COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 4, a. 1, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE

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 IV.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV
De habitibus Angelos in statu perfectionis constituentibus.	On the habits constituting the Angels in the state of perfection.
ARTICULUS I. Quaestio I.	ARTICLE I Question 1
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 130-132. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 130-132. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Post haec videndum est etc.	After these (inquiries) one must see etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.	DIVISION OF THE TEXT
Supra egit Magister de habitibus naturalibus, et de habitibus ad perfectionem praeparantibus.¹ In hac parte agit de habitibus in statu perfecto constituentibus; unde inquirit, utrum Angeli sint creati sive fuerint beati et perfecti. Dividitur autem haec pars in duas. In prima prosequitur quaestiones de beatitudine; in secunda de perfectione, ibi: Ad hoc autem, quod quaerebatur.	Above Master (Peter) dealt with the natural habits (of the Angels), and with the habits preparing (them) for perfection.¹ In this part he deals with the habits constituting (them) in the perfect state; wherefore he inquires, whether the Angels were created or were blessed and perfected. Moreover, this part id divided into two (parts). In the first he prosecutes the questions concerning beatitude; in the second concerning perfection, there (where he says): Moreover to that, which was asked etc..
Prima pars habet tres. In prima determinat quaestionem quantum ad illos qui ceciderunt, ostendens, quod nunquam fuerunt beati. In secunda quantum ad eos qui remanserunt, et hoc ibi: Boni vero qui perstiterunt etc. In tertia breviter resumit praedeterminata de utrisque, ibi: Ex praedictis consequitur etc.	The first part has three parts. In the first he determines the question as much as regards those who fell, showing, that they never were blessed. In the second as much as regards those who remained (in the Truth), and this there (where he says): On the other hand the good and those who persisted etc.. In the third he briefly resumes the predetermined concerning each, there (where he says): From the aforesaid it follows etc..
Ad hoc autem, quod quaerebatur etc. Haec est secunda pars, in qua prosequitur, utrum Angeli sint creati perfecti, et habet haec pars tres particulas. In prima innuit, quod per distinctionem est respondendum. In secunda subiungit distinctionem, ibi: Dicitur namque perfectum etc. In tertia vero resumit praedeterminata et² breviter ostendens, qualis facta fuerit natura angelica, resumendo praedicta, ibi: Quales facti fuerunt Angeli in creatione.*	Moreover to that, which was asked etc.. This is the second part, in which there is sought after [prosequitur], whether the Angels were created perfect, and this part has three subparts [particulas]. In the first he hints, that one must respond through a distinction. In the second he subjoins the distinction, there (where he says): For indeed the “perfect” is said etc.. But in the third he resumes the predetermined, showing also² briefly, of what kind was the angelic nature made, by resuming the aforesaid, there (where he says): How the Angels were made in (their) creation etc..*
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.	TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS
Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeruntur tria.	For an understanding of this part three (things) are asked.
Primum est, quales creati sunt Angeli quantum ad gloriam.	The first is, how the Angels were created as much as regards glory.
Secundum, quantum ad futuri eventus praescientiam.	The second, (how the Angels were created) as much as regards (their) foreknowledge of (their) future outcome.
Tertium est, quantum ad cognitionem matutinam.	The third is, (how the Angels were created) as much as regards (their) morning cognition.
Et circa primum quaeruntur duo.	And about the first two (things) are asked.
Primum est, utrum in sui creatione, habuerint gloriam.	The first is, whether in their creation, they had (the light of) glory.
Secundum est, utrum habuerint gratiam.	The second is, whether they had grace.
¹ Vat. in hac propositione pro habitibus bis substituit habilitatibus; sequentem autem prop. sic exhibet: In hac parte agit de habilitatibus in statum perfectum constituentibus, unde inquirit, utrum Angeli mox ut creati sunt, fuerint beati et perfecti. ² Accipias particulam et pro etiam. Vat. omittit et ac deinde resumendo praedicta.	¹ The Vatican edition in this proposition twice substitutes abilities [habilitatibus] for habits [habitibus]; but exhibits the following proposition in this manner: In this part he deals with the abilities constituting (them) unto a perfect state, wherefore he inquires, whether the Angels, as soon as they were created, were blessed and perfect [In hac parte agit de habilitatibus in statum perfectum constituentibus, unde inquirit, utrum Angeli mox ut creati sunt, fuerint beati et perfecti]. ² Accept the particle et as also [etiam]. The Vatican edition omits also [et] and then by resuming the aforesaid [resumendo praedicta].
