolos`). Cap. III and Cap. VI each gave three breaks and three DIFFERENT shapes; this one repeats.** ★ **The index's hypothesis that Cap. VIII opens on p. 261 is CONFIRMED — the SIXTH consecutive opening page in Pars V to be right — and the SPAN it implied for Cap. VII (pp. 260–261) is right too. Neither fact is a licence: test every remaining opening on its own band.**

**★★ THE RUNNING HEAD IS ONE UNIT AHEAD FOR THE TWELFTH CONSECUTIVE LEAF.** p. 261's head reads **`BREVILOQUII PARS V. C. VIII.`** on a page whose left column entire and the top third of whose right column are still Cap. VII. Read on the band; used for nothing. **The boundary was set from the `Cap. VIII.` heading, and the head merely happens to agree with it this time — which is exactly the accident that makes the head worthless as a witness.**

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT THE BREAK, NOT AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY — as in `p5-c6`, and for the same reason.** The leaf break falls **mid-paragraph** (inside the *Rursus, quia veritas supra rationem* paragraph, whose remainder opens p. 261), and the nearest boundary below it is six lines down, so `<!-- page 261 -->` stands **at the break itself, inside the paragraph**, before `per Iesum Christum`, so that the printed page each line belongs to stays recoverable.

**Gutters — one carried-and-re-derived, one measured fresh, and BOTH DEFAULTS ACCEPTED for the first time in five leaves.** **p. 260 = 1398, RE-DERIVED here rather than adopted from `bon-brev-p5-c6`.** `colcrop.py vol5 260` still returns `split_x=1386, low-ink run 20 px`, which is rejected on width exactly as `p5-c6` rejected it; the body-row blank band runs **x = 1367–1430** with the printed column rule at **x = 1397–1399**, midpoint **1398**, and the upper-row band gives 1397 — `p5-c6`'s derivation reproduces in every particular, including the ~1 px skew. — **p. 261 = 1232, measured FRESH.** The default returned `split_x=1232, low-ink run 63 px` — **inside the 58–64 px sound band, the first fresh default in five leaves that is not suspect on width** — and the profile was printed anyway, per the standing rule, and explains why: over the body rows the blank band runs **x = 1200–1263** (left-column ink falls from 48 at x = 1199 to 6 at x = 1200 and to 1 by x = 1201; right-column ink resumes at 23 on x = 1264 and 203 on x = 1266), and it carries **ONE in-gutter island at x = 1231–1233, peaking at 614 rows on x = 1232 — the printed column rule, and it is CENTRED.** Band midpoint **1231**; the rule's own centre is **1232**; the upper-row window (rows 45–65 %) gives band 1200–1263 → 1231 and the lower window (rows 74–92 %) gives 1200–1264 → 1232, so **p. 261 is essentially unskewed, ~1 px**, the second unskewed leaf running after p. 260. Adopted **1232**. ★★ **This is the positive case the identification predicts and it is worth recording as such: the rule is on this leaf too, but because it sits at the band's midpoint the tool's zero-ink run spans the whole band and the default IS the answer. `p5-c6` set out the rule — centred → the windows agree and the default is right; off centre or heavily inked → they fork or drift — and p. 261 is the clean confirmation of its first branch.** — **p. 262 was also extracted and measured, at 1321** (default `1321, 61 px`; body blank band x = 1290–1352, centred rule at x = 1319–1324, midpoint 1321; upper 1321, lower 1320, skew ~1 px leftward). **Cap. VII does not touch p. 262, so p. 262 is NOT this chunk's to log** — the value is recorded here only so that `bon-brev-p5-c8` inherits a measurement it must still re-derive. Series now 1194 · 1337 · 1211 · 1341 · 1210 · 1331 · 1209 · 1338 · 1200 · 1338 · 1228 · 1361 · 1186 · 1367 · 1201 · 1345 · 1209 · 1391 · 1182 · 1390 · 1160 · 1403 · 1250 · 1357 · 1206 · 1355 · 1200 · 1412 · 1137 · 1398 · **1232** (· 1262 not applicable; p. 262 = **1321**, measured but not owed). ★ **p. 261 = 1232 sits 166 px from p. 260's 1398 and 89 px from p. 262's 1321; Pars V's range stays 1137–1412. Three consecutive leaves have now been essentially unskewed after a run of five skewed ones. Nothing about that predicts p. 263.**

**Apparatus (9 entries), ownership from anchors on the bands.** This chunk owns **p. 260 nn. 4–7** (inherited, every claim re-derived, closing that register entire) and **p. 261 nn. 1–5** (first-read). Every anchor below was read on the band at 450 dpi under direct high-factor zoom.
- p. 260 n. **4** on `cuiusmodi sunt petitiones orationis dominicae`⁴ — **LEFT** column, closing Cap. VII's opening fourfold division, six lines below the `Cap. VII.` heading; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 260 n. **5** on `tanquam omnium credendorum fundamenta`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, closing the *duodecim* / *quatuordecim* thesis; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 260 n. **6** on `summe *iusto* universalis`⁶ — **RIGHT** column, in the *Ratio autem* paragraph, third of the four *summe* members; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 260 n. **7** on `quod se redigat in obsequium Christi`⁷ — **RIGHT** column, beside the `Notandum.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block.
- p. 261 n. **1** on `qui est Splendor et Verbum`¹ — **LEFT** column, on the FIRST line of the page; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 261 n. **2** on `et praemium patriae et meritum viae`² — **LEFT** column, inside the em-dash parenthesis of the *Postremo* paragraph; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 261 n. **3** on `in quorum medio Filius hominis ambulabat`³ — **LEFT** column, closing the fourteen-article exposition; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 261 n. **4** on `in quibus praedicti articuli continentur`⁴ — **LEFT** column; entry in the **LEFT** block.
- p. 261 n. **5** on `extraxerunt ad altare dominicum construendum`⁵ — **RIGHT** column, on Cap. VII's LAST line; **entry in the LEFT block** — the one dissenting note on the page.

