title: Dist. 44, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 1012 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum religiosi teneantur praelatis suis obedire in omnibus, quae non sunt contra Deum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum religiosi teneantur praelatis suis obedire in omnibus, quae non sunt contra Deum. Et quod sic, videtur:

**Ad oppositum.**
1. *Primo* auctoritate Domini, Matthaei vigesimo tertio[^1]: *Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribae et Pharisaei; quae dicunt vobis facite:* ergo si Dominus sine distinctione mandat, quod facienda sunt quae dicunt, etiam de malis praelatis; videtur, quod in omnibus obediendum est eis. Si tu dicas, quod non intelligitur nisi de illis quae dicunt, et ad quae homo tenetur per mandatum legis; contra hoc est, quia alibi[^2] dicit Dominus: *Qui vos audit me audit, et qui vos spernit me spernit:* ergo si Deus in omnibus est audiendus et in nullo spernendus, videtur, quod praelatis a Deo institutis[^3] a suis subditis debeat in omnibus obediri.

2. Item, ad Colossenses tertio[^4]: *Filii, obedite parentibus vestris per omnia;* ergo si filii carnales parentibus carnalibus debent per omnia obedire, et non debent minus esse obedientes filii spirituales patribus spiritualibus, quam carnales carnalibus: ergo religiosi debent suis praelatis in omnibus obedire.

3. Item, beatus Benedictus in regula sua[^5]: « Si <!-- page 1013 --> praecipit praelatus impossibile, tentandum est facere »: ergo si in impossibilibus obediendum est ei, multo fortius in possibilibus: ergo in omnibus.

4. Item, Hieronymus ad Rusticum[^6]: « Praepositum monasterii timeas ut dominum, diligas ut patrem, credas quidquid dixerit salutare, nec maiorum iudices sententiam, cuius est officium obedire et iussa implere, dicente Moyse: *Audi, Israel, et tace* ».

5. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore: « Obedientia est virtus, quae omnia amplectitur iniuncta necessario implenda, nisi obstiterit imperantis auctoritas[^7] »: ergo videtur, quod si non obedit in omnibus, non habet veram obedientiam: ergo si tenetur habere veram obedientiam, tenetur in omnibus obedire.

6. Item, videtur ratione. Sicut homo vovet paupertatem et continentiam, sic vovet obedientiam; sed qui vovet continentiam tenetur abstinere ab omni coitu, et qui vovet paupertatem tenetur renuntiare omnibus temporalibus: ergo qui vovet obedientiam tenetur obedire in omnibus, quae sibi iniunguntur. Ergo sicut aliquis iudicatur proprietarius, si unam solam pictam[^8] habeat; sic debet iudicari inobediens, si unum solum praelati verbum pertranseat: ergo tenetur ei obedire in omnibus.

**Fundamenta.**
**Sed contra:** 1. Actuum quinto[^9]: *Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus:* ergo in aliquibus tenemur obedire Deo, in quibus non tenemur obedire hominibus: ergo videtur, quod non teneamur obedire praelato in omnibus.

2. Item, Bernardus in libro de Dispensatione et praecepto[^10]: « Subditus nec citra promissum est inhibendus nec ultra cogendus per legem obedientiae »: ergo si aliquis praelatus praecipiat ei ultra illud quod promisit, non videtur, quod teneatur ei obedire.

3. Item, perfectio religionis maxime consistit in perfectione obedientiae: ergo si omnes religiosi tenerentur in omnibus obedire, omnes religiones essent aequalis perfectionis. Quodsi hoc est plane falsum: ergo etc.

4. Item, religiosus non tenetur obedire praelato suo nisi per legem voti; sed per legem voti non tenetur homo solvere nisi illud quod vovit spontanee: ergo videtur, quod praelatus non possit ab eo exigere nisi illud quod promisit observare.

### Conclusio

> Secundum necessariam obligationem obedientia religiosorum habet terminum et mensuram iuxta magnitudinem voti emissi, licet sanum sit consilium, quod in omnibus obediant, quae non sunt contra Deum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliter loquendum est de obedientia exhibenda praelato a subdito religioso secundum obedientiae perfectionem, aliter secundum necessitatis obligationem. Si loquamur de ipsa secundum perfectionem, sic dicendum est, quod sicut dicit Bernardus[^11], « perfecta obedientia finem nescit », et perfectus obediens non solum in his quae mandat, sed etiam supra ea quae mandat, promptum habet affectum ad subiacendum praecepto praelati, desiderans illum imitari, qui *humilians se ipsum, factus est obediens Patri usque ad mortem*[^12]. — Si autem loquamur de obedientia secundum necessariam obligationem, sic habet terminum et mensuram iuxta magnitudinem voti emissi. Non enim amplius tenentur obedire suis praelatis, nisi in his « quae promiserunt Domino observare et quae non sunt contraria animae et regulae suae[^13] ». Unde si praelatus aliquid praecipiat quod sit supra votum, subditus non tenetur ad illud implendum. — Et ideo concedendum est, quod religiosi non tenentur praelatis suis obedire in omnibus, licet sanum sit consilium, quod in omnibus obediant, quae non sunt contra Deum. Unde rationes, quae ad secundam partem inducuntur, concedendae sunt, quia verum concludunt.

**Solutio oppositorum.**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod obediendum est in omnibus his qui sedent in cathedra; verum est de his quae ad cathedram spectant, et de praeceptis legis; de aliis autem non mandat. — Et quod obiicit, quod ipse Dominus dicit: *Qui vos audit* etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quod loquitur de his quae Apostoli et eorum successores mandant ex persona Christi et etiam ex auctoritate sibi data; in nullo tamen, quod <!-- page 1014 --> dicunt, eorum auctoritas est spernenda. **Notandum.** Unde quamvis non teneamur praelatis in omnibus obedire, tenemur tamen nullum mandatum eorum spernere. Unde dicitur in Iure[^14], quod « sententia pastoris, sive iusta sive iniusta, timenda est ».

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de verbo Apostoli: *Filii, obedite per omnia parentibus;* dicendum, quod si intelligatur de his quae spectant ad mandatum divinum, praeceptum est; de aliis autem monitio est, non praeceptum.

*Ad 3, 4, 5.* Ad illud verbum beati Benedicti et Hieronymi et Hugonis dicendum est, quod non loquuntur de obedientia secundum obligationem necessitatis, sed secundum perfectionem caritatis[^15].

*Ad 6.* **Differt votum obedientiae ab aliis.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut vovet homo paupertatem et continentiam, ita vovet obedientiam; dicendum, quod sic, et non sic. Sic quidem in hoc, quod aufert sibi propriae voluntatis dominium. Non sic autem, quia non arctat se ad faciendum omnia, quae sibi fuerint imperata[^16], sed ad faciendum ea quae in regula expressa sunt. Et quoniam in omni religione perfectionis simpliciter continetur renuntiatio quantum ad opus carnis, et quantum ad opus proprietatis vel in speciali, vel in communi, non sic autem praecipiuntur omnia, quae possunt praecipi; ideo non sic arctatur ad obediendum in omnibus, sicut ad renuntiandum omnibus. — **Ratio notabilis.** Ratio autem huius est, quia possibile est alicui renuntiare proprietati et etiam satis facile, maxime ubi est possessio habita in communi; sed obtemperare omnibus quae dicuntur, hoc non tantum est non facile, immo etiam impossibile. Et ideo fines ponuntur promissioni obedientiae; non sic ponuntur promissioni paupertatis, vel etiam castitatis. **Regula S. Francisci.** Unde in regula[^17] beati Francisci simpliciter praecipitur, quod illius regulae professores nihil omnino habeant proprium super terram; simpliciter etiam praecipitur perpetuo continere non solum ab actu, sed etiam abstinere a suspecto consortio et consilio mulierum[^18]; sed non simpliciter praecipitur fratribus suis praelatis in omnibus obedire, sed « in omnibus quae promiserunt Domino observare, et non sunt contraria animae et regulae suae[^19] ». Nescio, si ad aliquod istorum votorum quisquam sciat plus addere. In hoc igitur perfectionis culmine congruum est praedictae quaestionis terminare sermonem[^20].

english:
### Question II. *Whether religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things which are not against God.*

Secondly it is asked, whether religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things which are not against God. And that they are, it seems:

**To the contrary.**
1. *First*, by the authority of the Lord, *Matthew*, chapter twenty-three[^1]: *Upon the chair of Moses have sat the Scribes and Pharisees; what they say to you, do:* therefore if the Lord commands without distinction that the things which they say are to be done, even of evil prelates, it seems that they are to be obeyed in all things. If you should say that it is understood only of those things which they say, and to which a man is bound by the precept of the law; against this is the fact that elsewhere[^2] the Lord says: *He who hears you hears me, and he who spurns you spurns me:* therefore if God is in all things to be heard and in nothing to be spurned, it seems that prelates appointed by God[^3] ought to be obeyed by their subjects in all things.

2. Likewise, to the *Colossians*, chapter three[^4]: *Children, obey your parents in all things;* therefore if carnal children ought to obey their carnal parents in all things, and spiritual children ought not to be less obedient to their spiritual fathers than carnal children to their carnal parents: therefore religious ought to obey their prelates in all things.

3. Likewise, blessed Benedict in his rule[^5]: « If a prelate enjoin the impossible, one must try to do it »: therefore if one must obey him in impossible things, much more in possible things: therefore in all things.

4. Likewise, Jerome to Rusticus[^6]: « Fear the prior of the monastery as a lord, love him as a father, believe whatever he says to be salutary, and do not judge the judgment of your superiors, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill what is commanded, Moses saying: *Hear, O Israel, and be silent* ».

5. Likewise, Hugh of Saint Victor: « Obedience is a virtue which embraces all enjoined things as necessarily to be fulfilled, unless the authority of the one commanding stand in the way[^7] »: therefore it seems that if one does not obey in all things, he does not have true obedience: therefore if he is bound to have true obedience, he is bound to obey in all things.

6. Likewise, it seems by reason. As a man vows poverty and continence, so he vows obedience; but he who vows continence is bound to abstain from all intercourse, and he who vows poverty is bound to renounce all temporal things: therefore he who vows obedience is bound to obey in all things which are enjoined upon him. Therefore as someone is judged a proprietor if he have but a single *picta* [a small coin][^8]; so he ought to be judged disobedient if he pass over but a single word of the prelate: therefore he is bound to obey him in all things.

**The fundamental arguments.**
**On the contrary:** 1. *Acts*, chapter five[^9]: *One must obey God rather than men:* therefore in some things we are bound to obey God, in which we are not bound to obey men: therefore it seems that we are not bound to obey the prelate in all things.

2. Likewise, Bernard in the book *On Dispensation and Precept*[^10]: « The subject is neither to be restrained short of what was promised, nor to be compelled beyond it by the law of obedience »: therefore if some prelate command him beyond that which he promised, it does not seem that he is bound to obey him.