* [Trans. nota: Ut frequenter fiet, S. Bonav. versionem aliam textus Magistri quam editionis Quaracchiensis, quam in hoc loco magis legit Quales fuerint Angeli in creatione.]	* [Trans. note: As will frequently happen, St. Bonaventure quotes a version of the text of Master Peter differing from that in the Quaracchi edition, which in this passage reads rather How the Angels were in (their) creation etc. [Quales fuerint Angeli ni creatione]. Here How translates the Latin Quales, which means more exactly of what manner or kind or quality.]

p. 131

ARTICULUS I. Quales creati sunt Angeli quoad gloriam et gratiam.	ARTICLE I How the Angels were created in regard to glory and grace.
QUAESTIO I. Utrum Angeli creati sint in beatitudine sive gloria.	QUESTION 1 Whether the Angels were created in beatitude or glory?
QUAERITUR ERGO primo, utrum Angeli creati sint in beatitudine sive gloria. Et quod sic, videtur.	THEREFORE THERE IS ASKED first, whether the Angels were created in beatitude or glory. And that (it is) so, seems:
1. Ezechielis vigesimo octavo:¹ Tu plenus sapientia et perfectus decore in deliciis paradisi fuisti; sed esse in deliciis paradisi et esse plenum sapientia est ipsa beatitudo, quam dicimus aeternam gloriam: ergo etc.	1. According to the twenty-eighth (chapter) of Ezekiel:¹ Thou were full of wisdom and perfect in ornament among the delights of Paradise; but to be among the delights of Paradise an to be full of wisdom is beatitude itself, which we call [dicimus] “eternal glory”: ergo etc..
2. Item, Augustinus in libro de Mirabilibus sacrae Scripturae:² « Angelus in summo sui ordinis honore constitutus lapsus est » — loquitur de Angelo ante lapsum — sed summus honor ordinis angelici est beatitudo et gloria etc.	2. Likewise, (St.) Augustine (says) in (his) book On the Wonders of Sacred Scripture:² « The Angel, constituted in the highest honor of his order, fell » — he is speaking of the Angel before (his) fall — but the highest honor of an angelic order is beatitude and glory etc..
3. Item, Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum:³ « Angelici spiritus, pro eo quod rationales facti sunt, aeternitatis et beatitudinis donum in ipsa naturae suae spiritualis creatione divinitus acceperunt ».	3. Likewise, (St.) Augustine (says) On the Faith to Peter:³ « The angelic spirits, in virtue of this, that they were made rational, accepted in a divine manner [divinitus] the gift of eternity and beatitude in the very creation of their spiritual nature ».
4. Item, idem de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus:⁴ « Angeli, qui in illa qua creati sunt beatitudine perseverant, non natura possident, ut non mutentur »: ergo si modo habent veram beatitudinem, patet, quod in beatitudine creati sunt.	4. Likewise, the same (says) On the Dogmas of the Church:⁴ « The Angels, who persevered in that beatitude in which they were created, did not possess by nature, that they would not be changed »: therefore if they now have true beatitude, it is clear, that they were created in beatitude.
5. Item, ratione videtur: quia Angelus a sua creatione habuit habilitatem ad diligendum Deum propter se et super omnia,⁵ ergo habuit habilitatem ad fruendum Deo; sed ipse non habuit aliquod retardativum ex parte affectus, nec obumbrativum ex parte intellectus: ergo totaliter ferebatur in ipsum Deum amore fruitionis: ergo cum talis status et actus sit beatitudo et gloria, patet etc.	5. Likewise, it seems by reason: because an Angel had from his creation an ability to love [ad diligendum] God for His own sake and above all (things),⁵ therefore he had an ability to enjoy God; but he did not have any hindering [retardativum] on the part of (his) affection, nor overshadowing [obumbrativum] on the part of (his) intellect: therefore he was borne totally unto God Himself by the love of enjoyment [amore fruitionis]: therefore since such a state and act is beatitude and glory, it is clear that etc..