**★★ WHAT THIS CHUNK INHERITED — p. 260 nn. 4–7, AND THE HAND-OFF'S SELF-DECLARATION WAS EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT WHAT IT KNEW AND WHAT IT DID NOT.** `bon-brev-p5-c6` forwarded four notes: **n. 4 with ownership, column and position all declared verified**, and **nn. 5–7 with ownership and block column verified but their ANCHOR POSITIONS declared an UNREAD REGION and explicitly NOT inferred.** All of it was re-derived from p. 260's bands here rather than adopted.
- **n. 4 — every declared claim HELD.** The anchor does stand on `orationis dominicae`⁴ in the LEFT column six lines below the heading, and the text held VERBATIM including `in hoc et 3 seqq. capp.` (`3`, not `5`: the glyph is double-bowled, and sense settles it outright — this chapter plus three following is capp. VII–X, which is exactly the `quatuor` the anchor sentence has just enumerated).
- **nn. 5, 6 and 7 — the three unread anchors are now read, and ALL THREE ARE IN THE RIGHT COLUMN**, on `fundamenta`⁵, `universalis`⁶ and `obsequium Christi`⁷ respectively. The hand-off's two self-corroborations both hold and both proved to be exactly what it called them — hints, not readings: n. 5's `Superius pro plurima` lemma does answer to `astringamur credere plurima` on the last line of the LEFT column (i.e. *above* an anchor that is itself in the right column), and n. 7's `Ante redigat` lemma does answer to `quod se redigat in obsequium Christi`. **A lemma places a note's neighbourhood; it never reads its anchor, and here it would have put two of the three in the wrong column had it been trusted to.**
- ★ **AND THE ONE FORWARDED CLAIM THAT FAILED IS NOT IN THE HAND-OFF AT ALL — IT IS IN `p5-c6`'s OWN SUMMARY.** `p5-c6`'s Notes and the `KNOWN_TOTALS` comment both state that p. 260's **anchors divide 3 / 4** and that anchor line, block line and capitulum line **ALL THREE COINCIDE, for the first time in Pars V**. They do not. n. 4's anchor is in the **LEFT** column — which `p5-c6`'s own hand-off says, in as many words, one paragraph away — so **p. 260's anchors divide 4 / 3 while its blocks divide 3 / 4 and its capitulum line falls between nn. 3 and 4: three lines, three positions, and the "all three coincide" finding is withdrawn.** The `KNOWN_TOTALS` comment is corrected in this commit. ★ **This is the cheapest possible instance of the standing rule and the most instructive: the failure is not in the careful, explicitly-scoped hand-off but in the confident narrative summary written beside it, and it was caught by reading the anchor rather than the sentence about the anchor. READ ANCHORS, ONLY ANCHORS — including when the thing you are checking is a previous chunk's claim about anchors.**
- **Running score: forwarded OWNERSHIP has now held FIFTEEN times in FIFTEEN. Forwarded DETAIL has failed THREE times in fifteen — twice before from hand-offs that admitted the detail was unverified, and now once from a chunk's summary prose rather than from its hand-off, which is a new mechanism and worth watching for.**

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS — p. 261 nn. 6–9, FOUR NOTES, TO `bon-brev-p5-c8`.** **p. 261's register is NINE** (left block nn. 1–5, right block nn. 6–9), band-derived here and newly fed to `check-vol5-apparatus.py`. Only nn. 1–5 anchor in Cap. VII. For each forwarded note, what was verified is named:
- n. **6** — **OWNERSHIP, COLUMN and POSITION all verified.** Anchor on `licet omnia opera divina sint *valde bona*`⁶, in Cap. VIII's opening thesis, **RIGHT** column, three lines below the `Cap. VIII.` heading, beside the `Thesis 1.` gloss; entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Gen. 1, 31. — Sententia de quatuor diligendis est August., I. de Doctr. christiana, c. 23. n. 22. — E hic addit *et ideo diligenda*; inferius vocibus *quod nos sumus* R praefigit *noster spiritus sive*, et pro *corpus nostrum* plures codd. *corpus proprium*.`
- n. **7** — **OWNERSHIP and BLOCK COLUMN verified; the ANCHOR POSITION is an UNREAD REGION and is deliberately NOT inferred.** Entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Matth. 22, 40. — De hoc cap. vide III. Sent. d. 28. et 29. per totam; de modo diligendi Deum cfr. ibid. d. 27. a. 2. q. 5. seq.` ★ **Matth. 22, 40 is `in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae`, and Cap. VIII's third thesis speaks of the `duplex mandatum, in quo pendet universitas Legis et Prophetarum` — the citation and the doctrine agree, which places the note in the neighbourhood of that thesis and does NOT read its anchor.**
- n. **8** — **OWNERSHIP and BLOCK COLUMN verified; the ANCHOR POSITION is an UNREAD REGION.** Entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Vide August., de Doctr. christiana, c. 32. n. 35.`
- n. **9** — **OWNERSHIP and BLOCK COLUMN verified; the ANCHOR POSITION is an UNREAD REGION.** Entry in the **RIGHT** block. Its text is `Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1-3. et dub. 1. — Aliquanto inferius pro *quatuor tantum* edd., excepta 2, *quatuor tanquam*.`
★ **`p5-c5`'s and `p5-c6`'s vindicated practice is followed exactly, and this chunk's own experience is the argument for it: naming three anchors UNREAD rather than inferring them from the block column is what let this chunk discover that all three sat in the column the block would NOT have predicted.**