3. Likewise, the perfection of the religious life consists chiefly in the perfection of obedience: therefore if all religious were bound to obey in all things, all religious orders would be of equal perfection. But if this is plainly false: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a religious is not bound to obey his prelate except by the law of the vow; but by the law of the vow a man is not bound to discharge anything except what he vowed spontaneously: therefore it seems that the prelate cannot exact from him anything except what he promised to observe.

### Conclusion

> According to necessary obligation, the obedience of religious has its term and measure according to the magnitude of the vow made, although it is sound counsel that they obey in all things which are not against God.

**I respond:** It must be said that one must speak otherwise of the obedience to be shown to a prelate by a religious subject according to the *perfection* of obedience, and otherwise according to the *obligation* of necessity. If we speak of it according to perfection, then it must be said that, as Bernard says[^11], « perfect obedience knows no end », and the perfect obedient one has a ready disposition to submit to the precept of the prelate not only in those things which he commands, but even beyond those things which he commands, desiring to imitate him who, *humbling himself, became obedient to the Father unto death*[^12]. — But if we speak of obedience according to necessary obligation, then it has its term and measure according to the magnitude of the vow made. For they are not bound to obey their prelates further than in those things « which they promised the Lord to observe and which are not contrary to the soul and to their rule[^13] ». Whence if the prelate command something which is beyond the vow, the subject is not bound to fulfill it. — And therefore it must be granted that religious are not bound to obey their prelates in all things, although it is sound counsel that they obey in all things which are not against God. Whence the arguments which are adduced for the second part are to be granted, because they conclude truly.

**Solution of the contrary arguments.**
*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that one must obey in all things those who sit in the chair; it is true of those things which pertain to the chair, and of the precepts of the law; but of other things he does not command. — And as to what it objects, that the Lord himself says: *He who hears you* etc.; it must be said that it is true, that he speaks of those things which the Apostles and their successors command from the person of Christ and also from the authority given to them; yet in nothing that they say is their authority to be spurned. **Note.** Whence, although we are not bound to obey prelates in all things, we are nonetheless bound to spurn no command of theirs. Whence it is said in the *Law*[^14], that « the sentence of the shepherd, whether just or unjust, is to be feared ».

*To 2.* To that which is objected from the word of the Apostle: *Children, obey your parents in all things;* it must be said that if it be understood of those things which pertain to the divine command, it is a precept; but of other things it is an admonition, not a precept.

*To 3, 4, 5.* To that word of blessed Benedict and of Jerome and of Hugh it must be said that they do not speak of obedience according to the obligation of necessity, but according to the perfection of charity[^15].

*To 6.* **The vow of obedience differs from the others.** To that which is objected, that as a man vows poverty and continence, so he vows obedience; it must be said that it is so, and it is not so. So indeed in this, that he takes away from himself the dominion of his own will. But not so, because he does not bind himself to do all things which may be commanded him[^16], but to do those things which are expressed in the rule. And since in every religious order of perfection there is contained simply a renunciation as to the work of the flesh, and as to the work of property whether in particular or in common, but not all things which can be commanded are thus commanded; therefore he is not thus bound to obey in all things, as to renounce all things. — **A notable reason.** Now the reason for this is that it is possible for someone to renounce property and even quite easily, especially where there is a possession held in common; but to comply with all things which are said, this is not only not easy, but even impossible. And therefore limits are set to the promise of obedience; they are not thus set to the promise of poverty, or even of chastity. **The Rule of St. Francis.** Whence in the rule[^17] of blessed Francis it is simply commanded that the professors of that rule have nothing at all of their own upon the earth; it is also simply commanded to be continent perpetually not only from the act, but even to abstain from suspect company and counsel of women[^18]; but it is not simply commanded to obey their prelates in all things, but « in all things which they promised the Lord to observe, and are not contrary to the soul and to their rule[^19] ». I know not whether anyone could know how to add anything to any of these vows. On this peak of perfection, therefore, it is fitting to end the discourse of the aforesaid question[^20].

la: Vers. 2. seq., qui locus in Vulgata sic sonat: *Super... Pharisaei. Omnia ergo quaecumque dixerint vobis, servate et facite.*

en: Verse 2 ff., which passage in the Vulgate runs thus: *Upon... the Pharisees. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do.* [Matthew 23:2–3; the marker stands at *Matthaei vigesimo tertio*.]

la: Luc. 10, 16. — In fine arg. non pauci codd. cum edd. … [the variant reading is not preserved in any available source — see Notes].

en: Luke 10, 16. — At the end of the argument not a few codices, together with the editions, … [the cited variant cannot be recovered; the note overflows the column foot and its tail is absent from both the printed plate and the IA OCR]. [The marker stands at *alibi* (*Qui vos audit me audit*).]

la: 1, 2 lectionem *praelatis a Deo institutis* perperam commutarunt in *praelatus a Deo institutus*; in Vat. et edd. 3, 4 legitur *praelato a Deo instituto*.

en: [Editions] 1, 2 wrongly changed the reading *praelatis a Deo institutis* [to prelates appointed by God] into *praelatus a Deo institutus* [a prelate appointed by God]; in the Vatican and editions 3, 4 is read *praelato a Deo instituto* [to a prelate appointed by God]. [Keyed to the lemma *praelatis a Deo institutis*; no inline superscript in the print.]

la: Vers. 20. A Vulgata abest *vestris*. — Paulo inferius pro *patribus spiritualibus* plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *praelatis spiritualibus*, cod. ee *parentibus spiritualibus*.

en: Verse 20. From the Vulgate *vestris* [your] is absent. — A little below, for *patribus spiritualibus* [spiritual fathers] very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *praelatis spiritualibus* [spiritual prelates], codex ee *parentibus spiritualibus* [spiritual parents]. [Colossians 3:20.]

la: Cap. 68. — Vocula *ei*, quae habetur paulo inferius, deest in codd. F (T a secunda manu) bb; codd. K T (a prima manu) V W Z ee et edd. 1, 2 pro *ei* substituunt *Deo*.

en: Chapter 68. — The little word *ei* [to him], which is found a little below, is absent in codices F (T by a second hand) bb; codices K T (by a first hand) V W Z ee and editions 1, 2 substitute *Deo* [to God] for *ei*. [Benedict, Rule c. 68.]

la: Epist. 123, n. 13: *Praepositum monasterii timens ut dominum, diligas ut parentem. Credas tibi salutare quidquid ille praeceperit; nec de maiorum sententia iudices, cuius officii est obedire et implere quae iussa sunt, dicente Moyse: Audi, Israel, et tace* [Deut. 27, 9, iuxta Septuaginta interpretes; in Vulgata legitur: *Attende et audi, Israel*]. — Pro *maiorum iudices* Vat. et edd. 3, 4 *maioris iudicet*.

en: Letter 123, n. 13: *Fearing the prior of the monastery as a lord, love him as a parent. Believe whatever he commands to be salutary for you; and do not judge concerning the judgment of your superiors, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill what is commanded, Moses saying: Hear, O Israel, and be silent* [Deut. 27, 9, according to the Septuagint translators; in the Vulgate is read: *Attend and hear, O Israel*]. — For *maiorum iudices* the Vatican and editions 3, 4 [read] *maioris iudicet*.

la: Haec definitio habetur in libro, cui titulus: Tractatus de statu virtutum (inter opera Bernardi), p. II, n. 20: *Est ergo obedientia virtus, qua homo, propria voluntate postposita, animo amplectitur iniuncta opere implenda, nisi obstiterit causa invincibilis, vel praelati auctoritas idem prohibens, quod iniunxerat.* — De Hugone cfr. eius Expos. in Regul. S. Augustini.

en: This definition is found in the book entitled *Treatise on the State of the Virtues* (among the works of Bernard), p. II, n. 20: *Obedience therefore is a virtue by which a man, his own will set aside, embraces in mind the enjoined things as to be fulfilled in deed, unless an invincible cause stand in the way, or the authority of the prelate forbidding the same thing which it had enjoined.* — Concerning Hugh, cf. his *Exposition on the Rule of St. Augustine*.

la: *Picta* idem est ac *pictura*; vide Du Cange, Glossarium etc. Pro *unam solam pictam* (codd. W Y Lb *picturam*) Vat. et edd. 3, 4 substituerunt *unum solum punctum*.

en: *Picta* is the same as *pictura* [a small coin]; see Du Cange, *Glossary* etc. For *unam solam pictam* (codices W Y Lb *picturam*) the Vatican and editions 3, 4 substituted *unum solum punctum* [a single point/jot].

la: Vers. 29.

en: Chapter 3, n. 11.

la: Libr. de Praecepto et dispens. c. 6, n. 12: *Nam perfecta obedientia legem nescit, terminis non arctatur.*

en: Book *On Precept and Dispensation*, c. 6, n. 12: *For perfect obedience knows no law, it is not confined by limits.*

la: Philipp. 2, 8.

en: Philippians 2, 8.

la: Ut legitur in Regula Fratrum Minorum, c. 10.

en: As is read in the Rule of the Friars Minor, c. 10.

la: Scil. canonico I, XI, q. 3. Sententia sumta est ex Gregor., II. in Evang. homil. 26, n. 6: *Sed utrum iuste, an iniuste obliget pastor, pastoris tamen sententia gregi timenda est, ne is qui subest, et cum iniuste forsitan ligatur, ipsam obligationis suae sententiam ex alia culpa mereatur.* — Pro *timenda est* edd. 1, 2 cum paucis codd. *tenenda est*.

en: Namely the canon I, XI, q. 3. The sentence is taken from Gregory, II *on the Gospels*, homily 26, n. 6: *But whether the shepherd bind justly or unjustly, nonetheless the sentence of the shepherd is to be feared by the flock, lest he who is subject, even when perhaps he is bound unjustly, deserve the very sentence of his binding from another fault.* — For *timenda est* [is to be feared] editions 1, 2 with a few codices [read] *tenenda est* [is to be held].

la: Bernard., de Praecepto et dispens. c. 6, n. 12: *Neque contenta [obedientia perfecta] angustiis professionis, largiori voluntate fertur in latitudinem caritatis.*

en: Bernard, *On Precept and Dispensation*, c. 6, n. 12: *Nor [is perfect obedience] content with the straits of the profession, [but] is borne by a more generous will into the breadth of charity.*

la: In edd. et cod. cc desunt verba *omnia quae sibi fuerint imperata, sed ad faciendum*, et legitur ibi: *non arctat se ad faciendum nisi ea quae in regula* etc. Paulo inferius pro *proprietatis* cod. T primitus exhibebat (cum plurimis aliis codd.) *perfectionis*, quam lectionem falsam postea secunda manus emendavit in *possessionis*; cod. D pro *proprietatis* substituit *perfectae abrenuntiationis*, cod. O *professionis*, cod. W *paupertatis*.

en: In the editions and codex cc the words *omnia quae sibi fuerint imperata, sed ad faciendum* [all things which may be commanded him, but to do] are lacking, and there is read: *he does not bind himself to do anything except those things which [are] in the rule* etc. A little below, for *proprietatis* [of property] codex T originally exhibited (with very many other codices) *perfectionis* [of perfection], which false reading a second hand afterward emended into *possessionis* [of possession]; codex D substituted for *proprietatis* *perfectae abrenuntiationis* [of perfect renunciation], codex O *professionis* [of profession], codex W *paupertatis* [of poverty].

