S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis 

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor
Libros Sententiarum

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

Commentaries on the Four
Books of Sentences

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PRIMI LIBRI

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I.

BOOK I

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION I

ARTICULUS I.

 

QUAESTIO 3.

ARTICLE I

 

QUESTION 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 34-35.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 34-35.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

 

Utrum solo bono creato utendum sit.

QUESTION 3

 

Whether one is to use only the created good.

TERTIO, OSTENSO, utrum omni creato sit utendum et1 omni alio a Deo, est quaestio, utrum solo bono creato sit utendum. Et quod sic, videtur.

THIRD, HAVING SHOWN, whether one is to use every thing created and1 everything else (that is) from God, there is the question, whether one is to use only the created good. And it seems that (this is) so.

1. « Omne bonum aut est finis, aut ad finem »;2 sed solo bono, quod est ad finem, est utendum, quia ratio utilis est ducere in finem: ergo cum solum bonum creatum sit ad finem, solo bono creato est utendum.

1. « Every good either is an end, or for an end [ad finem] »;2 but one is to use only the good, which is for an end, because the reason for use [ratio utilis] is to lead unto an end: therefore since the created good alone is for an end, one is to use only the created good.

2. Item, omne bonum aut est creatum, aut increatum. Sed si contingit uti bono increato, contingit illud referre ad aliud: aut ergo ad creatum, aut3 increatum; sed non ad increatum, quia non est nisi unum increatum: ergo ad creatum. Sed sic refertur terminus ad viam et causa ad effectum; sed hoc est abusio, non usus: ergo solo bono creato sive creatura est utendum.

2. Likewise, every good either has been created, or is uncreated. But if it happens that one use the uncreated Good, it happens that one refers it to another: therefore either to a created thing, or3 an uncreated one; but not to an uncreated, because there is naught but one uncreated thing. But thus is the terminus referred to the way and the cause to the effect; but this is an abuse, not a use; therefore one is to use the created good or creature alone.

3. Item, Augustinus in libro octoginta trium Questionum4 dividit honestum contra utile: ergo nullum utile honestum vel e converso; sed Deus est honestum per essentiam: ergo Deo non est utendum.

3. Likewise, (St.) Augustine in the eightieth book On The Three Questions4 divides the honest against the useful: therefore no useful is honest and/or vice-versa; but God is essentially honest: therefore one is not to use God.

4. Item, videtur quod non solum non sit utendum Deo sive bono increato, sed uti eo semper sit peccatum mortale, quia Augustinus in libro octoginta trium Questionum5 dicit: « Summa perversitas est frui utendis et uti fruendis »; sed qui utitur bono increato, utitur bono fruendo: ergo etc.

4. Likewise, it seems that one is not only not to use God or the uncreated Good, but to use it is always a mortal sin, because (St.) Augustine in the eightieth book On the Three Questions5 says: « The most high perversity is enjoying what is to be used and using what is to be enjoyed »; but he who uses the uncreated Good, uses a good that is to be enjoyed: ergo etc.

CONTRA: 1. Contingit Deo recte servire intuitu mercedis, quia multi sunt boni mercenarii, ut dicit Ambrosius;6 sed non contingit Deo servire nisi amando: ergo contingit Deum recte amare intuitu mercedis; sed sic amans utitur Deo, quia refert ad aliud: ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. It happens that one does serve God in an upright manner in consideration of a wage [intuitu mercedis], because there are many good mercenaries, as (St.) Ambrose says;6 but it does not happen that one serves God except by loving (Him) [amando]: therefore it does happen that one loves God in an upright manner in consideration of a wage; but the one thus loving uses God, because he refers (Him) to another: ergo etc..

2. Item, sic summa bonitas habet se ad amorem, sicut7 summa veritas ad cognitionem; sed contingit veritatem creatam cognoscere clarius sine praeiudicio summae veritatis et sine errore: ergo similiter contingit aliam bonitatem quam summam ardentius diligere sine praeiudicio summae bonitatis et deordinatione: ergo contingit amore ordinato aliud plus diligi quam Deum: ergo contingit Deum diligi propter aliud ordinate et ita uti eo.

2. Likewise, the most high Goodness so holds Itself to love, as7 the most high Truth (does) to cognition; but it happens that one cognizes created truth more clearly without a pre-judgment of most high Truth and without error: therefore similarly it happens that one loves [diligere] another goodness more ardently than the most high One without pre-judgment of most high Goodness and without disorder: therefore it happens that another is loved with an ordinate love [amore] more than God: therefore it happens that God is loved [diligi] in an ordinate manner for the sake of another and thus one uses Him.