**Runover findings — TWO OWED, TWO CLOSED, BOTH NEGATIVE.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 260 → p. 261 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, as owed.* p. 260's right footer block ends complete at n. 7 (`…plures codd. *improbatae*).`) with clear paper below it, and **p. 261's left footer block opens NUMBERED: `¹ Cfr. Hebr. 1, 3. et Ioan. 1, 1.`** Not logged as an event; carried in this chunk's negative accounting.
- *Gutter-crossing within p. 261 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides, and this chunk's own.* p. 261's left block ends **complete** at n. 5 (`…substituit *aedificatione*.`) with clear paper below it, and **p. 261's right block opens NUMBERED: `⁶ Gen. 1, 31.`** ★ **This is the more interesting negative, because p. 261's block break falls one note BELOW its anchor break: n. 5's anchor is in the RIGHT column while its entry prints in the LEFT block — the same geometry as p. 259 n. 5, which DID run over. Here the dissenting note simply fits, and the gutter is clean. A dissenting block is not a predictor of a runover.**
- *One ledger line, `p5-c7  -`.*
- *NOT re-logged here:* `p.259 n.5:gutter`, `p.260 n.3:gutter` and the p. 258 → p. 259 and p. 259 → p. 260 tests (all four `p5-c6`); p. 257's own gutter test, p. 257 → p. 258 and p. 258's own gutter test (all three `p5-c5`); p. 256's own gutter test and p. 256 → p. 257 (both `p5-c4`); `p.255 n.8:gutter` and the p. 254 → p. 255 and p. 255 → p. 256 tests (all three `p5-c3`); `p.253 n.9:page` and `p.254 n.3:gutter` (both `p5-c2`); the p. 252 → p. 253 test and p. 253's own gutter test (both `p5-c1`). ★ **p. 262's gutter test and the p. 261 → p. 262 test are NOT owed here and are NOT logged — Cap. VII closes on p. 261 and never touches p. 262. They belong to `bon-brev-p5-c8`.**

**★ NO PRINTER'S SIGNATURE AND NO QUIRE SIGNATURE ON EITHER PAGE.** `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` last fell on p. 257 with the quire signature `33`; p. 260 carries neither mark (confirmed by `p5-c6` and re-confirmed here while re-reading its right block) and **p. 261 carries neither** — both of p. 261's blocks were read to their last line, and both end on a numbered entry's own last line with clear paper below. The next signature remains due around p. 265. **Neither mark is ever an entry; neither was counted, because neither is here.**

**★★ p. 261's FOOTER IS A TWENTY-FIRST CONFIGURATION, AND IT IS p. 259's GEOMETRY WITH THE RUNOVER REMOVED.** p. 261's **anchors** divide **4 / 5** (nn. 1–4 LEFT column, nn. 5–9 RIGHT); its **blocks** divide **5 / 4** (nn. 1–5 LEFT, nn. 6–9 RIGHT); and its **capitulum line** falls between nn. **5 and 6**, which is neither of the other two. **Three lines, three positions.** The dissenting note is **n. 5**, whose anchor stands on the LAST line of the right column's Cap. VII portion and whose entry prints in the LEFT block — numerically identical to p. 259 n. 5, except that p. 259's dissenting note also ran over the gutter and p. 261's does not. ★ **And note what the capitulum line does here that it did not do on p. 260: it falls at the BLOCK break, not at the anchor break — the exact mirror of p. 260, where it falls at the anchor break and not at the block break. Two consecutive leaves, two opposite coincidences, and neither is a rule. Read anchors, only anchors.**

