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

Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PRIMI LIBRI

BOOK ONE

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III

PARS. I.

PART I

ARTCULUS UNICUS.

 

Quaestio III.

ARTICLE SOLE

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 74-75.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 74-75.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

Utrum homo in omni statu cognoscat Deum per creaturas.

QUESTION 3

Whether man in every state cognizes God through creatures.

TERTIO QUAERITUR, utrum cognitio Dei per creaturas sit hominis quantum ad omnem statum. Quod sit hominis quantum ad primum statum, sic ostenditur.

THIRD THERE IS ASKED, whether the cognition of God through creatures belongs to man as much as regards (his) every state. That it does belong to man as regards (his) first state, is shown thus:

1. Homo in statu innocentiae non cognoscebat Deum facie ad faciem: ergo si cognoscebat Deum, cognoscebat per effectum, ergo per vestigium, ergo per creaturam.

1. Man in the state of innocence did not use to cognize God face to face: therefore if he used to cognize God, he used to cognize (Him) through an effect, therefore through a vestige, therefore through a creature.

2. Item, in homine in statu innocentiae cognitio sensibilis non erat in impedimentum, sed in adminiculum cognitionis intellectivae; sed intellectiva cognito, propter quam factus est homo, est cognitio Dei: ergo omnis cognitio sensibilis in primo homine ordinabatur ad hanc; sed cognitio Dei per adminiculum sensibilium est cognitio per creaturam: ergo etc.

2. Likewise, in man in the state of innocence sensible cognition was not as [in] an impediment, but as a support [adminiculum] for intellective cognition; but intellective cognition, on account of which man was made, is a cognition of God: therefore every sensible cognition in the first man was ordained for this; but cognition of God through a sensible support is cognition through a creature: ergo etc..

Item, quod sit hominis quantum ad statum beatitudinis, videtur:

Likewise, that it belongs to man as much as regards (his) state of beatitude, it does seem:

1. Quia Beati cognoscunt creaturam, sed non sistunt in illa, sed referunt ad Deum: ergo cognoscunt Deum per creaturam.

1. Because the Blessed cognize a Creature [i.e. the Humanity of Christ], but they do not stand still in it, but refer (it) to God: therefore they cognize God through a creature.

2. Item, beatae1 animae laudant Deum per creaturas; sed laudare Deum per creaturas est cognoscere per creaturas; ergo etc.

2. Likewise, the blessed1 souls praise God through creatures; but to praise God through creatures is to cognize (Him) through creatures; ergo etc..

SED CONTRA: quod non sit hominis instituti, sic ostenditur.

ON THE CONTRARY: that it did not belong to man as instituted, is shown thus:

1. Cognitio per vestigium est cognitio per medium; « sed mens, ut dicit Augustinus,2 immediate ab ipsa veritate formatur »: ergo talis cognitio non convenit humanae naturae quantum ad illum statum, nec etiam quantum ad alium.

1. Cognition through a vestige is cognition through a medium; « but the mind », as (St.) Augustine says,2 « is immediately formed by the Truth itself »: therefore such a cognition does not agree [convenit] with human nature as much as regards that state, nor even as much as regards another (state).

2. Item, non est rectus ordo, quod propinquius perveniat in finem per medium magis distans; sed homo in statu primo erat propinquior Deo ceteris aliis3 creaturis: ergo non conveniebat ei pervenire in cognitionem Dei per alias creaturas.

2. Likewise, it is not a right order, which the nearer arrives at the end through a more distant medium; but man in the first state was nearer to God that the rest of other3 creatures: therefore it did not use to be agreeable to him to arrive at the cognition of God through other creatures.

Item, quod non sit hominis talis cognitio quantum ad statum beatitudinis, videtur.

Likewise, that such a cognition did not belong to man as much as regards (his) state of beatitude, it does seem:

1. Quia cognitio per vestigium est cognitio per manuductionem: ergo non est cognitio perfecta, ergo est ex parte:4 ergo non manet in Beatis, quia in ipsis evacuabitur quod est ex parte.