la: Cap. 1: *Fratres nihil sibi approprient, nec domum nec locum nec aliquam rem, sed tanquam peregrini et advenae in hoc saeculo* etc.

en: Chapter 1: *Let the brothers appropriate nothing to themselves, neither house nor place nor any thing, but as pilgrims and strangers in this world* etc.

en: Chapter 11.

en: Chapter 10.

la: Vat. et edd. 3, 4 his verbis annectunt quae infra habentur in fine dubiorum a verbis: *Si cui autem aliter videtur et fortasse melius.* Post quae verba addunt *in huius quaestionis determinatione*, aliaque aliquatenus mutant.

en: The Vatican and editions 3, 4 to these words annex what is found below at the end of the doubts, from the words: *But if to anyone it seems otherwise and perhaps better.* After which words they add *in the determination of this question*, and change some other things somewhat.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quod religiosus praelato praecipienti contra ius divinum vel naturale, aut contra certum mandatum superioris praelati, vel etiam regulae (scil. in iis, in quibus inferior praelatus non potest dispensare), non teneatur obedire, hoc per se manifestum est. Item patet, quod perfectio obedientiae, quam cum S. Benedicto omnes Ordinum fundatores maxime commendant, non sibi ponit alios limites, nisi excludendo ea « quae sunt contra Deum, aut contra professionem regulae » (S. Thom., S. II–II, q. 104, a. 5, ad 3). Triplicem namque S. Thom. (ibid. et hic q. 2, a. 2) distinguit obedientiam: *indiscretam* (quae nec obedientia dici debeat, cum obediat etiam contra Deum), *imperfectam, sed sufficientem* (quam vocat S. Bonav. secundum necessitatis obligationem) et *perfectam*. Loquendo igitur de obedientia *obligatoria*, communiter tenetur et hic ad 6 probatur, quosdam terminos poni obedientiae *ab ipsa regula*. Attamen S. Thom. (hic q. 2, a. 3) duas refert opiniones, quarum *una* docet, quod subditi professi « ex *necessitate* tenentur obedire praelatis suis non solum in his quae ad regulam pertinent, sed in omnibus, quae regulae non contrariantur, sive sint *indifferentia*, sive de numero *bonorum*, dummodo non sint altiora quam professio proprii Ordinis requirit; sed ad aequalia, vel faciliora cogere potest, etiamsi secundum praecepta regulae non sunt ». Ipse autem S. Doctor dicit, longe meliorem esse *alteram* opinionem, quae vult, quod solum in his quae ad regulam pertinent, vel directe vel indirecte, *debitum* obedientiae imponatur. Pro quo hanc affert rationem, quod « ad illa tantummodo ex obedientiae voto subditus obligatur, ad quae praelatio est ordinata. Ad hoc autem praelationes in Religionibus ordinantur, ut status Religionis secundum instituta regulae conservetur ». Si autem obligatio obedientiae circumscribitur professione alicuius regulae; cum regulae et constitutiones in diversis Religionibus sint variae, recte infertur, quod potestas praecipiendi et obligatio obediendi ad plura vel pauciora extenditur, prout regula disponit. Hoc explicite affirmat S. Bonav. (Exposit. in regulam Fr. Min. c. 7): « Unde patet, quod errant qui dicunt, quod in omnibus Religionibus obedientia sit aequalis »; simul hoc applicat ad demonstrandum, quam ollam Fratres Minores voveant obedientiam, « cum nihil sibi obedientialiter impositum possint repellere, quasi transcendens suam regulam, nisi vergat in suae animae detrimentum ». Hoc confirmant communiter expositores eiusdem regulae (in c. 1 vel 10), ut Quatuor Magistri, Hugo de Dina, Marchantius, Politius, Hilarius Parisiensis aliique multi; pro quo etiam afferri potest, quod S. Thom. (Sum. loc. cit.) iisdem fere ac praedicta regula verbis utitur, ut *perfectam* notet obedientiam, quatenus distinguatur ab *imperfecta*.

**II.** S. Thom., locc. citt. — B. Albert., hic a. 6, et S. p. II, tr. 24, q. 141, m. 3, q. incid. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3, a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3, q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2, a. 3. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 4, q. 35. — Durand., hic q. 4, et etiam (ubi plura singularia et improbabilia) q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That a religious is not bound to obey a prelate commanding against divine or natural right, or against a certain command of a higher prelate, or even of the rule (namely in those things in which the lower prelate cannot dispense), is manifest of itself. Likewise it is plain that the perfection of obedience, which, with St. Benedict, all the founders of Orders most highly commend, sets for itself no other limits except by excluding those things « which are against God, or against the profession of the rule » (St. Thomas, S. II–II, q. 104, a. 5, ad 3). For St. Thomas (ibid. and here q. 2, a. 2) distinguishes a threefold obedience: *indiscreet* (which ought not even to be called obedience, since it obeys even against God), *imperfect, but sufficient* (which St. Bonaventure calls [obedience] according to the obligation of necessity), and *perfect*. Speaking therefore of *obligatory* obedience, it is commonly held, and is here proved at [reply] 6, that certain limits are set to obedience *by the rule itself*. Nevertheless St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 3) reports two opinions, of which *one* teaches that professed subjects « are of *necessity* bound to obey their prelates not only in those things which pertain to the rule, but in all things which are not contrary to the rule, whether they be *indifferent* or of the number of *good things*, provided they be not higher than the profession of one's own Order requires; but he can compel them to equal or easier things, even if they be not according to the precepts of the rule ». But the holy Doctor himself says that the *other* opinion is far better, which holds that the *debt* of obedience is imposed only in those things which pertain to the rule, whether directly or indirectly. For which he brings this reason, that « the subject is obliged by the vow of obedience only to those things to which the prelacy is ordained. Now prelacies in religious Orders are ordained to this, that the state of the Religion be preserved according to the institutes of the rule ». But if the obligation of obedience is circumscribed by the profession of some rule; since the rules and constitutions in different religious Orders are various, it is rightly inferred that the power of commanding and the obligation of obeying extends to more or fewer things, according as the rule disposes. This St. Bonaventure explicitly affirms (*Exposition on the Rule of the Friars Minor*, c. 7): « Whence it is plain that they err who say that in all religious Orders obedience is equal »; at the same time he applies this to demonstrate to what extent the Friars Minor vow obedience, « since they can repel nothing imposed upon them by way of obedience, as transcending their rule, unless it tend to the detriment of their own soul ». This the expositors of the same rule commonly confirm (in c. 1 or 10), as the Four Masters, Hugh of Digne, Marchantius, Politius, Hilary of Paris, and many others; for which it can also be adduced that St. Thomas (Sum., loc. cit.) uses almost the same words as the aforesaid rule, so as to mark *perfect* obedience, in so far as it is distinguished from *imperfect*.

**II.** St. Thomas, locc. citt. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6, and *Summa* p. II, tr. 24, q. 141, m. 3, q. incid. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2. — Aegidius R., here q. 2, a. 3. — Henry of Ghent, *Quodlibet* 4, q. 35. — Durandus, here q. 4, and also (where many singular and improbable things) q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p1012..1014-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), Vol II PDF-priority inversion, the IA djvu OCR being cascade-fragmented across the Respondeo, replies, and footers. English freshly translated literally. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`.

**Page-split map (printed pp.1012–1014, PDF 1034–1036):**
- **p.1012** (verso; running head `1012 SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`): q2 opener + fund. 1 in L-col bottom (below a3-q1's reply 5 + scholion top), fund. 1 cont.–3 in R-col. **p.1012 footers 1–3 (`Vers. 2.` Matth. 23:2 / `Rom. 8, 21. 22` / `Vers. 24.`) anchor a3-q1's reply 5, which prints atop this verso — they do NOT belong to q2** (see correction note below). q2's p.1012 footers are 4–8: L-col footers 4–5 = `[^1]`–`[^2]` (Matth. 23:2 ff. *Super... Pharisaei* on *vigesimo tertio* / Luc. 10:16 on *alibi*); R-col footers 6–8 = `[^3]`–`[^5]` (*praelatis a Deo institutis* lemma-keyed variant / Col. 3:20 *vestris* on *Colossenses tertio* / Benedict Rule c. 68 *ei* variant on *regula sua*).
- **p.1013** (recto; running head `DIST. XLIV. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 1013`): fund. 3 cont.–6 + sed contra 1–4 in L-col; sed contra 4 tail + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + reply 1 in R-col. Footers: L-col 1–2 = `[^6]`–`[^7]` (Jerome Epist. 123 ad Rusticum / Tractatus de statu virtutum, the Hugh definition); R-col 3–8 = `[^8]`–`[^13]` (*picta* gloss / Acts 5:29 / Bernard Disp. c. 3 n. 11 / Bernard *de Praecepto* c. 6 n. 12 / Phil. 2:8 / Regula Fr. Min. c. 10).
- **p.1014** (verso; running head `1014 SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`): replies 1–6 in L-col + R-col; reply 6 tail (`…terminare sermonem`) ends q2's body; SCHOLION I–II follow on the same page (L-col bottom through R-col). Footers 1–7 = `[^14]`–`[^20]` (canon I, XI, q. 3 / Gregory Hom. 26 = reply 1 *in Iure*; Bernard *de Praecepto* c. 6 n. 12 = reply 5 *caritatis*; the *imperata*/*proprietatis* variant = reply 6 *imperata*; Regula c. 1, c. 11, c. 10 = reply 6 *regula/mulierum/regulae suae*; the *Si cui autem aliter videtur* annexation note = reply 6 *sermonem*). **The SCHOLION carries no numbered footers** — its references (S. Thom., S. II–II q. 104 a. 5 ad 3; Exposit. in regulam c. 7; etc.) are inline.

**Total apparatus: 20 entries** (`[^1]`–`[^20]`), marker-paired in Latin and English bodies.

**DEVIATION FROM BRIEFING — `has_scholion` corrected to `true`:** the d44-a3-q1 hand-off stated a3-q2 has NO scholion (that a3-q1's Scholion I–II cover the whole article). **This is incorrect.** a3-q1's scholion (Scholion I–II ending *Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.*) prints on p.1012 and is q1's own; **a3-q2 has its OWN distinct scholion** printing on p.1014 immediately after reply 6: Scholion I opens *Quod religiosus praelato praecipienti contra ius divinum vel naturale… non teneatur obedire*, and Scholion II is the parallel-reference list ending *Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.* Verified line-by-line against the p.1014 L-1/R-1/R-2 450 dpi column crops. Set `has_scholion: true`; scholion re-set and translated here.

**Cross-chunk seam (q2 ↔ a3-q1):** q2 opens at the L-col bottom of p.1012, after a3-q1's reply 5 and the top of a3-q1's scholion; grammatically clean (the OCR `QUAESTIO II.` header sits between them at raw 70285). **a3-q1's reply 5 (printed atop p.1012's L-col) carries the inline superscripts for p.1012 footers 1–3 (`Vers. 2.` / `Rom. 8, 21. 22` / `Vers. 24.`); those three footers belong to a3-q1, NOT q2** — they were not rendered in the committed a3-q1 chunk (residual gap, noted below). q2's first footer is p.1012 footer 4 (`[^1]`).