**Digits and sigla settled off the bands** (450 dpi; every upright compared against a same-line or same-entry contrast before being recorded). **This leaf-run's register is dominated by the `1`/`4` class — nine decisions turn on it — and the `3`/`5` class produces exactly one correction, in the same slot on the same line as three `1`/`4` decisions.**
- **★★ `d. 25. a. 1. q. 1` (p. 261 n. 3) and `d. 23. a. 1. q. 3; d. 24. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.` (p. 261 n. 4) — SEVEN `1`s and one `4` across two entries, and n. 4's first line is the contrast set for both.** On that one line `d. 24.`'s `4` prints visibly WIDER, open-topped, with a closed triangular counter, against the narrow flagged-and-footed uprights of every `a. 1.` and `q. 1.` beside it. ★ **The raw independently agrees on n. 3 (`a. 1. q. 1`), which is the rarest kind of corroboration in this volume and is recorded as such. Sense settles it too: III Sent. d. 25 a. 1 q. 1 is the question on the number of the articles, which is precisely what this chapter argues.**
- **★★ `Apoc. 1, 12-16.` (p. 261 n. 3) — three flagged `1`s in one citation, and the raw destroys the last digit (`12-10`).** All three uprights carry the same angled flag and foot serif as the `1`s in n. 4; the `2` and `6` are unambiguous. ★ **Sense settles it and the entry checks itself against its anchor: Apoc. 1, 12 is `conversus vidi septem candelabra aurea, et in medio septem candelabrorum similem Filio hominis`, and 1, 16 is `habebat in dextera sua stellas septem` — which is, word for word, the `septem stellarum et septem candelabrorum aureorum, in quorum medio Filius hominis ambulabat` the anchor sits on.**
- **★★ `et d. 25.` closing p. 261 n. 4 — the `3`/`5` class, and the raw gives `d. 23`.** On the band the sort is a flat top bar over a single lower bowl — a `5` — against the double-bowled `3` standing eleven characters earlier in `q. 3;` on the SAME line. ★ **Sense settles it: the entry runs d. 23 → d. 24 → d. 25, and a second `d. 23` after `d. 24` is impossible on its face. This is the leaf's one defect that would have parsed clean — `III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1.` is a well-formed citation of a question that exists.**
- **★★ `Ios. 4, 2. seqq.` (p. 261 n. 5) — a genuine `4` in the slot where this register otherwise sets `1`.** Open-topped, wide, with the closed triangular counter, against the flagged `1`s of nn. 3 and 4 four lines above. ★ **Sense settles it: Josue 4, 2 is `elige duodecim viros`, and 4, 3 sends them to take `duodecim durissimos lapides de Iordanis alveo` — which is the anchor sentence entire.**
- **★★ `Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5. Cfr. supra pag. 52, nota 7.` (p. 260 n. 7) — FOUR arabic decisions beside a roman in one line.** `10` sets a flagged `1` against a `0`; `5` and the `5` of `52` are the same flat-barred sort, which is the entry's own same-line contrast; `II.` is two slab-serifed uprights and is a roman numeral, not a siglum. ★ **Sense settles the citation: II Cor. 10, 5 is `in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi`, and the anchor is `quod se redigat in obsequium Christi`; the note's own `Ante redigat` lemma names the same word.**
- **★★ `in hoc et 3 seqq. capp.` (p. 260 n. 4) — the `3`/`5` class in the one place a wrong reading would be doctrinally invisible.** The sort is double-bowled. ★ **Sense settles it independently and decisively: the anchor sentence has just divided the matter into `quatuor`, and this chapter plus three following is capp. VII–X, which is exactly the four. `5 seqq.` would run past Pars V's tenth and last capitulum.**
- **★★ `Hebr. 1, 3. et Ioan. 1, 1. Ibid. 16, 13` (p. 261 n. 1) and `Ioan. 17, 3` (p. 261 n. 2) — SIX flagged `1`s in two entries, and each entry quotes what it cites, so every one of them checks itself.** Hebr. 1, 3 is `splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius` and Ioan. 1, 1 is `In principio erat Verbum` — together the anchor's `Splendor et Verbum`, in that order. Ioan. 16, 13 and Ioan. 17, 3 are both **transcribed in full in their own entries**, and both transcriptions match the Vulgate word for word.
- **★★ `c. 23. n. 22.`, `c. 32. n. 35.`, `d. 28. et 29.`, `d. 27. a. 2. q. 5.`, `d. 27. a. 1. q. 1-3. et dub. 1.` (p. 261 nn. 6–9, forwarded) — read on the band while establishing the register's total, and recorded in the hand-off above rather than left to be re-guessed.** `q. 1-3` sets a flagged `1` against a double-bowled `3` inside one hyphenated pair; `dub. 1.` is the same flagged sort. **They are forwarded as read, and `bon-brev-p5-c8` must still re-derive them.**
- **★★ SIGLA — `I K L V` (p. 260 n. 5), `O Q` (p. 260 n. 7), `E P W` (p. 260 n. 6), `E` (p. 260 n. 4), `S` (p. 260 n. 5), `A` (p. 261 n. 5), `Vat.` (p. 261 n. 3).** `I K L V` opens with a **SINGLE upright**, which is never `H`; the run is strictly alphabetical on that reading and on no other, and the raw's `I K. L V` preserves it. **`E P W` is the leaf's one novel siglum** — a genuine `W`, three strokes wide with the middle apex reaching the cap line, not two adjacent `V`s and not a flattened anything; it sits in alphabetical order after `P` and before the edition numeral. ★ **`Vat.` (p. 261 n. 3) is an ABBREVIATED codex name, not a siglum letter, and it stands in the witness slot immediately before two edition numerals — `Vat., 1 et 3`. A numeral in the witness slot is always an EDITION here, so `1 et 3` are editions and `Vat.` is a codex; the clause carries both kinds of witness, which is the fifth such clause in seven leaves.**
- **★ `E P W et 2` (p. 260 n. 6) and `2 cum nonnullis codd.` (p. 261 n. 5) and `Vat., 1 et 3` (p. 261 n. 3) — NUMERALS IN THE WITNESS SLOT, WHICH ARE ALWAYS EDITIONS HERE.** In n. 5 of p. 261 the edition `2` is named `cum nonnullis codd.` in its own clause, which states the distinction outright and is the cleanest attestation of the rule anywhere in Pars V.