3. Item, videtur quod nullum peccatum sit, cum quis utitur Deo propter suam salutem, quia « cuius finis bonus, ipsum bonum »;8 sed huius usus bonus est, scilicet nostra salus: ergo usus Dei bonus: ergo non erit peccatum.

3. Likewise, it seems that there is no sin, when one uses God for the sake of his own salvation, because « whose end (is) good, (is) itself good »;8 but the use of this is good, that is, our salvation: therefore the use of God (is) good: therefore it will not be a sin (to do such).

4. Item, usus Dei aut est bonus; et sic utendum Deo; aut est malus; et sic Deus malus, quia « cuius usus malus, ipsum malum »;9 quod si Deus bonus, et eius usus bonus: ergo Deo est utendum.

4. Likewise, the use of God is either good; and thus one (is) to use God; or is evil; and thus God (is) evil, because « whose use (is) evil, (is) itself evil »;9 whereas [quod] if God is good, the use of Him (is) also good: therefore one is to use God.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Solo bono creato est utendum, et bono increato uti est abuti.

CONCLUSION

 

One is to use only the created good, and to use the uncreated Good is to abuse (It).

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod solo bono creato est utendum, quia, si bono increato utimur, semper est abusus, et abusus talis est mortale peccatum propter perversitatem in finem10 cum delectatione, et propter voluntatis inordinationem, quae minus diligit ipsum quo utitur, quam propter quod utitur.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that one is to use only the created good, because, if we use the uncreated Good, there is always an abuse, and such an abuse is a mortal sin on account of the perversity unto an end10 with delectation, and on account of the inordinancy [inordinationem] of the will, which loves less That which it uses, than (that) for the sake of which it uses.

1 Codd. R et W vel pro et.
2 Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 1-7; I. Magnor. Moral. c. 3. et III. Topic. c. 1, ubi haec divisio diversimode insinuatur.
3 Cod. A cum ed. 1 satis bene adiungit ad. Mox Vat., obnitentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, post unum omittit increatum.
4 Quest. 30: Honestum dicitur quod propter se ipsum expetendum est, utile autem quod ad aliud aliquid referendum est. — Mox ex multis codd. ut A F G H I K T U V aa bb ee ff cum ed. 1 posuimus vel pro et. Paulo infra Vat. ante honestum praemittit quid, quod tamen melius cum mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 omittitur, quia Deus est ipsum honestum per essentiam.
5 Quest. 30: Omnis itaque humana perversio est, quod etiam vitium vocatur, fruendis uti velle atque utendis frui.
6 In Evangel. S. Lucae c. 15, ubi iuxta ed. Venet. 1748: At vero filius, qui habet Spiritus S. pignus in corde, saecularis mercedis lucella non quaerit, quibus serviat. Haeredes sunt etiam mercenarii, qui ducuntur ad vineam. Bonus mercenarius Petrus etc. — Codex autem, sub n. 507 Bibliothecae Laurentianae Florentiis, membr. in fol. saec. XI. fol. 116. recto, col. 2. ultimam partem sic exhibet: non quaerit, qui ius servat haeredis. Sunt etiam qui conducuntur ad vineam. Bonus etc. Cum quo concordat cod. III. Plut. XIV. in fol. saec. XV. libr. VIII. c. 35. Lectio istius ed. in verbis et interpunctione errat.
7 Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1, invertendo comparationem, nempe sicut summa bonitas, sic summa veritas, argumentationem, ut ex subnexis patet, perturbat. Mox cod. X post clarius satis bene addit veritate increata. Dein, faventibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, expunxiumus aliquam, quod Vat. cum recentiori cod. cc praemittit voci aliam. In ultima propositione huius argumenti multi codd. C F G K L R S U V W aa bb cum ed. 1 ante diligi falso repetunt plus.
8 Boeth., II. de Differentiis topicis. Locus a fine: Cuius finis bonus est, ipsum quoque bonum est. Vide supra q. 1. in corp. Propositio ista derivata esse videtur ex illa Aristot., III. Topic. c. 1: Cuius finis melior, et ipsum melius. Ad normam codd. et ed. 1 omisimus est et quoque, quod Vat. cum Boethio habet.
9 Boeth., II. de Differentiis topicis. — Codd. F O X addunt post malus particulam et. Immediate post ex fere omnibus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus quod loco quia, cod. R autem habet ergo si Deus.
10 Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 reiecimus lectionem Vat. aversionem a fine tanquam minus rectam, quia talis abusus non dicit solum simplicem aversionem a fine, sed etiam directam perversionem ipsius finis, quatenus nempe ipse finis convertitur in medium. Cod. O post perversitatem addit intentionis. Cod. R totam propositionem sic exhibet: et abusus talis semper est mortale peccatum, non (forsan omissum: solum) propter per / versitatem in finem cum delectione, sed propter voluntatis etc. Mox maiorem partem codd. ut A C G I K L U V X etc. et ed. 1 secuti, bis pro utimur substituimus utitur, quod grammatice melius est; alii codd. primo loco habet utitur, secundo loco utimur. Propositio ista relativa a S. Doctore adducta, quae immediate referetur ad substantivum voluntatis, continet implicite rationem inordinationis in voluntate hic notatae; sensus enim est: voluntas ordinata minus diligit ipsum quo utitur, i. e. medium, quam propter quod utitur, i. e. finem; atqui in hoc casu habetur contrarium; ergo voluntas est inordinata.