**FOOTER-ATTRIBUTION CORRECTION (vs briefing):** the a3-q1 hand-off claimed "the whole p.1012 footer block is a3-q2's first sequence." The 450 dpi crops show otherwise: p.1012 footers 1–3 (Matth. 23:2 / Rom. 8:21–22 / Col. 3:24) are anchored by inline superscripts in a3-q1's reply 5, which prints at the head of p.1012's L-col (reply 5 ends with the Rom. 8 `²` on *liberetur a servitute corruptionis…filiorum Dei*). q2's own apparatus therefore begins at p.1012 footer 4 (`Vers. 2. seq.`, on fund. 1's *vigesimo tertio*). a3-q1's committed chunk has the reply-5 body but no `[^]` defs for footers 1–3 (residual gap). Since d.44 is the last distinction and the d.50 polish gate does not apply, this is documented here rather than patched in this dispatch.

**HAND-OFF TO d44-dubia (forwarded):** the DUBIA block (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.`) begins at raw line **~70466**, on printed **p.1015** (PDF 1037), in the **L-col** immediately after q2's Scholion II tail (`…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.`). DUB. I opens `In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de illa responsione, quam facit Magister: Sciendum est, Apostolum ibi loqui de saeculari potestate…`. Seam grammatically clean; **clean page break** — q2's body + scholion end on p.1014, the dubia start fresh on p.1015. **q2 consumed ALL p.1014 footers (1–7 = `[^14]`–`[^20]`); the dubia get a FRESH p.1015 footer sequence — no shared-page footer split at this seam.** Running head on p.1015 = `DIST. XLIV. DUBIA. 1015`. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`. **d.44 is the LAST distinction of Vol II** — after the dubia, Vol II is DONE (update landing/About copy per MEMORY.md `update-about-copy-after-vol2`). d.50 polish gate does NOT apply.

**`[?]` flags:** `[^2]` (p.1012 footer 5, Luc. 10:16) — **ACCEPT-ILLEGIBLE, resolved 2026-06-01 decade polish.** Re-rendered printed p.1012 at 600 dpi (PDF 1034) and cropped the L-col footer band tightly (`/tmp/luc_tail.png`, full-page bottom-left): the note `⁵ Luc. 10, 16. — In fine arg. non pauci codd. cum edd.` is the **last line of the left-column footer block**, with blank space below it; the continuation does **not** appear at the top of the right-column footer block (which begins directly with the *praelatis a Deo institutis* variant = footer 6) nor anywhere on the plate. The IA djvu OCR (raw line 70312) truncates at the identical point (`cum edd.`). The variant reading the note introduces is therefore unrecoverable from any available source and is formally ACCEPTED as illegible/absent. The `[?]` flag is removed from the apparatus body; the entry reproduces the legible portion with an explanatory ellipsis. Marker anchor confirmed at *alibi* in both bodies.

**p.1012 footer-attribution reconciliation (2026-06-01 decade polish).** Re-confirmed at 600 dpi (L-0 body, L-2/L-3 footer bands, R-2 right-col): p.1012 L-col footers **1–3** (`Vers. 2` 1 Tim 2:2 / `Rom. 8, 21. 22` / `Vers. 24` Matt 6:24) anchor in **a3-q1's** reply 4/5 tail printed at the top of p.1012 L-col, and were the gap fixed in a3-q1 this pass (added there as `[^28]`–`[^30]`). This chunk's apparatus correctly begins at p.1012 **footer 4** (`[^1]`); the page-split map above already reflects footers 4–8 → `[^1]`–`[^5]`. No collision: a3-q1 owns footers 1–3, a3-q2 owns 4–8.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 44, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Distinctio XLIV)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Distinction 44)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 1015 -->

### Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation, following Quaracchi's per-page footer sequences.

#### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de illa responsione, quam facit Magister: *Sciendum est, Apostolum ibi loqui de saeculari potestate.* Non enim videtur Magister sufficienter solvere ad quaestionem motam, immo potius fugere, quia, sicut habitum est in praecedenti capitulo[^1], diabolus non habet potestatem nocendi a se ipso, sed a Deo; cum igitur Apostolus dicit, quod omnis potestas a Deo est, intelligit non solum de potestate hominis, sed etiam de potestate diaboli. — Item videtur, quod eius potestati non sit resistendum, quia Ieremiae vigesimo septimo[^2]: *Gens et regnum, quod non servierit Nabuchodonosor* etc., comminatur his Dominus, qui non servient Nabuchodonosor. Si ergo per Nabuchodonosor significatur diabolus, videtur etc. — Item, non debemus resistere potestati, membris diaboli, utpote malis praelatis et tyrannis, qui sunt membra ipsius diaboli: ergo multo fortius nec ipsi diabolo, qui est caput ipsorum malorum[^3].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister recte dicit in hoc quod dicit, quod verbum Apostoli, quo dicitur non resistendum esse potestati, intelligi habeat de potestate humana, non de potestate diabolica; quia potestas humana et ordinata est et ordinate frequenter movet et imperat, et ideo qui ei resistit divinae ordinationi resistit[^4], saltem si ordinate praecipit. Sed quia diabolus ex perversitate voluntatis suae semper inordinate et ad malum movet et contra Deum, ideo secundum rectum ordinem et mandatum Apostoli[^5] fortiter est ei resistendum et pugnandum contra eum tanquam contra pessimum adversarium. — Quod ergo dicitur, quod potestas diaboli a Deo est; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ipse non utitur ea ad id, ad quod Deus ei eam dedit, immo semper malum intendit; et dum nos ei fortiter resistimus, malum suum in bonum nostrum convertimus.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de membris diaboli, dicendum, quod non est simile; nam membra sua non ita semper movent ad malum, sicut ipse qui est in malo obstinatus, et a quo sumsit exordium omne malum[^6].

#### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ipsos humanarum rerum gradus adverte, si quis iusserit curator* etc. In quo verbo innuit, quod si potestas inferior obviet potestati superiori, magis obediendum est potestati superiori quam inferiori. Sed contrarium huius habetur super illud Apocalypsis secundo[^7]: *Et Angelo Ecclesiae Pergami scribe:* « Non audet archiepiscopus super subditos episcopi manum imponere sine eo »; sed hoc potest episcopus sine archiepiscopo: ergo videtur, quod magis est obediendum inferiori quam superiori. — Item, potestas[^8] immediata magis influit quam mediata: ergo si potestas inferior magis immediata est quam superior, videtur, quod magis sit standum potestati inferiori quam superiori. — Contrarium huius est, quia dicit Boethius[^9]: *Quidquid potest virtus inferior, potest superior, sed non e converso:* ergo virtus superior potest compescere inferiorem: ergo magis standum est mandato ipsius.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de potestate superiori et inferiori: aut ita, quod potestas inferior *totaliter fluit a potestate superiori*, ad quam ordinatur, sicut potestas curatoris a potestate proconsulis, et potestas proconsulis a potestate imperatoris: et tunc verum est quod dicit, quod standum est magis potestati superioris quam inferioris. Aut illae potestates ita se habent, quod *ambae fluunt a superiori*, et in casibus[^10] determinatis una praesupponit alteram, et illa tertia plenum posse habet super utramque, sicut potestas episcopi et archiepiscopi a potestate Papae, qui *plenam* habet potentiam super utrumque; et tunc non est generaliter verum, quod magis oporteat obedire potestati superiori quam inferiori, utpote potestati archiepiscopi quam episcopi, quia unus est praelatus immediatus,

<!-- page 1016 -->

alter mediatus. Sed respectu eius qui habet *plenam* potestatem super utrumque, veritatem habet, quia ille non est tantum praelatus mediatus[^11]. Unde magis debet stare subditus mandato Papae quam mandato alicuius praelati inferioris. Et in hoc casu loquitur Augustinus[^12]. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.

#### Dub. III.

Postremo quaeritur de illis auctoritatibus, quas Magister adducit in littera[^13]. Cum enim sit quaestio de potestate *peccandi,* videtur, quod minus recte adducat auctoritates illas, quae loquuntur de potestate *dominandi* et inferendi malum poenae, sicut aspicienti patet.

Et dicendum, quod *ex consequenti* aliquo modo possunt ad propositum applicari; verumtamen, sicut aperte apparet, Magister allegat eas aliquantulum minus recte[^14]. Non tamen est mirandum, si in tot et tam bonis dictis Magister dixit aliquid minus complete; nec ei est propter hoc insultandum. Magis enim suo labore meruit legentium orationes et gratiarum actiones quam reprehensiones, licet in aliquibus locis declinaverit ab opinionibus communibus et parti minus probabili adhaeserit, praecipue in octo locis.

Nam in primo libro sunt duo, unum videlicet distinctione decima septima, quod caritas, quae est amor[^15] Dei et proximi, non est quid creatum, sed increatum. Aliud vero est, quod haec nomina *trinus* et *trinitas* non dicunt positionem, sed privationem tantum; et hoc ponit distinctione vigesima quarta. — In secundo vero libro similiter duo dicit, quorum primum est, quod in Angelis beatis praemium praecessit, et meritum respectu substantialis praemii habet subsequi; et hoc dicit distinctione quinta et etiam distinctione undecima. Aliud est[^16], quod nihil de cibis transit in veritatem humanae naturae, nec per generationem nec per nutritionem. — In tertio libro similiter duo dicit: unum est, quod anima exuta a corpore est persona; et hoc dicit distinctione quinta. Aliud est, quod Christus fuit homo in triduo; et hoc dicit distinctione vigesima secunda. — In quarto similiter duo dicit: unum est, quod baptismus Ioannis cum impositione manuum aequipollebat baptismo Christi, ita quod baptizatus baptismate Ioannis in fide Trinitatis non erat rebaptizandus, et hoc dicit distinctione secunda. Aliud est de potestate baptizandi interius, quam dixit; quod Deus potuit alii dare, et quod creatura potuit suscipere; et similiter, quod Deus potest potestatem creandi communicare et creare per creaturam tanquam per ministrum; et hoc dicit distinctione quinta.

In his octo positionibus[^17] communiter doctores Parisienses non sequuntur Magistrum, nec credo, in omnibus his eum esse sustinendum, ne amore hominis veritati fiat praeiudicium; et haec omnia suis locis manifesta sunt et manifestabuntur[^18].