**Preserved as printed, not harmonised.**
- **★★ THE TWO SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS IN p. 261's APPARATUS ARE SET ROMAN, NOT ITALIC — the reverse of p. 259 n. 2 two leaves back.** p. 261 n. 1 prints `Ibid. 16, 13: Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem.` and n. 2 prints `Ioan. 17, 3: Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum.` — both upright throughout, where p. 259 n. 2's `Et pax Dei, quae exsuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra` went italic in the identical slot. **Both are rendered as printed and the divergence is not closed.** ★ **Likewise p. 261 n. 4's `supple: veritate.` sets the supplied word ROMAN where the lemma `eadem` immediately before it is italic — a supplement is not a lemma, and the plate distinguishes them.**
- **★★ THE ITALIC ON THE NUMERALS IS DOCTRINAL, NOT DECORATIVE, AND THE PLATE IS CONSISTENT ABOUT IT — WHICH IS ITSELF THE FINDING, AFTER Cap. VI's THREE INCOMPATIBLE PRINCIPLES.** `*duodecim*` and `*quatuordecim*` are ITALIC at every point where the number is the thesis (`uno modo sunt *duodecim*`, `alio modo *quatuordecim*`, `in universo *quatuordecim*`, `componentes *duodecim* articuli dici possunt`) and ROMAN wherever the number merely counts objects (`in duodecim viris, qui duodecim lapides`). **Four italic and two roman, all in one capitulum, and the line between them holds every time.**
- **★★ THE TWO SEVENFOLD SERIES ARE NOT ITALICISED AT ALL — A FIFTH PRINCIPLE, AFTER Cap. VI's THREE AND Cap. V's ONE.** Only the head-terms carry italic (`*Divinitatem*`, `*humanitatem*`, `*tribus personis*`, `*quadriformi operatione*`, `*Divinitas*`, `*humanitas*`); the members themselves — `Patre generante, Filio genito et Spiritu sancto procedente`, and all seven `ut`-clauses of the humanity — are wholly ROMAN. ★ **And the italic breaks INSIDE the fourfold operation: `creatione in *esse* naturae, recreatione in *esse* gratiae` italicises `esse` twice, then `resuscitatione in reparatione vitae et glorificatione in collatione gloriae` sets its two members wholly roman with no italic anywhere.** **Two of the four members carry an italic word and two do not, in one four-member series, in one sentence. Follow the plate per paragraph; regularise nothing.**
- **★★ `secundum Apostolos` IS ROMAN IN THE BODY AND ITALIC IN THE APPARATUS.** p. 261's last paragraph prints `Et ideo secundum Apostolos componentes *duodecim* articuli dici possunt` with `secundum Apostolos` upright, while n. 5 quotes it as a lemma in italic (`Superius vocibus *secundum Apostolos* A interserit *duodecim*`). **That is the apparatus's own convention doing its job, not a divergence, and it is recorded so that no one later "repairs" the body to match the note.**
- **★★ THE `Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia` COLON — TWENTIETH consecutive attestation** (Pars III capp. IX–XI, Pars IV capp. I–X, Pars V capp. I–VII). It opens here on a **`cum … sit` period with a MID-SENTENCE PIVOT to a second `cum`-less clause** (`quia, cum primum principium in se ipso sit summe *verum* et *bonum*, in opere vero suo sit summe *iustum* et *misericors*; et summe *vero* debeatur…`), which is capp. I–III's and Cap. VI's plain causal `cum` shape carrying a four-member correlative tail — **a fifth shape in seven capitula, and the second repeat of the `cum … sit` frame.** ★ **Note also that the marginal gloss `Ratio.` marks it, which is the first time in Pars V the formula is glossed by name.**
- **★★ THE EM-DASH ARTICULATION FALLS TO TWO — A SIXTEENTH DISTINCT DISTRIBUTION, AND BOTH DASHES DO A JOB NEITHER HAS DONE BEFORE IN THIS PARS.** After Cap. VI's eleven, Cap. VII carries **two**, and **neither articulates a paragraph turn**. One marks the transition from the seven articles of the Divinity to the seven of the humanity (`— Similiter, quia Christi *humanitas*…`), which is the ordinary kind. **The other is a PAIR — a true parenthesis, the first in Pars V** (`vel ut est in natura assumta — nam in huius veritatis cognitione consistit et praemium patriae et meritum viae² — hinc est, quod…`), **and p. 261 n. 2's anchor sits INSIDE it.** ★ **A reader counting members from dashes would get one member from a fourteen-member chapter. Transcribed, never regularised, and never counted from members.**
- **`Deus`, `Dei`, `Christum`, `Christi`, `Christus`, `Iesum`, `Spiritus`, `Spiritum`, `Splendor`, `Verbum`, `Patre`, `Filio`, `Filius`, `Virgine`, `Trinitate`, `Scriptura`, `Scripturam`, `Scripturarum`, `Symboli`, `Symbolum`, `Apostolos`, `Apostolus`, `Apostolorum`, `Divinitatem`, `Divinitas`, `Iordanis`, `Sent.`, `Vat.` are capitalised as printed**, and `gratia`, `fides`, `fidei`, `articulus`, `articuli`, `humanitas`, `veritas`, `auctoritas`, `ratio`, `intellectus`, `testamentum` are not; the English follows. ★ **Note the deliberate asymmetry the plate keeps and this chunk keeps with it: `Divinitatem` / `Divinitas` capitalised at every occurrence, `humanitatem` / `humanitas` never — in the very sentence that sets the two in parallel.** `Iesum`, `Iordanis` and `iustum` keep the plate's `I`/`i` for consonantal *J*; `assumta` and `authenticam` stand as printed and are not normalised to `assumpta` / `autenticam`.