1. Because cognition through a vestige is cognition through a being-lead-by-hand [manuductionem]: therefore it is not a perfect cognition, therefore it is partial [ex parte]:4 therefore it does not remain among the Blessed, because among them is emptied out [evacuabitur] what is partial.

2. Item, vestigium sive creatura est sicut scala ad ascendendum vel sicut via ad perveniendum ad Deum; sed cum perventum est ad terminum, non est usus viae ulterius:5 ergo similiter, cum homo sit sursum, non indiget scala; sed cognitio Beatorum immediate est in Deum: ergo non est per creaturas.

2. Likewise, the vestige or creature is as a stair to ascend and/or as a way to arrive at God; but when one has arrived at the terminus, there is no use for an ulterior way:5 therefore similarly, when man is on high, he does not need a stair; but the cognition of the Blessed is immediately upon [in] God: therefore it is not through creatures.

 

CONCLUSIO.

Deus in creaturis cognoscitur a comprehensoribus perfecte, a viatoribus semiplene; sed per creaturas proprie cognoscitur a viatoribus, aliter autem ante, aliter post lapsum.

CONCLUSION

God is cognized in creatures perfectly by comprehensors, semi-fully by wayfarers; but through creatures He is properly cognized by wayfarers, but one way before, another way after the Fall.

RESPONDEO: Ad intelligentiam6 praedictorum notandum, quod aliud est cognoscere Deum in creatura, aliud per creaturam. Cognoscere Deum in creatura est cognoscere ipsius praesentiam et influentiam in creatura.7 Et hoc quidem est viatorum semiplene, sed comprehensorum perfecte; unde dicit Augustinus in fine libri de Civitate Dei,8 quod tunc expresse Deus videbitur, quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus. Cognoscere autem Deum per creaturam est elevari a cognitione creaturae ad cognitionem Dei quasi per scalam mediam. Et hoc est proprie viatorum, sicut dicit Bernardus ad Eugenium.9

I RESPOND: For an understanding6 of the aforesaid things it must be noted, that cognizing God in a creature is one thing, through a creature another. To cognize God in a creature is to cognize His presence and influence in a creature.7 And this indeed belongs to wayfarers in a semi-full manner, but to comprehensors in a perfect one; whence (St.) Augustine says at the end of the book On the City of God,8 that God shall then be expressly seen, when God shall be all in all. But to cognize God through a creature is to be elevated by cognition of a creature to cognition of God as if through a middle stairway [scala mediam]. And this properly belongs to wayfarers, as (St.) Bernard says (in his letter) to (Pope) Eugenius.9

Aliter tamen convenit homini in statu naturae institutae, et10 naturae lapsae: quia in statu primo cognoscebat Deum per creaturam tanquam per speculum clarum; sed post lapsum cognovit tanquam per speculum et aenigma, sicut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio,11 propter obnubilationem intellectus et peiorationem rerum.

It another manner, however, it agrees with man in the state of instituted nature, and (in that)10 of fallen nature: because in the first state he did use to cognized God through a creature as through a clear mirror; but after the Fall he cognized (Him) as through a mirror and an enigma, as the Apostle says in the thirteenth (chapter) of the First (Letter) to the Corinthians,11 on account of the beclouding of the intellect and a worsening of things.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de statu beatitudinis; dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, beatorum non est cognoscere per creaturas, sed potius in / creaturas.

To that, therefore, which is objected concerning the state of beatitude; it must be said, that, as has been said, it does not belong to the blessed to cognize through creatures, but rather in / creatures.