Si cui autem aliter videtur, et fortassis melius, non invideo; sed hoc rogo, ut si quis[^19] in explanatione duorum librorum praecedentium et etiam duorum sequentium aliquid in hoc opusculo invenerit approbatione dignum, gratias agat Deo, largitori bonorum. In aliis vero locis, ubi invenerit vel falsum, vel dubium, vel obscurum, scribentis insufficientiae benigne indulgeat, qui[^20] absque dubio, teste conscientia, *vera* et *aperta* et *communia* dicere concupivit. Quidquid enim sit de verbis, quae foliis comparantur, hoc summopere attendendo in inquisitione qualibet observandum, ne quis adeo *laetetur in sententia oris sui*[^21] et sic ei inhaereat, ut verba oris alieni despiciat, aspiciens ea oculo minus sano, et sic per tumorem et livorem aditum sibi veritatis praecludat et de numero illorum sit, de quibus dicit Apostolus[^22], quod *semper sunt discentes et nunquam ad viam veritatis pervenientes;* quod avertat Deus ab omnibus inquisitoribus veritatis. — Hanc autem veritatem infatigabiliter quaerere, infallibiliter invenire, inamissibiliter apprehendere et tenere concedat nobis ille qui est *via, veritas et vita*[^23], qui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto unum existens in essentia et ab eis distinctus in persona, hominem rectum fecit, qui se infinitis quaestionibus miscuit[^24] peccatorum, secundum quod series manifestat duorum librorum praecedentium; cui est omnis honor et gloria, laus et imperium per infinita saeculorum saecula. Amen[^25].

**EXPLICIT LIBER SECUNDUS.**

---

english:
### Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation, following Quaracchi's per-page footer sequences.

#### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first there is asked about that response which the Master makes: *It must be known that the Apostle is there speaking of secular power.* For the Master does not seem to resolve the question raised sufficiently, but rather to flee from it, because, as was held in the preceding chapter[^1], the devil does not have the power of harming from himself, but from God; since therefore the Apostle says that all power is from God, he understands this not only of the power of man, but also of the power of the devil. — Likewise it seems that his power is not to be resisted, because in Jeremiah twenty-seven[^2]: *The nation and kingdom that will not serve Nebuchadnezzar* etc., the Lord threatens those who will not serve Nebuchadnezzar. If therefore by Nebuchadnezzar the devil is signified, it seems etc. — Likewise, we ought not to resist power, [namely] the members of the devil, such as evil prelates and tyrants, who are members of the devil himself: therefore much more not the devil himself, who is the head of those evil ones[^3].

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master speaks rightly in what he says, that the word of the Apostle, by which it is said that power is not to be resisted, is to be understood of human power, not of diabolical power; because human power is both ordained and frequently moves and commands in an ordered way, and therefore he who resists it resists the divine ordinance[^4], at least if it commands in an ordered way. But since the devil, from the perversity of his will, always moves in a disordered way and toward evil and against God, therefore, according to right order and the command of the Apostle[^5], he is to be resisted strongly and fought against as against the worst adversary. — As for what is said, that the power of the devil is from God; it must be said that this is true; but he does not use it for that to which God gave it to him, but rather always intends evil; and while we strongly resist him, we turn his evil into our good.

To that which is objected concerning the members of the devil, it must be said that it is not similar; for his members do not always move toward evil in the same way as he who is obstinate in evil, and from whom all evil took its beginning[^6].

#### Doubt II.

Likewise there is asked about what he says: *Observe the very grades of human affairs: if a procurator should command* etc. In which word he intimates that if a lower power should run counter to a higher power, the higher power is to be obeyed rather than the lower. But the contrary of this is held upon that passage of Apocalypse two[^7]: *And to the Angel of the Church of Pergamum write:* « The archbishop does not dare to lay his hand upon the subjects of a bishop without him »; but the bishop can do this without the archbishop: therefore it seems that the lower is to be obeyed rather than the higher. — Likewise, an immediate power[^8] influences more than a mediate one: therefore if the lower power is more immediate than the higher, it seems that the lower power is to be adhered to rather than the higher. — The contrary of this is so, because Boethius says[^9]: *Whatever a lower power can do, a higher can do, but not conversely:* therefore the higher power can restrain the lower: therefore its command is rather to be adhered to.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking of higher and lower power: either in such a way that the lower power *flows totally from the higher power*, to which it is ordered, as the power of a procurator from the power of a proconsul, and the power of a proconsul from the power of an emperor: and then it is true what he says, that the power of the higher is to be adhered to rather than that of the lower. Or those powers are so related that *both flow from a higher one*, and in determinate cases[^10] one presupposes the other, and that third [power] has full ability over both, as the power of a bishop and of an archbishop from the power of the Pope, who has *full* power over both; and then it is not generally true that the higher power must be obeyed rather than the lower, such as the power of the archbishop rather than the bishop, because the one is an immediate prelate,

<!-- page 1016 -->

the other a mediate one. But with respect to him who has *full* power over both, it holds true, because he is not only a mediate prelate[^11]. Hence a subject ought to adhere to the mandate of the Pope rather than to the mandate of some lower prelate. And in this case Augustine speaks[^12]. — And by this the response to the objections is clear.

#### Doubt III.

Lastly there is asked about those authorities which the Master adduces in the text[^13]. For since the question is about the power of *sinning,* it seems that he less rightly adduces those authorities which speak of the power of *ruling* and of inflicting the evil of punishment, as is plain to one who looks.

And it must be said that *by consequence* they can in some way be applied to the matter at hand; nevertheless, as plainly appears, the Master alleges them somewhat less rightly[^14]. Yet it is not to be wondered at, if among so many and such good sayings the Master said something less completely; nor is he to be reproached on this account. For by his labor he has merited the prayers and thanksgivings of readers rather than their reproaches, although in some places he has departed from the common opinions and adhered to the less probable side, especially in eight places.

For in the first book there are two, namely one in distinction seventeen, that charity, which is the love[^15] of God and neighbor, is not something created, but uncreated. The other is that these names *triune* and *trinity* do not state a position, but only a privation; and this he sets down in distinction twenty-four. — In the second book likewise he says two things, of which the first is that in the blessed Angels reward preceded, and merit with respect to substantial reward follows; and this he says in distinction five and also in distinction eleven. The other is[^16] that nothing of food passes into the truth of human nature, neither by generation nor by nutrition. — In the third book likewise he says two things: one is that the soul stripped from the body is a person; and this he says in distinction five. The other is that Christ was a man in the three days; and this he says in distinction twenty-two. — In the fourth he likewise says two things: one is that the baptism of John with the imposition of hands was equivalent to the baptism of Christ, so that one baptized with the baptism of John in faith of the Trinity was not to be rebaptized, and this he says in distinction two. The other is about the power of baptizing inwardly, of which he spoke; that God was able to give it to another, and that a creature was able to receive it; and likewise, that God can communicate the power of creating and create through a creature as through a minister; and this he says in distinction five.

In these eight positions[^17] the doctors of Paris commonly do not follow the Master, nor do I believe that he is to be upheld in all these, lest by love of the man prejudice be done to the truth; and all these things are made manifest in their places and will be made manifest[^18].

But if it seems otherwise to anyone, and perhaps better, I do not envy [him]; but this I ask, that if anyone[^19] in the explanation of the two preceding books and also of the two following should find anything in this little work worthy of approval, let him give thanks to God, the bestower of goods. But in other places, where he should find either something false, or doubtful, or obscure, let him kindly pardon the insufficiency of the writer, who[^20] without doubt, conscience being witness, desired to say things *true* and *open* and *common.* For whatever may be the case concerning words, which are compared to leaves, this above all is to be observed and attended to in every inquiry, that no one so *rejoice in the judgment of his own mouth*[^21] and so cling to it that he despise the words of another's mouth, looking upon them with a less sound eye, and thus through swelling and envy close off to himself the access of truth and be of the number of those of whom the Apostle says[^22] that they are *always learning and never arriving at the way of truth;* which may God avert from all inquirers after truth. — But that we may seek this truth indefatigably, find it infallibly, apprehend and hold it unlosably, may He grant us who is *the way, the truth, and the life*[^23], who, being one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit and distinct from them in person, made man upright, who involved himself in the infinite questions[^24] of sinners, according as the series of the two preceding books makes manifest; to whom is all honor and glory, praise and dominion through the infinite ages of ages. Amen[^25].

**HERE ENDS THE SECOND BOOK.**

---

la: Scil. cap. I.

en: That is, chapter I.

la: Vers. 8. — Paulo inferius pro *servient* codd. C S T V bb *servierunt,* codd. K R W *servierint,* codd. F ee *servant.*

en: Verse 8 [Jer. 27:8]. — A little further down, for *servient* (will serve) codices C S T V bb [read] *servierunt* (served), codices K R W *servierint,* codices F ee *servant.*

la: Gregor., XIV. Moral. c. 21. n. 25: « Caput quippe iniquorum diabolus est ». Idem dicit Haymo in explic. II. Thess. 2, 4. — Paulo superius Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 omittit *potestati,* et cod. F pro *membris diaboli* substituit *membrorum diaboli.* — Quae sint membra diaboli, vide Gregor., III. Moral. c. 16. n. 29.

en: Gregory, *Moralia* XIV, c. 21, n. 25: « For the head of the wicked is the devil ». Haymo says the same in his exposition on 2 Thessalonians 2:4. — A little above, the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 omits *potestati,* and codex F for *membris diaboli* substitutes *membrorum diaboli.* — As to what the members of the devil are, see Gregory, *Moralia* III, c. 16, n. 29.

la: Rom. 13, 2. Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: Romans 13:2. Compare above, article 3, question 1 and following.

la: Epist. I. Petri 5, 8. 9: *Vigilate, quia adversarius vester diabolus tanquam leo rugiens circuit... Cui resistite fortes in fide.* — Pro *fortiter* primae edd. exhibent *frequenter,* Vat. *semper.*

en: First Epistle of Peter 5:8–9: *Be watchful, because your adversary the devil goes about as a roaring lion... Resist him, strong in faith.* — For *fortiter* (strongly) the first editions give *frequenter* (frequently), the Vatican edition *semper* (always).

la: Hoc dubium solvunt etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 22. m. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. II. tr. 24. q. 141. m. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic dub. lit. 7.

en: This doubt is also resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. 1, q. 22, m. 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 5, and *Summa* p. II, tr. 24, q. 141, m. 3; St. Thomas, here in the comment on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here in the comment on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text 7.

la: Vers. 12. — De Glossa cfr. Iur. can. 2. et 3. IX. q. 3.

en: Verse 12 [Apoc. 2:12]. — Concerning the Gloss, compare Canon Law, [causae] 2 and 3, IX, q. 3.

la: Edd. *causa.*

en: The editions [read] *causa.*

la: Libr. V. de Consol. prosa 4: *Superior comprehendendi vis amplectitur inferiorem, inferior vero ad superiorem nullo modo consurgit.* — Mox pro *mandato ipsius* cod. T *mandato superioris.*

en: *On the Consolation [of Philosophy],* Book V, prose 4: *The higher power of comprehending embraces the lower, but the lower in no way rises to the higher.* — Shortly after, for *mandato ipsius* codex T [reads] *mandato superioris* (the mandate of the superior).

la: Pro *casibus* codd. C F H K R S (T a prima manu) W bb ce atque edd. 1, 2 *talibus.* Subinde memorati codd. cum pluribus aliis pro *praesupponit* exhibent *praeponit.* Post pauca pro *Papae, qui* cod. T substituit *Papae, quia.*

en: For *casibus* (cases) codices C F H K R S (T by the first hand) W bb ce and editions 1, 2 [read] *talibus* (such [cases]). The aforesaid codices with several others give for *praesupponit* (presupposes) *praeponit* (sets before). Shortly after, for *Papae, qui* codex T substitutes *Papae, quia.*

la: Codd. X Y Z bb et alii adiiciunt *sed immediatus.*

en: Codices X Y Z bb and others add *sed immediatus* (but [an] immediate [one]).

la: Proferens illa verba, quae textum huius dubii formant et integra habentur hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — De hoc dub. cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 24. q. 141. m. 3; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3. dub. lit. 7.

en: [Augustine] putting forth those words, which form the text of this doubt and are had entire here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — Concerning this doubt, compare Bl. Albert, here a. 6; *Summa* p. II, tr. 24, q. 141, m. 3; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here in the comment on the text; Giles of Rome, here, q. 2, a. 3, doubt on the text 7.

la: Hic c. 1. — Paulo inferius pro *loquuntur* edd. substituunt *locum tenent.*

en: Here, chapter 1. — A little further down, for *loquuntur* (speak) the editions substitute *locum tenent* (hold the place).