**★★ ENUMERATION — THE ARTICLES OF FAITH ARE COUNTED TWO WAYS AND THE PRIMARY COUNT IS FOURTEEN, NOT TWELVE. COUNT THE SERIES OFF THE PLATE.** The chapter states both counts in one sentence, in its opening thesis: `qui uno modo sunt *duodecim*, si habeatur respectus ad eos, qui Symbolum ediderunt, alio modo *quatuordecim*, si consideremus, quae radicaliter credenda sunt tanquam omnium credendorum fundamenta` — **twelve by respect to the twelve Apostles who issued the Creed, fourteen by what is radically to be believed.** ★ **And the body then EXPOUNDS the fourteen and only afterwards returns to the twelve**, which is the reverse of the order a reader expecting "the twelve articles of the Creed" would predict. The fourteen are built as **7 + 7**: seven of the *Divinitas*, themselves **3 + 4** (three persons — Father generating, Son begotten, Holy Spirit proceeding — plus a *quadriformis operatio*: creation in the being of nature, re-creation in the being of grace, resuscitation in the repair of life, glorification in the conferring of glory); and seven of the *humanitas*, an unpartitioned run of seven `ut`-clauses (conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin, suffering on the cross, descending into hell, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, coming to the final judgment), sealed by the figure of `septem stellarum et septem candelabrorum aureorum` from Apoc. 1. **The twelve are then re-derived on a different principle entirely — one Apostle, one article, one living stone — and figured by the twelve men and twelve stones of Josue 4.** ★★ **So a brief that says "this chapter enumerates the twelve articles of the Creed" is wrong about it in the same way the "eight beatitudes" brief was wrong about Cap. VI: the count Bonaventure argues for is fourteen, twelve is the secondary count, and the two rest on incompatible principles that the chapter never reconciles.** ★ **The apparatus knows it: n. 3 sends the reader to III *Sent.* d. 25 a. 1 q. 1 `ubi etiam de fine huius cap. (12 articulis)`, which is the parallel question on the number, and nn. 4–5 gather III *Sent.* dd. 23–25 for the whole doctrine.** ★ **Neither seven-member series is a list of nouns and neither is italicised — see the italic note above. There are no other enumerated series in the chapter; the opening `quatuor` division of the whole *exercitium* is a table of contents for capp. VII–X, not a series of this capitulum.**

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order). p. 260 L — "Thesis 1." p. 260 R — "Thesis 2." · "Ratio." · "Gratia ordinat ad 4 exercitia." · "Pro thesi 1." · "Notandum." · "Duo requiruntur ad credendum." p. 261 L — "Pro thesi 2." · "Articuli 14." · "Articuli 7 de Divinitate." · "Alii septem de humanitate." · "Una tamen fides." · "Vel articuli 12." **Thirteen glosses, and a SEVENTEENTH distinct form — TWO INTERLEAVED NUMBERED SERIES THAT ANSWER EACH OTHER ACROSS THE CAPITULUM.** ★ **Series A is `Thesis 1. / Thesis 2.` and Series B is `Pro thesi 1. / Pro thesi 2.` — the second series does not continue the first but ANSWERS it member for member, with `Thesis 1.` on p. 260's left column answered by `Pro thesi 1.` in p. 260's right and `Thesis 2.` in p. 260's right answered by `Pro thesi 2.` at the head of p. 261's left. The noun is kept in every member of both, unlike Cap. VI's Series A, which dropped it after the first.** ★★ **AND THE COUNTING GLOSSES SET THE SAME NUMBER TWO DIFFERENT WAYS IN ADJACENT MEMBERS: `Articuli 7 de Divinitate.` uses the arabic `7` and `Alii septem de humanitate.` — the very next gloss, annotating the parallel half of the same distinction — spells `septem` out.** Alongside them `Articuli 14.` and `Vel articuli 12.` both use arabic where the body spells `quatuordecim` and `duodecim` out, which is the same body/gloss divergence Cap. VI showed at `secundum 7 dona` and `per 6 gradus`. **Recorded as printed; nothing regularised.** **SIX consecutive capitula, SIX different gloss grammars. Never infer a capitulum's gloss form from its neighbour's.**

**No `[?]` flags.** Five readings could have carried one — the raw's `Apoc. 1, 12-10` for `12-16`, its `d. 23` for `d. 25` closing p. 261 n. 4, its `a. 2S.` for `d. 25.` in n. 3, its `\!i.`-class damage carried over into p. 260's left register, and its `nedifiaitionevi` for `aedificationem` — and each is settled positively on the band, by the flag-versus-open-top contrast built from the same line, by the alphabetical run and the grammatical slot, or by the cited text checking itself word for word against its anchor. The reasoning is recorded above in full rather than compressed into a flag.