1 Sola Vat. praemittit omnes.
2 Vide supra q. 2. ad 4. — In quo textu cod. Y post ipsa addit prima.
3 Fide plurimorum codd. ut A C F H I K L N O S T U etc. et ed. 1 addidimus aliis, et mox post pervenire substituimus in loco ad.
4 Praeferimus succintiorem lectionem mss. et ed. 1 lectioni Vat., in qua post perfecta additur et si non est cognitio perfecta et post parte adiungitur et si est ex parte. Argumentum hoc innititur verbis Apostolis I. Cor. 13, 10: cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.
5 Mendum Vat. alterius loco ulterius correximus ex mss. et ed. 1, sicut et paulo post substituimus sit pro est et sed pro name. — In hoc argumento alluditur ad verba S. Bernard., V. de Consid. c. 1: Sane hac scala cives non indigent, sed exules.
6 Vat. contra mss. intellectum.
7 Codd. L O creaturam. Mox cod. W post quidem addit cognoscere, ed. 1 autem post est addit viatorum et comprehensorum.
8 Libr. 22. c. 30. n. 4: Vacabimus in aeternum, videntes quia ipse est Deus, quo pleni erimus, quando ipse erit omnia in omnibus. — In quo textu plures mss. ut A I T etc. cum ed. 1 quomodo pro quando.
9 Libr. V. de Consid. c. 1.
10 Cod. X quam loco et.
11 Vers. 12.

1 The Vatican text alone prefaces this with all [omnes].
2 See above, q. 2 at n. 4. — In which text codex Y after by the adds first.
3 Trusting in the very many codices as A C G H I K L N O S T U etc. and edition 1 we have added other [aliis], and then after to arrive we have substituted at [ad] with at [in, to express an actual attainment, rather than merely a proximate approach].
4 We prefer the more succinct reading of the manuscripts and edition 1 to the reading of the Vatican text, in which after perfect cognition [cognitio perfecta] there is added and if there is not a perfect cognition and after partial [parte] there is adjoined and if it is partial. The argument here hints at the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13:10 : But when what is perfect has come, what is partial shall be emptied out.
5 The faulty reading of the Vatican text, placing alternative [alterius] for ulterior [ulterius], we have corrected from the manuscripts and edition 1, just as also a little afterwards we have substituted the subjunctive is [sit] for the indicative is [est] and but [sed] for for [nam]. — In this argument there is an allusion to the words of (St.) Bernard, On Considerations, Bk. V, ch. 1: Citizens do not need this healthful stairway, but exiles (do).
6 The Vatican text against the manuscripts has understanding [intellectum] instead of an understanding [intelligentiam].
7 Codices L and O have upon the creature [in creaturam].
8 Book 22, c. 30, n. 4: We shall vacation for ever, seeing that He is God, by whom we shall be filled, when He will be all in all. — In which text very many of the manuscripts as A I T etc. together with edtion 1 have in the manner [quomodo] in place of when [quando].
9 On Considerations, Bk. V, ch. 1.
10 Codex X has (more) than [quam] in place of and (in that) [et].
11 Verse 12.

 

p. 75

 

sed potius in / creaturis. Et rationes, quae videntur probare contarium, non probant, sed potius, quod cognoscatur ab eis in creaturis.

but rather in / creatures. And the reasons, which seem to prove the contrary, do not prove (it), but rather, that He used to be cognized by them in creatures.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de statu innocentiae quod mens immediate formatur etc.; dicendum, quod duplex est medium, scilicet efficiens et disponens. De primo medio debet intelligi quod dixit Augustinus, sed de secundo non;1 quoniam Deus est medium efficiens et obiectum ipsius mentis. Illud autem verbum dicit Augustinus contra philosophos, quorum opinio erat, quod mens non coniungeretur primo2 immediate, sed mediante aliqua intelligentia.

