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

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III

PARS II.

PART II

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 128-129.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 128-129.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de intellectu illius verbi Iob:  Hoc est initium figmenti Dei etc.; quare dicitur figmentum.  Si ratione corporis aptati, ut infra5 exponit, quomodo hoc verum est, cum illud non habuerit ab initio?  —  Item, Deus vult omnes salvos fieri:6  ergo fecit Angelum illum, ut beatificaretur, non illuderetur:  ergo male dicitur, illudatur ei etc.

In this part are the doubts about (Master Peter’s) text, and first there is asked concerning the understanding [intellectu] of this verse from Job:  This is the start of God’s ruse etc.; “For what reason is “ruse” [figmentum] said?”.  If by reason of the body fitted (to him), as he expounds below5 (this), in what manner is it true, since he did not have that from the start?  —  Likewise, God wills that all men come to be saved:6  therefore He made that Angel, so that he might be beatified, not that he might be made sport of:  therefore “to make sport of him etc.” is said badly.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod omnis creatura ratione suae fragilitatis figmentum dicitur, maxime rationalis, quando non consolidatur per gratiam.  Quoniam igitur lucifer excellens fuit inter ceteras creaturas, et ipse sprevit gratiam et in veritate non stetit;7 ideo dicitur initium figmenti.  Unde et alia translatio habet:  ipse est principium viarum Dei.  Hunc autem quamvis Deus praesciret futurum esse malum, tamen fecit, quia et simul praevidit, quibus bonis usibus accommodaret,8 scilicet Sanctorum victoriae et amplificandae coronae.  Potest igitur intelligi haec coniunctio ut consecutive, vel causaliter.  Consecutive, sicut frequenter accipitur in Evangelio:9  hoc autem factum est, ut impleretur, quia consecutum est ad hoc; sic diaboli ludificatio subsecuta est, quamvis propter illam non fuerit factus.  Si autem intelligatur causaliter, tunc ponitur con- / -sequens . . .

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that every creature by reason of its own fragility is said (to be) a “figment” [figmentum], most of all a rational (creature), when it is not completely solidified [consolidatur] through grace.  Therefore since Lucifer was the one excelling among all other creatures, and (since) he spurned [sprevit] grace and did not stand in the Truth;7 for that reason he is said (to be) “the start of (God’s) ruse” [initium figmenti].  Wherefore the other translation also has:  he is the beginning of God’s ways.  But, although God foreknew that he was going to be evil, yet He made him, because He also at once foresaw, for what good uses He would accommodate (him),8 namely for amplified the victory and crown of the Saints.  Therefore, this conjunction “to” [ut] can be understood consecutively, and/or causally.  Consecutively, just as it is frequently accepted in the Gospel:  Moreover this was done, to [ut] fulfill etc., because (the latter) was consequent to the former; thus the making sport of [ludificatio] the Devil was subsequent (to his creation), though he was not made on that account.  But if it be understood causally, then the consequent / is posited . . .

5  Hic c. 4. circa medium, ubi ex Augustino haec afferuntur verba:  Sed corpus aëreum, quod tali voluntati aptavit Deus.  —  Paulo inferius cod. cc cum edd. 1, 2 habuit pro habuerit.

6  Epist. I. Tim. 2, 4:  Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri.

7  Ioan. 8, 44.  —  Alia translatio, subinde allegata, est Vulgatae, dum Septuaginta legunt initium figmenti Dei.

8  Haec prop. formata est ex iis, quae August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 18. dicit.  —  Vat. Nunc autem quamvis . . . tamen eum fecit etc.

9  Matth. 1, 22. et 21, 4.

5  Here in ch. 4, near the middle, where these words are cited from (St.) Augustine:  But the airy body, which God adapted to such a will.  —  A little below this codex cc, together with editions 1 and 2, reads when he did not have [cum . . . non habuit] for since he did not have [cum . . . non habuerit].

6  1 Tim. 2:4:  Who wills that all men come to be saved [Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri].

7  Jn. 8:44.  —  The other translation, as mentioned above, is that of the Vulgate, while the Septuagint reads the start of God’s ruse [initium figmenti Dei].

8  This proposition has been formed from those, which (St.) Augustine says On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 18.  —  The Vatican edition reads:  But, although, . . .  to be evil now [Nunc . . .eum fecit] for But, although . . . to be evil [Tunc . . . fecit].

9  Mt. 1:22; 21:4.

 

p. 129

con- / -sequens pro antecedente.  Finaliter enim diabolus factus est ad exercitium et propter promotionem bonorum, ad quod consequitur ipsius diaboli ludificatio, qui, dum intendit deiicere, promovet.  Unde sensus est, quod Deus fecit diabolum, quem praevidit malum, ad exercitium bonorum, ad quod consequitur eius ludificatio.1

the consequent / is posited on behalf of the antecedent. For the Devil was made finally [finaliter] for the exercise of and for the promotion of the good, to which the very making sport of the Devil is consequent, (which promotion), while he intended to throw (them) down, he promoted.  Wherefore the sense is, that God made the Devil, whom He foresaw (to be) evil, for the exercise of the good, to which the making sport of him was consequent.1

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item quaeritur de intellectu illius verbi:  Sapientia est fructus pietatis, quomodo sit intelligendum, quia magis videtur esse principium pietatis, quam fructus.  —  Item, nihil videtur ad propositum, quia praescientia casus non est sapientia, sed tantum scientia.