**Raw-quality verdict, per page AND per region.** The bodies were re-set line-by-line from the bands; the raw was consulted only as a cross-check and is graded here for the next Pars V agent's benefit. ★ **The headline finding is a reversal of `p5-c6`'s: on these two leaves the raw is at its BEST in the bodies and at its worst in a footer, and there is no within-column swing on either page — the grade holds from a column's head to its foot on all four columns. That is not a return to normal; it is the fourth different distribution in four leaves.**
- **p. 260, left column (Cap. VII's portion only) — GOOD.** `considcranda`, `C.\p. VII.`, `De e.tercitio graliae respcctu credendorum.` (the heading shattered, as usual), `(juan-tum ad exercitia nwritorum`, `El circii liaec cofiside-randa`, `1'rimo, de exercilatione`, `cuiusinodi sunt articuli lidei`, `seeundo`, `spectant atf`, `cxsequendis`, `doininicae^`, `De arliculis autein fidei`, `TLosis 1.` (the gloss `Thesis 1.` spliced into the body line), `per fidein astringamur credere plurima.` (**the terminal comma read as a PERIOD — the one defect in this column that would have parsed clean, and it falls exactly at the gutter crossing**). **About sixteen garbles in twelve printed lines, NO word destroyed, ONE gloss spliced but recoverable, and ONE punctuation mark wrong.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity LOW — except for the comma-for-period at `plurima,`, which is the region's only defect that no checker could catch, and which would have made a fragment read as a finished sentence at precisely the place a boundary might be misread. The band was read at high zoom to settle it.**
- **p. 260, right column — GOOD.** `generalitcr`, `alferunlur iii canone`, `specialilcr tamen et [iroprie`, `niesis 2.` (gloss spliced), `ilh qui continenlur`, `siinl duodccim, si haliealur`, `Symltolum edideiunt, aiio niodo`, `considcreinus`, `lanquain omiiium credendorum '`, `menla ^`, `Ralio auleni a«l intelligentiam inaedictorum`, `naiio.` (gloss spliced), `priinum`, `sumnie verum et honum`, `sumine iustum`, `c.raiia or- / cxorciua.` (the gloss `Gratia ordinat ad 4 exercitia.` shattered and split across two lines), `suinme iu-Uo universalis"`, `sumine niiseri-cordi`, `meii-tis`, `priini princi[)ii culturain debitara`, `quod ipsi dirigit` (**`ipsa` read as `ipsi` — a real wrong reading that parses**), `ineri-toria excrcitia`, `crcdcnilis`, `postiUandis`, `requiril sunlma verilas`, `Iwiiitas, iuslilia`, `beatu`, `veritali`, `Pro ihcsi i.` (gloss spliced, `1` read as a ROMAN), `iiKigis credeiiduiii`, `jjcr consequens`, `inlinitum`, `oiiini verilate`, `intcllectiis noslri`, `lioc`, `inlellectus nosler rectesit` (space lost), `iiatus`, `neces.se`, `credal`, `obse(juiuni Christi'`, `ac \ki' Ikjc, i|uod` (**destroyed**), `NoiaQdum.` (gloss spliced), `.wcundum rationim`, `siipra ralioowm et conira sensuum`, `experienliam`, `cxliibet-summae` (hyphen inserted for a space), `debitam`, `indiislriae`, `pro[)riae [iraefert`, `abs(|ue`, `elalionis`, `fiursus, quia veiit;is`, `duo requi- / runlur ad / crcdendum.` (gloss shattered across three lines and spliced into the body), `veiilas non visa nec a[ii)arcns`, `m;igi& occulta`, `ditlicillima`, `crai;itui^` (**`credatur` destroyed**), `illustrar-lio veritalis`, `tcslificalio auctorilatis`, `(irmans`, `Primuin flt`, `Scripluram authenticam`, `quaruin utr;ique`. **About sixty garbles in forty-two printed lines, ONE word destroyed, FIVE glosses spliced (two of them shattered), and ONE wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity LOW-to-MODERATE — but note `quod ipsi dirigit` for `quod ipsa dirigit`: a one-letter substitution that yields a real Latin word in a real case, changes the subject of the sentence, and would have passed every audit. It is the same class as Vol IV's `ad finum`/`ad finem` and it is caught only by the band.**
- **p. 261, left column — GOOD, and the cleanest column of the two pages.** `pcr lcsuin Christuin, i|ui osl Splciiildr ol NiTlnim '`, `[)i'v S|)ii'ituni sarictuiii`, `veritatcin osteiulit`, `(locel et niliiloiniiius r,re<lei'e focit`, `Ilinc est`, `auctvrilas prachet fiilriinentuin lidei`, `fides as.-^en-tit aiirloritati`, `VA qiiia aiirloritas |iriMri[)alitei' resi-det`, `Scrijitura`, `[ter S|)iritiiiii saijrliiiii`, `condita loUi ad (iirii,'endain lideiii catliolirani`, `iiinr est`, `Scri[)tui'a noii dissonat`, `assciitit assensione noii (icta`, `1'oslremo`, `rredendam ai-`, `pfo thesi 2.` and `.vriicuii II.` (**both glosses spliced, and `Articuli 14.` read as a ROMAN `II`** — the `1`/`I` confusion running in the direction it ran on p. 259 n. 8), `[ler (idcm`, `Srri|)tui'a agit`, `[)rinci[ialitcr, noii est veritas quaecumque, se<l vcritas`, `nalura pro[)ria`, `assnmta`, `huius Yerit;ilis`, `ronsistit et praemiiiin [latriae et merituiii viae ^`, `ArticniiTikhiuc est` (**the gloss `Articuli 7 de Divinitate.` collided with `hinc` and both destroyed**), `siint (idei funda-nienta`, `sjiectant ad Diuinitalciii` (**`Divinitatem` set with a `u` for `v`, twice**), `atl lumia-nilalem`, `Diuinitas hahet`, `Iribii.s /»ey'A'om.s' /` (**`tribus personis` DESTROYED**), `l'atre gcnerante`, `iiitoet Spiritu` (space lost), `[jrocedente`, `ralione`, `scilicct creatione iii esse nalurae`, `iii csse gratiae`, `resiiscitatione in rcparatione`, `gloriac`, `artiruli spectantes ad Divinitalem siint septein`, `Aiusepicm / uie. '°"''"""` (**the gloss `Alii septem de humanitate.