1 Codices R and W have and/or [vel] in place of and [et].
2 Cf. Aristotle, Ethics, Bk. I, ch. 1-7: [the work on morals by the Peripatetic School,] Magna Moralia, Bk. I, ch. 3 and [Aristotle's,] Topics, Bk. III, ch. 1, where this division is hinted at in diverse manners.
3 Codex A together with edition 1 adds well enough to. Then the Vatican text, disagreeing with the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, omits uncreated thing after one.
4 Question 30: What is to be sought out for its own sake is called honest, but what is to be referred to another thing (is called) useful. — Then from many codices, as A F G H I K T U V aa bb ee ff together with edition 1, we have put and/or [vel] in place of and [et]. A little below (this) the Vatican text reads God is what (is) essentially honest.
5Question 30: And thus every human perversion, which is also called a vice, is to want to use the things which are to be enjoyed [fruendis] and to enjoy the things which are to be used [utendis].
6In the Gospel of St. Luke, ch. 15, where according to the Venetian edition of 1748 (there is read): But in truth the son, who has the pledge of the Holy Spirit in (His) heart, does not seek the small profits of worldly pay, to which he is a slave. The heirs are also mercenaries, who are lead to the vineyard. The good mercenary Peter etc.. — But the Codex, (kept) under n. 507 in the Laurentian Library at Florence, a member of a folio from the 11th century, folio 116 right, column 2, thus exhibits the final part: he does not seek, who guards the right of an heir. There are those who are conducted to the vineyard. The good etc.. With this codex III. Plut. XIV, in a folio of the 15th century, Bk. VIII, ch. 35, agrees. The reading of that edition errs in its words and punctuation.
7 The Vatican text, against the manuscripts and edition 1, by inverting the comparison, namely as the Most High Good, so the Most High Truth, confuses the argument, as is clear from the subjoined. Then codex X after more clearly adds, well enough, by uncreated Truth. Then, favoring the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, we have expunged some, which the Vatican text together with the more recent codex cc has prefaced by the word another. In the last proposition of this argument many of the codices, C F G K L R S U V W aa bb together with edition 1, falsely repeat more after is loved.
8 (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Differences of Topic, Bk. II. In the place at the end: Whose end is good, is itself also good. See below q. 1 in the body. That proposition seems to be derived from that of Aristotle, Topics, Bk. III., ch. 1: Whose end is better, (is) also itself better. According to the norm of the codices and edition 1, we have omitted is [est] and also [quoque], which the Vatican text together with (St. Severinus) Boethius has.
9 (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Differences of Topics, Bk. II.. — Codices F O and X add after evil the particle and/also [et]. Immediately after, from nearly all the manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted whereas [quod] in place of because [quia], codex R however has therefore if God.
10 On the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, we have rejected the reading of the Vatican text aversion from (its) end as less right, because such an abuse does not mean only a simple aversion from (its) end, but also a direct perversion of its very end, namely to the extent that the end itself is converted into a means. Codex O after perversity adds of intention. Codex R exhibits the whole proposition thus: and such an abuse is always a mortal sin, not (perhaps only has been omitted here) on account of the per- / -versity unto the end with delectation, but on account of the will etc. Then having followed a greater pert of the codices, as A C G I K L U V X etc. and edition 1, we have twice substituted uses for we use, which is grammatically better; the other codices have in the first place uses, in the second place we use. This relative proposition adduced by the Seraphic Doctor, which is immediately referred to the substantive of the will [voluntatis], implicitly contains the reason for the inordinate state noted in willing this; for the sense is: the ordinate will loves less that which it uses, i.e. the means, which (is) on account of that which it uses, i.e. the end; but in fact the contrary is had in this case; therefore the will is inordinate.