Likewise is asked concerning the understanding of this verse:  Wisdom is the fruit of piety, “In what manner must (this) be understood?”, because it seems rather that it is the beginning of piety, than the fruit.  —  Likewise, it seems that (this verse is worth) nothing regarding the proposed, because the foreknowledge of (one’s) downfall is not wisdom, but only knowledge.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod sapientia non dicitur hic a sapore, sed a sapere;2 et dicitur hic sapientia cognitio desursum descendens3 per inspirationem sive per revelationem.  Haec autem est dupliciter:  quaedam est a Verbo, quaedam est in Verbo.  Praescientia igitur casus non potuit esse nisi cognitio desursum descendens, quia futurum est contingens, de quo nulla potest habere certitudo secundum causas inferiores; aut igitur est in Verbo, aut a Verbo.  Si in Verbo, sic est fructus pietatis; nemo enim pervenit ad visionem Verbi, nisi per pietatem animi; et quia hanc non habuit diabolus, ideo non potuit hoc nosse in Verbo.  Si a Verbo, sic est fructus pietatis, quia a misericordia Dei excludente ignorantiam.  Et hoc modo, si praescientia casus daretur innocenti, non esset ex pietate, sed ex crudelitate, sicut infra patebit,4 quia cruciaretur innocens sine culpa.  Et sic patet intellectus verbi illius, et qualiter valet at propositum.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that here “wisdom” [sapientia] is not said from a “taste” [sapore], but from “to know” [sapere];2 and “wisdom” is said here (to be) a cognition descending down from above3 through inspiration or through revelation.  But this is in a twofold manner:  there is a certain (cognition) from the Word, there is a certain (cognition) in the Word.  Therefore the foreknowledge of (someone’s) downfall cannot be but a cognition descending down from above, because it is a future contingent, concerning which one can have no certitude according to inferior causes; for no one arrives at the vision of the Word, except through piety of spirit; and because the Devil did not have this, for that reason he could not know the former in the word.  If from the Word, thus it is a fruit of piety, because (it is) from the Mercy of God, excluding ignorance.  And in this manner, if the foreknowledge of (one’s) downfall would be given to an innocent (man), it would not be on account of (his) piety, but out of cruelty, just as will be clear below,4 because the innocent (man) would be tormented [cruciaretur] without fault.  And in this manner there is clear the understanding of that verse, and in which manner it is valid for the proposed.

DUB. III.

DOUBT III

Item quaeritur de intellectu illius verbi:  Triplex erat naturalis cognitio: aut distinguit formaliter, aut materialiter.  Si materialiter, tunc multo plures; si formaliter; contra:  unus erat modus cognoscendi.

Likewise is asked concerning the understanding of that verse (of Master Peter):  There was a threefold natural cognition etc.:  either he distinguishes formally, or materially.  If materially, then (there are) much more; if formally; on the contrary:  there was one manner of cognizing.

RESPONDEO:  Potest dici, quod est distinctio quantum ad numerum cognoscibilium, et quantum ad gradum.  Quantum ad numerum, quia cognoscibile aut est Creator, aut creatura; et creatura aut corporalis, aut spiritualis.  —  Ordo etiam est, quia cognoscibile aut supra, aut infra, aut iuxta; et sic clauditur omnis cognoscibilis differentia, ratione cuius Magister distinguit cognitionem magis quam ratione modi cognoscendi.

I RESPOND:  It can be said, that there is a distinction as much as regards the number of cognizables, and as much as regards the grades (of cognizables).  As much as regards the number, because the cognizable is either the Creator, or a creature; and  a creature (is) either corporal, or spiritual.  —  There is also an order (among cognizables), because a cognizable (is) either above, or below, or alongside; and in this manner one encloses the difference of every cognizable, according to the reckoning of which Master (Peter) distinguishes the cognition, rather than according to the manner of cognizing.

1  Primo modo explicat August., hoc verbum Iob. XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 15; secundum modum indicat ibid. c. 17. seq. et XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 22. n. 29, quem locum Magist. hic c. 4. allegat.  —  Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 98. m. 1. a. 3. ad 1; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 18. m. 2. a. 1. ad 5.

2  Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 1. m. 1:  Notandum praeterea, quod est scientia movens affectionem ad bonitatem.  Prima est ut cognitio secundum visum, et ideo debet dici scientia absolute; secunda ut cognitio secundum gustum, et ideo debet dici sapientia a sapore affectionis.  Cfr. tom. I. pag. 13, nota 5.

3  Cfr. Iac. 3, 15.

4  Dist. 4. a. 2. q. 2.  —  Paulo inferius Vat. et taliter pro et qualiter.  —  De hoc et seq. dubio cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic dub. litt.

1  (St.) Augustine explains this verse from Job, in (his) On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 15 in the first manner ; he indicates the second manner ibid., ch. 17 f., and On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. XI, ch. 22, n. 29, which passage Master (Peter) cites here in ch. 4.  —  On this doubt, cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 98, m. 1, a. 3, in reply to n. 1; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. II, tr. 4, q. 18, m. 2, a, 1, in reply to n 5.

2  Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 1, m. 1:  Moreover, it must be noted, that there is a knowledge moving the affection towards goodness.  The first is as a cognition according to (the sense of) sight [visum], and for that reason it ought to be said (to be) “knowledge” in an absolute manner; the second as a cognition according to (the sense of) taste [gustum], and for that reason it ought to be said (to be) “wisdom” from the taste of affection [sapore affectionis].  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, Prooemium, q. 3

3  Cf. James 3:15.

4  Distinction 4, a. 2, q. 2. .  —  A little below this the Vatican edition has and in such a manner [et taliter] for and in which manner [et qualiter].  —  On this and the following Doubt, cf. (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in the doubts on the text.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  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.