` shattered**), `inilitcr`, `Chrisli humaniUts haliet ronsiderari`, `ronrepta`, `desrendens ad inferiniun` (**`infernum` destroyed**), `morle`, `tiiruli humunilatis`, `iiualvordecim` (**`quatuordecim` destroyed**), `scptein stellarum`, `candelahro-ruiii aureorum`, `ambulahat^`, `diviria na-` (**`divina` destroyed**), `rjw uiDen / " "'` (**the gloss `Una tamen fides.` shattered**), `sumina`, `cst ratio credendi`, `omnihus`, `inutata`, `hcet magis clara`, `piaccesserunt`, `stamcntiim`, `nrticuh rontinentur *`, `12."^°'` (**the gloss `Vel articuli 12.` shattered**), `conlentos in unum rbmpegit`. **About seventy garbles in fifty-four printed lines, SIX words destroyed, and SIX of the six glosses damaged — five of them destroyed outright.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity MODERATE, and the damage is CONCENTRATED IN THE GLOSSES: every one of p. 261's six marginal glosses is unrecoverable from the raw, while the body loses only six words and every one of those is recoverable from context. A chunk built from the raw would have had a clean-looking body and NO marginalia list at all — which is the shape that reads as complete.** ★ **And note `Diuinitalciii` / `Diuinitas`: the raw sets `u` for `v` in the one word this chapter capitalises deliberately, twice, in adjacent lines.**
- **p. 261, right column (Cap. VII's portion only) — GOOD.** `[)er duoderiin ;V[)oslolos tanqiiam per tcstes (irmissi-inos`, `jiinr est`, `|)raedirti arliruli`, `Sym-holiim .\iM)stol()iuin colierti fiieriint`, `Et ideo secuii-duin Aiiostolos roini)Oiient(;s diwdecim articuli diri`, `[Kissunt, ([iiia (juiiihet A[)oslolus`, `aedilirationem (idei`, `[losiiit uiiiiii artiriiluni quasi lai)id(,'in imuiii vivum`, `Spiritus .sanrlns recte [iracfiguravil in duoilecim`, `qui duodeciin lapides de lordanis alveo exlra-xeriint`, `doininicuin con.struendiim ''`. **About eighteen garbles in ten printed lines, NO word destroyed, NO gloss present.** ★ **Density HIGH, severity LOW — every garble is a bracket-for-letter substitution and every word is recoverable, including `lordanis` for `Iordanis`, which is the chronic raw `l`-for-`I` and is settled by the Josue citation in n. 5.**
- **p. 260 footer, right block (n. 3's runover, then nn. 4–7; only nn. 4–7 are this chunk's) — FAIR.** `Dc liis qualuor agitur in hoc et 3 scqq. capp.`, `Su-pcrius pro articuli E illa quae spectanl ad arliculum.`, `Clr. III. Senl. d. 23-25.`, `Supcriiis prop/Mciwd I K. L V` (**`pro plurima` DESTROYED and closed up**), `plura`, `pro dicunlur S fitiU dicendi` (**`sunt` DESTROYED**), `|)ro ediderunt L cond-iitcrimt` (**`condiderunt` DESTROYED**), `E P \\' cl 2 liumitis` (**`W` set as two backslashes and `humilis` DESTROYED**), `Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5. Cfr. supra pag. 52, nola 7.`, `Aiile redigat M addit totam` (**`totum` read as `totam` — a real wrong reading that parses**), `pro improbumtiic 0 (J` (**`improbandae O Q` DESTROYED**), `imjirobiiate (plurcs codd. improbaiae)`. **About sixteen garbles in nine printed lines, FIVE items destroyed and ONE wrong reading that reaches the text.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and note that the four citations in this block (`3 seqq.`, `d. 23-25`, `II. Cor. 10, 5`, `pag. 52, nota 7`) all survive the raw intact while five of its LEMMATA are destroyed. On these leaves the raw fails the apparatus's variants, not its references — the exact reverse of p. 259's footer, which failed the references.**
- **p. 261 footer, left block (nn. 1–5, all this chunk's) — POOR, and the worst region on the two pages.** `ClV. llL'ljr. 1 , 3. et loan. 1 , I.` (**the second `Ioan. 1` read as a ROMAN `I`**), `lljid. 16, 13:`, `Cuin autcm \onci'il illc Spirilus verilalis, docebit vos onmcm vcritatem.`, `loan. 17, 3;` (**the colon read as a SEMICOLON**), `llnec cst aulijm vita aeterna, ut cogrioscant`, `lc soUim IJciiin \ cruni`, `qucm misisli Icsiim Clirislum.`, `Apoc. 1, 12-10.` (**`16` DESTROYED**), `Cfr. III. Scnt. a. 2S. a. 1. r|. 1` (**`d. 25.` DESTROYED and read as `a. 2S.`**), `iibi ctiam ile finc liiiiis cap. (12 arliciilis).`, `Snperius pro Immnnilatis`, `Vat., 1 ct 3 specUinles nd hinmnUakm.`, `Cfr. 111. Scnl. (I. 23. a. 1. q. 3; d. 24. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 23.` (**`d. 25` read as `d. 23` — the leaf's one dangerous error**), `a. \. q. 1. seqi].`, `Siipcrius post enilem siipplc ; vcrilale.` (the colon again read as a semicolon), `los. 4, 2. scqq.` (**`Ios.` read as `los.`**), `Supeiiiis \oriljus scrundum Aposto-los A inteiseril duoilccmi`, `nedifiaitionevi 2 ciim non-nullig coclil. subsliliiit aedificnlione.` (**`aedificationem` DESTROYED**). **About twenty garbles in fourteen printed lines, THREE items destroyed, FOUR wrong readings that reach the text and TWO punctuation marks wrong.** ★ **Density MODERATE, severity HIGH — and `d. 23` for `d. 25` is the one defect on these two pages that no checker could catch: `III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1.` is a well-formed citation of a question that exists, standing at the end of a list whose two previous members the raw got right. It is caught only by reading the `5` against the `3` eleven characters to its left on the same line, and by noticing that the list would then repeat itself.**
- **p. 261 footer, right block (nn. 6–9, none of them this chunk's) — read to its last line to establish the register's total of NINE and to close the gutter test; not graded here beyond noting that it opens NUMBERED at n. 6 and ends complete at n. 9 with clear paper below.**