6. Item, Deus fecit liberum arbitrium vertibile: ergo cum possit habere creatura rationalis ipsum invertibile, ut patet modo in sanctis Angelis, aliquibus debuit hoc modo facere; sed non est invertibilitas liberi arbitrii in Beato⁶ nisi per gloriam: ergo etc. Aut si dicas, quod non debuit facere; hoc non videtur, quia debuit facere res optimo modo; sed iste est optimus status ipsius Angeli: ergo aliquem in hoc statu debuit facere.	6. Likewise, God made free will vertible: therefore since a rational creature can have an invertible (free will), as is clear in the holy Angels, for some He ought to have made (free will) in this manner; but there is no invertibility of free will in a Blessed⁶ except through glory: ergo etc. Or if you say, that He ought not have made (free will invertible); this does not seem (true), because a thing ought to work in the best manner; but the former is the best state of an Angel himself: therefore He ought to have made someone in this state.
CONTRA: 1. Ioannis octavo:⁷ « Ille in veritate non stetit »; sed beatitudo est « status omnium bonorum congregatione perfectus »: ergo est status in veritate: ergo lucifer non fuit factus beatus. Sed inter omnes perfectus et nobilis est conditus: ergo etc.	ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In the eighth (chapter)⁷ of (the Gospel of St.) John (there written): « That one did not stand in the Truth »; but beatitude is « the state [status] perfected by the congregation of all the good »: therefore it is a standing still [status] in the Truth: therefore Lucifer was not made blessed. But among all (the Angels) he was founded as the perfect and noble one: ergo etc..
2. Item, obiicitur, quod perseverantia sive securitas est de essentia sive substantia beatitudinis — beatus enim non est qui potest amittere bonum, quod habet⁸ — sed Angeli potuerunt amittere, quia amisserunt: ergo etc.	2. Likewise, it is objected, that perseverance or security is from the essence or substance of beatitude — for he who can loose the good, which he has, is not blessed⁸ — but the Angels could lose (this), because (some) did lose (it): ergo etc.
3. Item, nullus laudatur vel vituperatur in his quae habet a natura vel conditione;⁹ sed sicut damnationi essentiale est vituperium, ita beatitudini essentialis est laus: ergo impossibile est, quod aliquis beatus sit a conditione, immo est repugnantia in adiecto.	3. Likewise, no one is praised and/or blamed in those (things) which he has from (his) nature and/or foundation;⁹ but just as blame is essential to damnation, so praise is essential to beatitude: therefore it is impossible, that some be blessed from (his) foundation, nay it is self-contradictory [repugnantia in adiecto].
4. Item, aut omnes fecit Deus beatos, aut aliquos. Non omnes; constat, quia plures ex eis ceciderunt. Non aliquos, ut videtur, quia tunc illi praecellerent alios quasi praeexcellentia improportionali: ergo lucifer non fuisset ausus se eis praeponere. Quod si ausus est, videtur, quod nulli conditi sunt beati. Si tu dicas, quod maiorem audaciam praesumsit, scilicet aequiparari Deo, quanto magis praeesse Beatis; adhuc non solvit. Si enim Deus beatos condidit Angelos ab ipsa conditione, hoc fuit, quia naturae eorum consonabat, ut sub tali perfectione et tam nobili fierent: si ergo lucifer, ut dicunt Sancti, et Magister dicit in sequentibus,¹⁰ splendissima habuit naturalia, magis debuit et congruum fuit, ipsius naturam gloria insigniri. Quod si ipse, ut patet, beatus factus non est, patet etc.	4. Likewise, either God made all blessed, or some. Not all; it is established, because many of them fell. Not some, as it is seems, because then they would have pre-excelled the others as if by an improportional pre-excellence: therefore Lucifer would not have dared to place (himself) before them. Wherefore, if he did dare, it seems, that none were founded blessed. If you say, that he presumed a greater audacity, namely, to make himself entirely equal [aequiparari] to God, how much more to be before the Blessed; (this) still does not solve (the matter). For if God founded the Angels blessed from (their) very foundation, this was, because it was consonant with their nature, to be made under such and so noble a perfection: therefore, if Lucifer, as the Saints say, and (as) Master (Peter) says in the following (considerations),¹⁰ had the most splendid natural (goods), it was owed (to him) more and it was congruous, that his nature be marked with glory. Wherefore, if he himself, as is clear, was not made blessed, it is clear that etc..
CONCLUSIO. Angeli non fuerunt creati in statu beatitudinis per visionem Dei perfectae, tamen sine malo culpae et poenae.	CONCLUSION The Angels were not created in the state of blessedness perfected through the vision of God, yet (they were created) without the evil of fault and punishment.