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp. — Paulo superius multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *modo,* et paulo inferius codd. H I V pro *insultandum* habent *insistendum.*

en: Compare above, article 1, question 1, in the body. — A little above, many codices and editions 1, 2 omit *modo,* and a little further down codices H I V for *insultandum* (be reproached) read *insistendum.*

la: Ab edd. abest *amor.*

en: From the editions *amor* (love) is absent.

la: Vat. hic adiicit *distinct. 50.*

en: The Vatican edition here adds *distinction 50.*

la: Codd. H V X Z *rationibus.*

en: Codices H V X Z [read] *rationibus* (reasons) [for *positionibus*].

la: Cfr. supra *Praelocutio* in hunc librum, ubi auctor eosdem octo locos commemorat.

en: Compare above, the *Preface* to this book, where the author recalls the same eight places.

la: Plurimi codd. *quid.*

en: Very many codices [read] *quid.*

la: Plures codd., ut F K T W ee, *quae.*

en: Several codices, such as F K T W ee, [read] *quae.*

la: Prov. 18, 23. — Paulo superius pro *attendendo in inquisitione qualibet observandum* edd. *attendendum et inquisitione qualibet est observandum.* Pro *attendendo,* quod habent codd. C O S, alii codd. *attendo,* cod. I *utendo.*

en: Proverbs 18:23. — A little above, for *attendendo in inquisitione qualibet observandum* the editions [read] *attendendum et inquisitione qualibet est observandum.* For *attendendo,* which codices C O S have, other codices [read] *attendo,* codex I *utendo.*

la: Epist. II. Tim. 3, 7, in quo loco Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 et etiam Vulgata pro *viam* exhibent *scientiam.*

en: Second Epistle to Timothy 3:7, in which passage the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 and also the Vulgate give for *viam* (way) *scientiam* (knowledge).

la: Eccle. 7, 30. Vide supra *Prooemium.* — In Vat. et edd. 3, 4 deest vox *peccatorum.*

en: Ecclesiastes 7:30. See above, the *Proem.* — In the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4 the word *peccatorum* (of sinners) is absent.

en: Romans 16:27; First Peter 4:11 and 5:11; Apocalypse 1:6. ---

translators_notes:
**FINAL UNIT OF VOLUME II.** This dubia block closes Distinctio XLIV, the last distinction of the *Commentarius in II Librum Sententiarum.* The body ends with the EPILOGUE to Book II (the *Epilogus notabilis ad II. Sent.*) and `Explicit liber secundus.` In the raw OCR, immediately after the closing footers comes the `INDEX QUAESTIONUM` back-matter — confirming there is no further commentary text. **With this chunk's promotion, all of Vol II (d.1–d.44) is Tier 2 complete.**

**Provenance:** Latin re-set verbatim from 450 dpi column-band PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p1015-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol2-p1016-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); raw OCR lines 70468–70607 used for cross-check and marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 22` (printed 1015–1016 = PDF 1037–1038).

**Three doubts:** Dub. I (whether the devil's power is to be resisted — yes; the Apostle's "non resistendum" applies to human, not diabolical, power); Dub. II (whether the higher or the lower power is to be obeyed when they conflict — twofold distinction: when the lower flows totally from the higher, obey the higher; but the Pope's plenary power binds over any mediate prelate); Dub. III (whether the Master rightly adduced authorities on the power of *ruling* for a question on the power of *sinning* — by consequence yes, though somewhat less aptly; followed by the list of eight places where the Master departs from common opinion, and the closing epilogue).

**Page-split / footer map (clean page break at the seam, NO shared-footer split with d44-a3-q2 — a3-q2 consumed all p.1014 footers):**
- p.1015 footers 1–10 = `[^1]`–`[^10]` (L-col footers 1–5 = `[^1]`–`[^5]`; R-col footers 6–10 = `[^6]`–`[^10]`). `[^6]` (Alex.Hal. etc.) closes Dub. I; `[^7]`–`[^10]` open Dub. II.
- p.1016 footers 1–15 = `[^11]`–`[^25]` (L-col footers 1–7 = `[^11]`–`[^17]`; R-col footers 8–15 = `[^18]`–`[^25]`). `[^11]`–`[^12]` close Dub. II's reply (spilled onto p.1016); `[^13]`–`[^25]` are Dub. III + the epilogue. `[^25]` (Rom. 16:27 etc.) anchors the final *Amen.*

Marker pairing: 25 Latin anchors = 25 English anchors = 25 `[^N]:` definitions.

**Vol II closing follow-ups (carried to the closing polish pass — NOT patched here):** (i) d44-littera `[^1]` may duplicate d43-dubia `[^16]` (the *infra-d.44 / infirmus esse* footer); (ii) d44-a3-q1 cross-chunk anchor for the *August. de Civ. Dei XIX c.15* footer; (iii) d44-a3-q1 missing 3 footnote definitions for p.1012 footers 1–3 (reply 5); (iv) d44-a3-q2 `[?]` on `[^2]` (Luc. 10:16 illegible tail); (v) landing/About copy still says "Volume I" (`site/src/app/page.tsx:47,57`, per MEMORY.md `update-about-copy-after-vol2`).

**No `[?]` flags** in this chunk — OCR + 450 dpi crops were clean and mutually corroborating across both columns of both pages; every reading and footer confirmed line-by-line.

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


collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Proemium

title_alt: PROOEMIUM in tertium librum Sententiarum

title_alt: Proemium to the third book of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 1 -->

# PROOEMIUM.

### IN TERTIUM LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM.

> *Deus autem, qui dives est in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem suam, qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos Christo, cuius gratia estis salvati.*

Verbum istud scribitur secundo[^p1-1] ad Ephesios, in quo insinuatur nobis nostrae redemptionis mysterium, ac per hoc manifestatur nobis subiectum libri Sententiarum et specialiter quantum ad tertiam partem ipsius, in qua explicatur nostrae redemptionis sacramentum factae per Christum. Possunt autem in hoc verbo quatuor notari pertinentia ad reparationem[^p1-2] generis humani, quorum primum est auctor reparationis; secundum est lapsus reparabilis; tertium persona Reparatoris; quartum autem et ultimum salus hominis reparati.

Auctor autem reparationis notatur, cum dicitur: *Deus autem, qui dives est in misericordia* etc. Ipse enim sua largiflua misericordia, non aliunde motus, disposuit reparare genus humanum, sicut scribitur in Ioannis tertio[^p1-3]: *Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in ipsum, non pereat.*

Lapsus vero reparabilis[^p1-4], cum dicitur: *Cum essemus mortui peccatis.* Peccatum enim primi parentis erat causa nostrae mortis, per quem a statu innocentiae prolapsum fuit totum genus humanum, secundum quod scribitur ad Romanos quinto[^p1-5]: *Sicut per unum hominem peccatum in mundum intravit et per peccatum mors, ita et in omnes mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.* Et quia in alio et per alium peccaverunt, ideo reparabiliter ceciderunt[^p1-6].

Persona vero Reparatoris notatur per hoc quod dicitur: *Convivificavit nos Christo.* Nam Christus fuit, in quo facta fuit ista reconciliatio, sicut scribitur ad Colossenses primo[^p1-7]: *In ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabitare, et per eum reconciliare omnia in ipsum, pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius sive quae in caelis, sive quae in terris sunt.*

Salus vero hominis reparati tangitur in hoc quod dicitur: *Cuius gratia estis salvati* etc. Merito enim passionis Christi collata est efficacia Sacramentis, ut per ea infirmis detur gratia sanativa, secundum illud ad Titum tertio[^p1-8]: *Secundum misericordiam suam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus sancti, quem effudit in nobis abunde per Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum.*

De his quatuor simul habetur quinto[^p1-9] ad Romanos in quodam verbo, ubi sic ait: *Commendat autem Deus caritatem suam in nobis* — ecce auctor reparationis — *sed cum adhuc peccatores essemus* — ecce lapsus reparabilis — *Christus pro nobis mortuus est* — in quo persona notatur Reparatoris — *multo magis iustificati nunc per sanguinem ipsius, salvi erimus ab ira per ipsum* — ecce salus hominis reparati.

Secundum haec quatuor, quae in praedicta auctoritate describuntur, quatuor sunt libri Sententiarum. Nam in primo libro agitur de *reparationis auctore*, utpote de beata Trinitate. In secundo vero agitur de *ipso*[^p1-10] *reparabili*, utpote de homine cadente a statu conditionis et innocentiae. In tertio agitur de *persona Reparatoris*, utpote de Christo, Deo et homine. In quarto vero agitur de *hominis reparati salute*, quae quidem consistit in expiatione culpae et amotione omnis miseriae.

Et sic patet, quomodo iste totalis liber[^p1-11] versatur circa nostrae reparationis mysterium explican-

<!-- page 2 -->

-dum; specialiori tamen modo hoc spectat ad tertium librum, in quo manifestatur, qualiter vivificati sumus per Christum. Et hoc notavit Apostolus in verbo praedicto, cum dixit: *Convivificavit nos Christo.* Quod ideo dicit Apostolus, quia Deus vivificavit nos *in* Christo, et *cum* Christo, et *per* Christum, et *secundum* Christum.

Primo igitur Deus convivificavit nos *in* Christo, quia in persona eius mortalitatem nostram vitae sociavit, secundum illud Ioannis quinto[^p2-1]: *Sicut Pater habet vitam in semetipso, ita et Filio dedit habere vitam in semetipso.* Si vitam igitur habet Filius in semetipso, dum sibi mortalitatem nostram assumsit, nos verae et immortali vitae sociavit, ac per hoc *in* semetipso convivificavit.