p. 35

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod contingit recte servire Deo intuitu mercedis; dicendum, quod illa merces aut est ipse Deus, sicut dixit Abrahae Genesis decimo quinto:1 Ego merce tua; et sic intuens mercedem non utitur, quia non refert ad aliud; aut merces illa est aliud, et tunc potest eam quis intueri aut ut causam moventem; et sic est malus mercenarius;2 aut ut rationem inducentem; et sic bonus, et hoc modo non utitur.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that it does happen that God is served in an upright manner in consideration of a wage; it must be said, that that wage either is God Himself, as He said to Abraham in the fifteenth (chapter) of Genesis:1 I (am) thy wage; and the one thus considering a wage does not use, because he does not refer to another; or that wage is another, and then one can consider it either as a moving cause; and thus one is an evil mercenary;2 or as an inducing reason; and so (one is) good, and in this manner one does not use.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod clarior cognitio creaturae non praeiudicat Creatori, ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia claritas cognitionis non est in nostra potestate, sed ardor affectionis est in nostra potestate; ideo requiritur a nobis, quod istum ordinemus, non illam.3 Aliquis tamen actus cognitionis est in nostra potestate, utpote actus fidei, quo si aliquis assentiat veritati primae propter aliud, bene praeiudicat veritati, sicut amare propter aliud, bonitati.

2. To that which is objected, that the more clearer cognition of a creature does not prejudge the Creator, ergo etc.; it must be said, that it is not similar, because the clarity of cognition is not in our power, but the ardor of affection is in our power; for that reason there is required from us, that we ordain this (love) of ours, not that (cognition).3 However, there is some act of cognition in our power, insofar as [utpote] the act of faith (is such an act), whereby if one assents to prime Truth on account of another, he prejudges Truth in a good manner [bene], just as to love [amare] (prime Goodness) on account of another, (prejudges) Goodness (in a good manner).

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod finis usus Dei est bonus; dicendum, quod finis dicitur bonus dupliciter: aut quantum ad substantiam, aut quantum ad intentionem finiendi; et propositio illa intelligitur quantum ad intentionem finiendi, et haec4 consistit in recta ordinatione.

3. To that which is objected, that the end of the use of God is good; it must be said, that an end is called good in a twofold manner: either as much as regards (its) substance, or as much as regards the intention of the one ordering it to the end [finiendi]; and that proposition is understood as much as regards the intention of the one ordering it to the end, and this (intention)4 consists in an upright ordering [in recta ordinatione].

4. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod illa propositio5 intelligitur de habentibus ordinationem ad finem, sed non de ipso fine. — Vel intelligitur de actu naturali ipsarum rerum et proprio, qui frequentius ab ipsa re elicitur, non de ordinatione in6 finem; et sic non valet propositio ad propositum.

4. To the last (objection) it must be said, that that proposition5 is understood of those having an ordination to an end, but not of the end itself. — And/or it is understood of the natural act of the things themselves and the proper (act), which frequently is elicited from the thing itself, but not of (its) ordination unto6 an end; and so the proposition is not valid for the (question) proposed.

 

SCHOLION.

 

SCHOLIUM

I. In conclusione S. Doctor propositionem, quod bono increatu uti sit abusus et peccatum, duplici ratione probat, quae summitur tum ex parte finis ultimi, tum ex parte voluntatis. Ex parte finis ultimi est abusus, quia aversio a fine non fit sine contemtu eius et offensa Dei, uti probatur II. Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 1, et a. 3. q. 2; ex parte voluntatis propter inordinationem, quia voluntas, quando Deo utitur, in aliquo creato ponit finem; sed finis est melior his quae sunt ad finem (infra d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.) et « quantum est de se, dicit excessum bonitatis respectu eius, quod est ad finem » (ibid. ad 4.). Ex quo patet inordinatio in proposito. Voluntas enim in utendo minus diligit medium quam finem. Ad rem facit illud generalissimum principium Aristotelis, toties a S. Doctore repetitum: Propter quod unumquodque (tale) est, illud magis est. Cfr. etiam hic dub. 6, ubi dicit, quod omnis res sit aut finis, aut medium ad finem, aut perveniens ad finem. — Quoad solut. ad 1, nempe quomodo Deo servire possimus intuitu mercedis, cfr. II. Sent. d. 38. a. 1. q. 3. ad 2. et III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. — Quoad axioma: Cuius finis bonus, ipsum quoque bonum (ad 3.), cfr. II. Sent. d. 38. a. 1. q. 1.