1. To that which is objected concerning the state of innocence that the mind is immediately formed etc.; it must be said, that twofold is the medium, that is efficient and disposing. Of the first medium there ought to be understood what (St.) Augustine said, but of the second not (so);1 since God is an efficient medium and the object of the mind itself. Moreover (St.) Augustine says that [illud verbum] against the philosophers, whose opinion was, that the mind is not conjoined to the first (principle)2 immediately, but by means of [mediante] some intelligence.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est rectus ordo; dicendum, quod dupliciter potest considerari homo: vel ens in se, vel extra. Primo modo non pervenit per creaturas a se in Deum, sed ens extra se per cognitionem creaturarum recolligitur in se et elevatur supra se.3

2. To that which is objected, that there is not a right order; it must be said, that man can be considered in a twofold manner: as a being in itself [ens in se], and/or outside itself [extra se]. In the first manner he does not arrive at God through creatures by himself, but being outside himself through cognition of creatures he is recollected in himself and elevated above himself.3

Vel dicendum, quod aliae creaturae possunt considerari ut res, vel ut signa. Primo modo sunt inferiores homine, secundo modo sunt media in deveniendo sive in via, non in termino, quia illae non perveniunt, sed per illas pervenit homo ad Deum, illis post se relicitis.

And/or it must be said, that other creatures can be considered as things, and/or as signs. In the first manner they are inferior to man, in the second manner they are means of departure [in deveniendo] or on the way, not in the terminus, because they do not arrive (there), but through them man does arrive at God, having left those thing behind him [illis post se relictis].

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Quoad distinctionem inter cognoscere Deum in creatura et per creaturam, quae habetur in corp., cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; Itinerar. mentis, c. 1. Consentiunt Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Item verba in fine corp. occurrentia: « obnubilationem intellectus et peiorationem rerum » approbantur et amplius explicantur a S. Thom., S. I. q. 94. q. 1 ad 3. et ab Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 4.

I. In regard to the distinction between cognizing God in a creature and through a creature, which is had in the body (of the question), cf. Sent., Bk. III, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 ad n. 5; Itinerarium mentis, ch. 1. (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise agrees, here in q. 4; and so does Richard of Middleton, here in q. 2. q. 3. — Likewise the words occurring at the end of the body (of the question): « a beclouding of the intellect and a worsening of things » are approved and explained more amply by St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 94, a. 1 at n. 3 and by Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 2, m. 2, q. 4.

De duplici medio, scil. efficiente et disponente (in solut. ad 2.), clarius mentem suam explicat Seraphicus II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. his verbis: « Augustinus vult, quod inter mentem et Deum non cadit medium, scil. in ratione causae efficientis vel influentis, cadit tamen medium manuductionis, quod tamen non habet rationem medii proprie, quia magis subservit potentiae cognoscenti, quam praesit ». Plura de triplici medio Deum videndi invenies II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3 ad 7. Concordant S. Thom., S. q. 94. a. 1 ad 3. et Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 3. a. 1. ad 3.

On the twofold medium, that is the efficient and disposing (in the solution to n. 2) the Seraphic (Doctor) explains his mind more clearly in Sent., Bk. II, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2 at n. 6, with these words: « (St.) Augustine wants, that between the mind and God there not fall a medium, that is, in the reckoning of a efficient and/or influencing cause, however a medium of being-lead-by-hand [manuductionis] does fall, which, however, does not properly have the reckoning of a medium, because it is more subservient [subservit] to the cognizing power, than presiding over it [praesit] ». You will find very many things concerning the threefold medium of seeding God in Sent., Bk. II, d. 23, a. 2, q. 3 at n. 7. St. Thomas, Summa., q. 94, a. 1 at n. 3, agrees and so does Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 2, m. 3, a. 1 at n. 3.

II. Quoad ordinem argumentorum et solutionem notandum, quod S. Doctor hic non tenet consuetum modum, quia pro triplici statu etiam triplex responsio datur, ita ut nonnulla argumenta respectu unius status sint vera, respectu aliorum falsa. Argumenta prima affirmativa recte probant illam conclusionem, quod homo in stato innocentiae cognovit Deum per creaturas; duo argg. sequentia ab ipso S. Doctore in solut. prima quoad beatos reprobantur; item argg. 1. et 2. sub Contra in solutione ultima refelluntur. Duo vero ultima vera sunt quoad beatos.