Convivificavit etiam *cum* Christo, dum ipse Christus, qui vita erat, inter mortales homines vixit, secundum illud quod dicitur in principio primae Canonicae Ioannis[^p2-2]: *Quod fuit ab initio, quod vidimus oculis nostris, quod perspeximus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de Verbo vitae; et vita manifestata est, et vidimus et testamur et annuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam*; et sic, dum *in terris visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est,* Deus nos convivificavit *cum* Christo, dum vivere nos fecit cum ipso.

Convivificavit etiam nos *per* Christum, dum nos a morte eripuit per mortem ipsius, secundum illud primae Petri tertio[^p2-3]: *Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, iustus pro iniustis, ut nos offerret Deo, mortificatus quidem carne, vivificatus autem spiritu.* Dum ergo Christus vitam suam pro nobis posuit, Deus per ipsum genus humanum mortuum vivificavit.

Postremo *secundum* Christum nos vivificavit, dum ad eius exemplum nos per viam vitae direxit, iuxta illud Psalmi[^p2-4]: *Notas mihi fecisti vias vitae.* Notas nobis fecit vias vitae, dum nobis fidem et spem et caritatem et dona gratiarum distribuit, et mandata adiunxit, in quibus ipse Christus ambulavit, et in quibus consistit via vitae, per quam Christus nos docuit ambulare. Deus igitur nos vivificavit *secundum* Christum, quia ad vitam dirigit imitatores ipsius.

De his quatuor simul habetur ad Philippenses secundo[^p2-5]: *Exinanivit semetipsum formam servi accipiens* — ecce primum, scilicet quod mortalitatem nostram vitae suae univit — *in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo* — ecce secundum, videlicet quod cum hominibus ut[^p2-6] homo vixit — *humiliavit semetipsum usque ad mortem* — ecce tertium, videlicet quod per mortem suam nos a morte liberavit — *propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum* — ecce quartum, videlicet quod post mortem multos habuit sequaces et imitatores credentes in eum.

Quoniam igitur in hoc libro, qui sic incipit *Cum igitur venit plenitudo temporis* etc., intendit Magister determinare[^p2-7] etc.

---

english:
<!-- page 1 -->

# PROEMIUM.

### ON THE THIRD BOOK OF THE SENTENCES.

> *But God, who is rich in mercy, on account of his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, when we were dead by our sins, brought us to life together with Christ, by whose grace you are saved.*

This word is written in the second chapter[^p1-1] of Ephesians, in which the mystery of our redemption is intimated to us, and through this the subject of the book of the Sentences is made manifest to us, and especially as regards the third part of it, in which is set forth the sacrament of our redemption accomplished through Christ. Now four things can be noted in this word pertaining to the repair[^p1-2] of the human race, of which the first is the author of the repair; the second is the reparable fall; the third, the person of the Repairer; and the fourth and last, the salvation of the man repaired.

Now the author of the repair is noted when it is said: *But God, who is rich in mercy* etc. For he, out of his own overflowing mercy, moved by nothing else, resolved to repair the human race, as is written in the third chapter of John[^p1-3]: *So God loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that everyone who believes in him should not perish.*

But the reparable fall[^p1-4], when it is said: *When we were dead by our sins.* For the sin of the first parent was the cause of our death, through whom the whole human race fell away from the state of innocence, according to what is written to the Romans, chapter five[^p1-5]: *As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, so also death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.* And because they sinned in another and through another, they therefore fell reparably[^p1-6].

But the person of the Repairer is noted through this, that it is said: *He brought us to life together with Christ.* For it was Christ in whom that reconciliation was made, as is written to the Colossians, chapter one[^p1-7]: *In him it hath well pleased all fullness to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, whether the things that are in heaven, or the things that are on earth.*

But the salvation of the man repaired is touched upon in this, that it is said: *By whose grace you are saved* etc. For by the merit of Christ's passion efficacy was conferred upon the Sacraments, so that through them healing grace might be given to the sick, according to that passage to Titus, chapter three[^p1-8]: *According to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.*

These four together are had in the fifth chapter[^p1-9] to the Romans, in a certain word, where he speaks thus: *But God commendeth his charity towards us* — behold the author of the repair — *for when as yet we were sinners* — behold the reparable fall — *Christ died for us* — in which the person of the Repairer is noted — *much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him* — behold the salvation of the man repaired.

According to these four, which are described in the aforesaid authority, there are four books of the Sentences. For in the first book there is treated the *author of the repair*, namely the blessed Trinity. In the second, however, there is treated the *reparable one itself*[^p1-10], namely man falling from the state of his making and of innocence. In the third there is treated the *person of the Repairer*, namely Christ, God and man. In the fourth, however, there is treated the *salvation of the man repaired*, which indeed consists in the expiation of guilt and the removal of all misery.

And thus it is plain how this whole book[^p1-11] is concerned with the explaining of the mystery of our repair;

<!-- page 2 -->

yet in a more special way this pertains to the third book, in which is made manifest in what manner we have been brought to life through Christ. And the Apostle noted this in the aforesaid word, when he said: *He brought us to life together with Christ.* And the Apostle says this for the reason that God brought us to life *in* Christ, and *with* Christ, and *through* Christ, and *according to* Christ.

First, therefore, God brought us to life together *in* Christ, because in his person he joined our mortality to life, according to that passage of John, chapter five[^p2-1]: *As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.* If, therefore, the Son has life in himself, then when he took our mortality to himself, he joined us to true and immortal life, and through this brought us to life together *in* himself.

He also brought us to life together *with* Christ, when Christ himself, who was life, lived among mortal men, according to that which is said at the beginning of the first Canonical epistle of John[^p2-2]: *That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; and the life was made manifest, and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you life eternal*; and thus, when *he was seen upon earth and conversed with men,* God brought us to life together *with* Christ, when he made us to live with him.

He also brought us to life *through* Christ, when he snatched us from death through his own death, according to that passage of the first epistle of Peter, chapter three[^p2-3]: *Christ died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but brought to life in the spirit.* When therefore Christ laid down his life for us, God through him brought to life the dead human race.

Lastly, he brought us to life *according to* Christ, when he directed us along the way of life after his example, according to that passage of the Psalm[^p2-4]: *Thou hast made known to me the ways of life.* He made the ways of life known to us when he distributed to us faith and hope and charity and the gifts of graces, and added the commandments, in which Christ himself walked, and in which the way of life consists, along which Christ taught us to walk. God, therefore, brought us to life *according to* Christ, because he directs to life those who imitate him.

These four together are had in the second chapter to the Philippians[^p2-5]: *He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant* — behold the first, namely that he united our mortality to his own life — *being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man* — behold the second, namely that he lived with men as[^p2-6] a man — *he humbled himself unto death* — behold the third, namely that through his own death he freed us from death — *for which cause God also exalted him* — behold the fourth, namely that after his death he had many followers and imitators believing in him.

Since therefore in this book, which begins thus, *When therefore the fullness of time came* etc., the Master intends to determine[^p2-7] etc.

---

la: Vers. 4. seq. Voci *Christo* Vulgata et cod. K praefigunt *in*.

en: Verse 4 f. To the word *Christo* the Vulgate and codex K prefix *in*.

la: Codd. A G H Z *redemptionem*.

en: Codices A, G, H, Z read *redemptionem*.

la: Vers. 16. — Paulo superius ante *largiflua misericordia* cod. P interiicit *caritate et*; Vat. et edd. 1, 2 voculae *sua* praemittunt *in*.

en: Verse 16. — A little above, before *largiflua misericordia*, codex P inserts *caritate et*; the Vatican edition and editions 1, 2 prefix *in* to the little word *sua*.

la: Codd. A H K P bb addunt *notatur*.

en: Codices A, H, K, P, bb add *notatur*.

la: Vers. 12, ubi Vulgata ante *mundum* exhibet *hunc*, et post *omnes* cum cod. K adiicit *homines*. — Paulo superius pro *per quem* codd. A aa *per quam*, cod. Z *per quod*; edd. subinde omittunt *totum*.

en: Verse 12, where the Vulgate presents *hunc* before *mundum*, and after *omnes*, with codex K, adds *homines*. — A little above, for *per quem* codices A, aa read *per quam*, codex Z *per quod*; the editions thereupon omit *totum*.

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 21. a. 3. q. 2.

en: As was shown in II Sent., d. 21, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Vers. 19. seq.

en: Verse 19 f.

la: Vers. 5. seq.; pro *effudit in nobis* in Vat. et Vulgata legitur *effudit in nos*.

en: Verse 5 f.; for *effudit in nobis* the Vatican edition and the Vulgate read *effudit in nos*.

la: Vers. 8. seq., quo in loco pro *sed cum* Vat. cum codd. P bb habet *quoniam cum*, et deinde sola *in sanguine* pro *per sanguinem*.

en: Verse 8 f., in which place, for *sed cum*, the Vatican edition with codices P, bb has *quoniam cum*, and then simply *in sanguine* for *per sanguinem*.

la: Pro *ipso* edd. substituunt *persona*, et paulo superius pro *describuntur* codd. P Q Z bb *scribuntur*.

en: For *ipso* the editions substitute *persona*, and a little above, for *describuntur*, codices P, Q, Z, bb read *scribuntur*.

la: Cod. K supplet *Sententiarum*. Paulo inferius pro *qualiter vivificati* codd. H W exhibent *iustificati*, edd. *convivificati*, quae edd. post pauca etiam omittunt *quod ideo* [plures edd. *Et ideo*] *dicit Apostolus*.

en: Codex K supplies *Sententiarum*. A little below, for *qualiter vivificati* codices H, W present *iustificati*, the editions *convivificati*; and those editions, a little further on, also omit *quod ideo* [several editions: *Et ideo*] *dicit Apostolus*.

la: Vers. 26. — Paulo inferius edd. omittunt *verae et*.

en: Verse 26. — A little below, the editions omit *verae et*.

la: Cap. 1, 1. seq. Vulgata nec non edd. in hoc testimonio Apostoli verbis *quod vidimus* etc. praemittunt *quod audivimus*. — Seq. loc. Script. est Baruch 3, 38.

en: Chapter 1, verse 1 f. The Vulgate, and likewise the editions, in this testimony of the Apostle prefix *quod audivimus* to the words *quod vidimus* etc. — The following scriptural passage is Baruch 3:38.

la: Vers. 18.

en: Verse 18.

la: Vers. 7. seqq., ubi Vulgata post *Humiliavit semetipsum* addit *factus obediens*.

en: Verse 7 ff., where the Vulgate, after *Humiliavit semetipsum*, adds *factus obediens*.

la: Cod. A et *ut*.

en: Codex A also [reads] *ut*.

la: Codd., cum textum Magistri non afferant, hic immediate adiungunt divisionem textus primae distinctionis.

en: The codices, since they do not carry the Master's text, here immediately append the division of the text of the first distinction. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 702–831), reflowed column-by-column (the OCR interleaves the two printed columns at character offset ~72 on p.1 and ~75 on p.2), then verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.1–2 (PDF 23–24, offset `pdf = printed + 22`). Unlike Vol II's Respondeo/footer regions, this proemium's OCR is **clean running prose, not cascade-shattered** — so the OCR served as the base and the plate was consulted for the garbled spans and for italics, which the OCR does not carry.