I. In the conclusion the Seraphic Doctor proves the proposition, that to use the uncreated Good is an abuse and a sin, with a twofold reason, which is taken both from the part of the last end, and from the part of the will. On the part of the end it is an abuse, because an aversion from the end is not done without contempt for it and an offense to God, as is proven in Sent., Bk. II, d. 42, a. 2, q. 1. and a. 3, q. 2; on the part of the will on account of its inordinate state, because the will, when it uses God, places its end in another; but the end is better that those which are for the end (below in d. 29, a. 1, q. 1 in the body of the reply) and « as much as it concerns itself, it means an excess of goodness in respect to that, which is for the end » (ibid. at n. 4). From which the inordinate state (spoken of) in the proposition is clear. For the will in using loves [diligit] the means less than the end. To which one applies that most general of the principles of Aristotle, very often repeated by the Seraphic Doctor: That for the sake of which any single thing is (such), is greater. Cf. also here in doubt n. 6, where he says, that every thing is either an end, or a means to an end, or arriving at an end. — In regard to the solution to n.1, namely in which manner we can serve God in consideration of a wage, cf. Sent., Bk. II, d. 38, a. 1, q. 3, reply to n. 2, and Sent., Bk. III, d. 27, a. 2, q. 2. — In regard to the axiom: Whose end (is) good, (is) also itself good (reply to n. 3), cf. Sent., d. 38, a. 1. q. 1.

II. Quoad ipsam quaestionem: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 60. m. 3. a. 1. et 2, et p. II. q. 142. m. 2. — Ceteros a uctores videsis in Scholio ad praecedentem questionem.

II. In regard to that question: Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. III, q. 60, m. 3, q. 1 and 2, and p. II, q. 142, m. 2. — You may have seen [videsis read as videris] the other authors in the Scholium to the preceding question.

1 Vers. 1. — Paulo ante exhibemus lectionem codd. R V W X Y Z aa bb; alii codd. autem, omisso Deus, ponunt Dominus post Abrahae, a quibus non multum dissidet Vat. legendo: et ipse, sicut Dominus dixit ad Abraam. Mox fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 post utitur expunximus Deo.
2 Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1. hic addit et sic utitur.
3 Vat. post istum addit amorem et post illam adiungit cognitionem, quae tamen auctoritate mss. et ed. 1. tanquam superflua expunximus.
4 Cod. cc cum ed. 1 hoc. Mox antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 omittunt propositionem, quae habetur in Vat. et cod. cc post ordinatione, scil.: et illo modo non contingit uti Deo, quia non convenit ordinari. — Fusius de hac re tractat S. Doctore II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1.
5 Scilicet, cuius usus bonus, et ipsum bonum. — Vat. cum cod. cc paulo ante post ultimum praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 addit scilicet usus Dei aut est bonus aut malus etc.
6 Ex mss. et ed. 1 substutuimus in loco ad. — De hoc secundo responsionis membro vide supra q. 1. circa principium conclusionis.

1 Verse 1. — A little before this we have used the reading of codices R V W X Y Z aa and bb; the other codices however, having omitted God, put the Lord after Abraham, from which the Vatican text does not dissent much in its reading: (is) also He, as the Lord said to Abram. Then on the testimony of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, we have expunged God after does not use.
2 The Vatican text, contrary to the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1, adds here and thus one uses.
3 The Vatican text adds love after this and after that adjoins cognition, which however, on the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, we have expunged as superfluous [trans. -- But which are inserted here for the sake of the clarity of the English translation].
4 Codex cc together with edition 1 reads this [trans. hoc, which presumably refers to the notion of intentionem finiendi as a whole]. Then the more ancient codices and edition 1 omit the proposition, which is had in the Vatican text and codex cc after ordering [ordinatione], that is: and in that manner it does not happen that one uses God, because it is not fitting that He be ordained (to an end). — The Seraphic Doctor treats of this matter more extensively in II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1.
5 That is, whose use (is) good, (is) also itself good. — The Vatican text together with codex cc adds a little before this, after to the last (objection), against the testimony of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, that is, the use of God is either good or evil, etc..
6 From the manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted unto [in] in place of to [ad]. — Concerning this second member of the response, see above in q. 1, near the beginning of the conclusion.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.