II. In regard to the order of the arguments and (their) solution it must be noted, that the Seraphic Doctor does not here hold to the customary manner, because a threefold response is give for the threefold state, so that not a few of the arguments in respect of one state are true, in respect of the others false. The first affirmative arguments rightly prove that conclusion, that man in the state of innocence did cognize God through creatures; the two arguments following are reproved by the Seraphic Doctor himself in the first solution (to the question) in regard to the Blessed; likewise arguments 1 and 2 in the Contrary are refuted in the last solution. But the two last ones are true in regard to the Blessed.

III. De tota quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 4. et m. 3. a. 1. et p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1 et 2. — S. Thom., S. I. q. 12. a. 11. et q. 94. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic. a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a. Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. (de beatis); II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. (de statu innocentiae); ibid. d. 24. a. 3. q. 5. (de presenti statu). — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. ulti.

III. On this whole question: Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 2, m. 2, a. 4, and m. 3, a. 1, and p. II, q. 92, m. 2, a. 1 and 2. — St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 12, a. 11, and q. 94, a. 1. — Bl. (now St.) Albert (the Great), here in a. 13. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 3 (concerning the Blessed); Sent., Bk II, d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 (concerning the state of innocence); ibid., d. 24, a. 3, q. 5 (concerning our present state). — Giles. R., here in a. 2 at the beginning of the last question.

1 Ita cod. F; Vat. autem, transpositis verbis disponens et efficiens, consequenter habet De primo medio non debet intelligi quod dicit Augustinus, sed de secundo, quoniam. Praeferimus lectionem cod. F, quia ceteri codd. et edd. 2, 3, 6 cum ipso F legunt De primo medio debet . . . de secundo non, licet cum Vat. in transpositione verborum disponens et efficiens conveniant; sed in lectione codd. sensus est falsus, uti tum ex subnexis tum ex aliis locis S. Doctoris in Scholio citatis colligitur.
2 Supple: principio. — Vat., refragantibus mss. et ed. 1, aeternae veritati pro primo.
3 Sensus est: homo consideratus ut ens in se, i. e. substantia, immediate refertur ad Deum eiusque cognitionem, quia, ut in praecedentis obiectionis solutione et supra q. 2 ad 4. dictum est, inter substantiam animae et Deum nullum cadit medium. Homo consideratus ut ens extra se, i. e. res exteriores percipiens, recolligitur in se, i. e. res exteriores percipiendo trahit ipsas intra se et ad reflexionem excitatur, et per mentales suas operationes tum respectu sui tum respectu rerum exteriorum cognitarum elevatur supra se, i. e. ad Dei cognitionem.

1 Thus codex F; but the Vatican text, having transposed the words disposing and efficient, consequently has Of the first manner there ought not be understood what (St.) Augustine says, but of the second, that [quoniam]. We prefer the reading of codex F, because all the other codices and editions 2, 3 and 5, together with F itself, read Of the first manner . . . of the second not (so), though they do agree with the Vatican text in the transposition of the words disposing and efficient; but in the reading of the codices the sense is false, as is gathered both from the subjoined words and from the other places cited by the Seraphic Doctor in the Scholium.
2 Supply: principle. — The Vatican text, disagreeing with the manuscripts and edition 1, has to the eternal truth [aeternae veritati] in place of to the first (principle) [primo].
3 The sense is: man considered as a being in itself, i. e. a substance, is immediately referred to God and his cognition (likewise), because, as has been said in the solution of the preceding objection and above in q. 2 at n. 4, no medium falls between the substance of the soul and God. Man considered as a being outside himself, i. e. as one perceiving exterior things, is recollected in himself, i.e. by perceiving exterior things he draws these within himself and is stirred to reflection, and through his own mental operations both in respect of himself and in respect of exterior, cognized things he is elevated above himself, i. e. toward the cognition of God.

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 that 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.