**Type.** `proemium` — a new chunk type. This is Bonaventure's own prologue to Book III, not the Master's text and not editors' front matter. `distinctio: 0` because it precedes Distinction I. ⚠ See the site-schema note below.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.1** (PDF 23): display heading `PROOEMIUM. / IN TERTIUM LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM.`, the Eph. 2:4–5 lemma set as an indented display quotation to the right of centre, then the body from *Verbum istud scribitur secundo…* to the page-foot catch *…mysterium explican-*. Footer nn.**1–11** (`[^p1-1..11]`) — nn.1–6 in the left block, nn.7–11 in the right.
- **p.2** (PDF 24): body resumes mid-word at *-dum; specialiori tamen modo…* and closes at *…intendit Magister determinare⁷ etc.* Footer nn.**1–7** (`[^p2-1..7]`) — nn.1–4 left, nn.5–7 right. The body occupies only the upper ~55 % of the leaf.

**Apparatus count.** 18 entries total (p.1 nn.1–11; p.2 nn.1–7). Numbering restarts per printed page.

**★ The end-of-proemium ornament.** The OCR line `^s^tf^SJ^SSMSs^^^-` on p.2 is **not text and not a garble** — it is a printer's decorative flourish (a ruled line closing in a scrollwork tail) set below the body and above the footer register, marking the end of the proemium. Rendered as nothing. Anyone reading the OCR alone would try to reconstruct it as Latin.

**★★ Marginal glosses trimmed (per the CLAUDE.md OCR-cleanup rule).** Quaracchi set editorial catchwords in the outer margin; the OCR drops them inline mid-sentence, where they read as corrupt Latin. Recovered from the plate and removed from the body: p.1 *Quatuor notanda in redemptione.* · *Primum.* · *Secundum.* · *Tertium.* · *Quartum.* · *De his quatuor simul.* · *His quatuor respondent 4 libri Sententiarum.* — p.2 *Tamen specialiter ad tertium librum.* · *Quadrupliciter convivificati sumus.* · *In Christo.* · *Cum Christo.* · *Per Christum.* · *Secundum Christum.* · *De his quatuor simul.* (The OCR forms — `Stare"tein`, `dempuone.`, `rrimom.`, `Qoadrapiici-ler convivi-licaiisomus`, `nMoaio°r resnondent niBrisen-teolianim.` — are all of this class.)

**★ Two readings the OCR would have got wrong, both fixed on the plate.**
- p.2 n.1 reads `Paulo inferius edd. omittunt *verae et.*` The OCR gave `omittunt verae. ct.`, which invites the reading "omit *verae*" plus a stray token. The italic phrase is ***verae et*** — both words — matching the body's *nos verae et immortali vitae sociavit*.
- p.1 n.9 reads `et deinde sola *in sanguine* pro *per sanguinem*`. The OCR gave `solatn sanguine`, which loses the preposition that is the whole point of the variant.

**★ Italics are only on the plate.** The IA djvu OCR carries none, and this proemium's argument is partly *carried* by them: the fourfold *in* / *cum* / *per* / *secundum* Christum is italicised on the preposition, and `in terris visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est` is set as a quotation — which is what p.2 n.2's *Seq. loc. Script. est Baruch 3, 38* is pointing at. Read from the OCR alone, that Baruch allusion is invisible.

**Hand-off forwarded.** The Book III front matter continues past this chunk and is **still unbuilt**: raw L832 (`LIBER TERTIUS SENTENTIARUM. / DE INCARNATIONE VERBI ET HUMANI GENERIS REPARATIONE`) = Lombard's own opening, printed p.3 → a `littera` chunk; raw L887–1058 (`CAPITULA TERTII LIBRI`) = Lombard's chapter list for all 40 distinctions, printed pp.4–6 → a `capitula` chunk (the type already exists in `build-content.mjs`). `DISTINCTIO I.` begins at raw L1059, printed p.7 — where the existing corpus starts. See `manual-review/proemia-gap-scoping.md`.

**⚠ Site schema.** `build-content.mjs` drops every non-work chunk whose `distinctio` resolves to 0 (`if (!work && chunkMeta.distinctio === 0) continue;`). Until that skip exempts front-matter types, this chunk parses but does **not** render. That is J2 in the scoping doc, and it is the mechanism that hid the gap in the first place.

**⛔ THE THREE GUARD-RAIL AUDITS DO NOT COVER THIS CHUNK, AND THEY REPORT CLEAN ANYWAY.**
`audit-{paraphrase,headers,apparatus-count}.py --volume 3 --min-d 0 --max-d 0` each print a clean
verdict on **0 chunks audited**. The cause is not the `--min-d` range: all three select files by the
filename regex **`bon-sent-III-d(\d+)-`**, and `bon-sent-III-proem.md` has no `-dN-` segment, so it
can never match at any range. Same footgun family as `check-live-flags.py --volume 5` — *read the
scanned-chunk count before believing any verdict.* **Do not record this chunk as "audits CLEAN".**
Either extend the three regexes to admit front-matter chunks, or accept that proemium chunks are
verified by marker-pairing + plate discipline only. What was actually run here:
- marker pairing — Latin 18 / English 18 / defs 18, order-identical, every def carrying an `**En.**` line;
- `node site/scripts/build-content.mjs` — parses without error (2042 questions, **unchanged**, because the chunk is dropped by the `distinctio === 0` skip above);
- eyes-on 450 dpi column bands for both leaves, body and footer registers.

**[?] flags.** None — pp.1–2 fully legible at 450 dpi.


title: Textus Magistri

title_alt: LIBER TERTIUS SENTENTIARUM. De incarnatione Verbi et humani generis reparatione

title_alt: Book Three of the Sentences — on the incarnation of the Word and the repair of the human race

source_text:
<!-- page 3 -->

# LIBER TERTIUS SENTENTIARUM.

### DE INCARNATIONE VERBI ET HUMANI GENERIS REPARATIONE.

Iam nunc his intelligendis atque pertractandis, quae ad Verbi incarnationem pertinent, integra mentis consideratione intendamus, ut de ineffabilibus vel modicum aliquid fari, Deo revelante, valeamus[^p3-1]. Sic enim rationis ordo postulat, ut, qui in primo libro de inexplicabili mysterio summae Trinitatis irrefragabili Sanctorum attestatione aliquid diximus, ac deinde in secundo libro conditionis rerum ordinem hominisque lapsum sub certis[^p3-2] auctoritatis regulis insinuavimus, de eius reparatione, per gratiam Mediatoris Dei et hominum praestita, atque humanae redemptionis Sacramentis, quibus contritiones hominis alligantur ac vulnera peccatorum curantur, consequenter in tertio et quarto libro disseramus, ut Samaritanus ad vulneratum, medicus ad infirmum, gratia ad miserum accedat.

---

english:
<!-- page 3 -->

# BOOK THREE OF THE SENTENCES.

### ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD AND THE REPAIR OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Now let us bend the mind's whole consideration to the understanding and the treating of those things which pertain to the incarnation of the Word, so that we may be able — God revealing it — to utter at least some little about things unutterable[^p3-1]. For the order of reason demands this: that we who in the first book said something concerning the inexplicable mystery of the highest Trinity, on the irrefragable attestation of the Saints, and who then in the second book set forth the order of the founding of things and the fall of man under sure rules[^p3-2] of authority, should consequently in the third and fourth books discourse concerning his repair — bestowed through the grace of the Mediator of God and men — and concerning the Sacraments of human redemption, by which the bruises of man are bound up and the wounds of his sins are healed: so that the Samaritan may come to the wounded man, the physician to the sick, grace to the wretched.

---

la: Repetimus hanc propositionem iam in fine ultimae distinctionis II. libri Sententiarum positam.

en: We repeat here the statement already set at the end of the last distinction of the second book of the Sentences.

la: Ed. 1 *subiectis*, deinde pro *auctoritatis* cod. A *auctoritatum*.

en: Edition 1 reads *subiectis*; then, for *auctoritatis*, codex A reads *auctoritatum*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands of printed p.3 (PDF 25, offset `pdf = printed + 22`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` raw lines 832–886). The plate was needed: the OCR gives `intelligentlis` for **intelligendis**, `auctoritalis` for **auctoritatis**, `bumanae`, `euranlur`, `mcdicus`, and `ordiuem`.

**Type.** `littera` — the Master's own text, the prologue opening Lombard's Book III. `distinctio: 0`: it prints before Distinction I, which begins *Cum venit igitur plenitudo temporis* on p.6. Bonaventure's own proemium (`bon-sent-III-proem`, pp.1–2) ends by quoting that incipit.

**★★ THIS PAGE HOLDS TWO UNITS AND ITS FOOTER SPLITS 2/6 WHILE ITS BLOCKS SPLIT 4/4.** Printed p.3 carries the Master's prologue at the head, then the full-width display heading `INCIPIUNT CAPITULA TERTII LIBRI.` — **which crosses the gutter** (the OCR shatters it as `I.NCIPIU.NT CAPITULA` in the left column and `TERTII LIIIRI.` in the right) — and then the Capitula begin **on this same leaf**, running Distinctio I through Distinctio VI. So:
- **Footer BLOCKS divide 4/4** — nn.1–4 in the left block, nn.5–8 in the right.
- **Footer ANCHORS divide 2/6** — only **nn.1–2** answer to this chunk (both in the prologue's single paragraph). **nn.3–8 all anchor in capitula entries** (`potuerit³ incarnari`, `intelligendum sit⁴`, `qualis ante⁵ fuerit`, `dicit⁶ Christum`, `assumserit⁷ hominem`, `ponit⁸`) and belong to `bon-sent-III-capitula`.

A reader dividing this register by block would hand two of the Capitula's notes to the prologue. The standing rule — *read anchors, only anchors* — is what decides it.

**★ THE PAGE-LEVEL GUTTER MEASUREMENT IS WRONG HERE, AND ITS RUN WIDTH SAYS SO.** `colcrop.py vol3 3 auto` returns `split_x=1570` on a **126 px** run. That is far above the sound 58–64 px band, which is as much a failure signal as far below it — the profile is straddling two regions set to different measures (the prologue's two columns, and the Capitula's narrower indented entries below the display heading). Profiled over the prologue's own rows (1500–2000 of 5049) the band is **1487–1526, width 40 → split 1506**, and that is the value this chunk was cut at. Same species as the Itinerarium p.313 case in CLAUDE.md: *a gutter is a property of a region, not of a page.*

**Apparatus count.** 2 entries owned (p.3 nn.1–2 of 8 on the page).

**Hand-off forwarded.** `bon-sent-III-capitula` takes p.3 nn.**3–8** together with the `INCIPIUNT CAPITULA TERTII LIBRI.` display heading, and runs pp.3–6 to `EXPLICIUNT CAPITULA TERTII LIBRI.` ⚠ **It shares printed p.6 with `bon-sent-III-d1-littera`** (which already claims pp.6–7), so p.6's footer must be divided by anchor between them and the existing chunk checked for what it already holds.

**[?] flags.** None — p.3 fully legible at 450 dpi.