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod, sicut praetactum est supra,¹¹ quorundam opinio fuit, quod Angeli, quia sunt spirituales et actuales, in instanti suae creationis fuerunt in actu conversionis et aversionis; et sicut in prima aversione sunt damnati aeternaliter illi qui aversis sunt, ita in prima conversione illi glorificati sunt aeternaliter qui conversi sunt; et ita dicunt intellexisse Augustinum, et fuisse eius . . .	I RESPOND: It must be said, that, just has been touched upon beforehand,¹¹ above, it was the opinion of certain (authors), that the Angels, because they are spiritual and actual, were in the instant of their creation in the act of conversion to and aversion from (God); and just as in the first aversion there were eternally damned those who turned away, so in the first conversion those were eternally glorified who converted; and thus they say (St.) Augustine understood (it), and that he was of this . . .
¹ Vers. 12. ² Libr. I. c. 2, ubi textus originalis verbis transpositis habet in summo honoris sui ordine. ³ Cap. 3. n. 32, in quo textu codd. cum tribus primis edd. perperam spirituali pro spiritualis. ⁴ Cap. 29, ubi in textu originali ultima sententiae pars ita exhibetur: non natura possident locum, ut non mutarentur cum ceteris. ⁵ Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. ⁶ Plures codd. propter abbreviationem sunt dubiae lectionis; potest enim legi vel in Beato vel in bono. ⁷ Vers. 44. — Beatitudinis definitio, quae mox affertur, est in Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 2. ⁸ Cfr. August., de Beata Vita, n. 11; XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 22. ⁹ Vide supra pag. 113, nota 8. ¹⁰ Dist. VI. c. 1. — Paulo superius plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 quia natura eorum pro quia naturae eorum. ¹¹ Dist. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.	¹ Verse 12. ² Book I, ch. 2, where the original text, having transposed the words, has in the height of honor according to his order [in summo honoris sui ordine]. ³ Chapter 3, n. 32, in which text the codices, together with the three first editions, have faultily in the spiritual creation itself of their nature [. . . spirituali creatione] for in the very creation of their spiritual nature [. . . spiritualis creatione]. ⁴ Chapter 29, where in the original text the last part of the sentence is exhibited thus: did not possess a place by nature, that they would not be changed with the rest [non natura possident locum, ut non mutarentur cum ceteris]. ⁵ Cf. above d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1. ⁶ Several codices, on account of (their) abbreviation, are of a doubtful reading; for one can read either in a Blessed [in Beato] and/or in the good [in bono]. ⁷ Verse 44. — The definition of beatitude, which is next cited, is from (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, Bk. III, prose 2. ⁸ Cf. (St.) Augustine, On the Blessed Life, n. 11; On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. XI, ch. 17, n. 22. ⁹ See above d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, p. 113, footnote 8. ¹⁰ Distinction VI, ch. 1. — A little above this several codices, together with editions 1, 2 and 3, have according to their nature [natura eorum] for with their nature [naturae eorum]. ¹¹ Distinction 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2.

p. 132

positionem, quod aliqui sunt creati beati et formati, quia simul tempore, licet posterius natura, factum est caelum et lux, id est angelica natura informis et formata. « Lux enim, ut dicit Augustinus undecimo de Civitate,¹ dicuntur Angeli, quia illuminati sunt, ut beate sapienterque viverent ». — Sed tamen haec positio supra² improbata est tanquam falsa et erronea ratione illius partis, quae dicit, in primo instanti fuisse aversos. Ratione alterius partis pari ratione improbata est, et patet falsitas per Augustinum de Correctione et gratia,³ ubi dicit, « quod Angeli etsi beati facti sunt, erat tamen adhuc, quod eorum beatitudini adderetur, si permansissent ». Constat, quod beatitudini et gloriae, cum sit invariabilis, non fit additio; constat etiam, quod loquitur communiter de bonis et malis, cum dicit: « si permansissent ».	position, that some were created and formed blessed, because together in time, though posterior in nature, heaven and light were made, that is the formless and formed angelic nature. « For the Angels », as (St.) Augustine says in the eleventh (book) On the City (of God),¹ « are said (to be) “light”, because they have been illuminated, to live in a blessed and wise manner ». — But, nevertheless, this position has been disproved above² as false and erroneous by reason of that part, which says, that they had turned away in the first instant. By reason of the other part it has been disproved for an equal reason, and (its) falsehood is clear through (St.) Augustine On Correction and Grace,³ where he says, « that the Angels, even if they were made blessed, yet it still was, that (something) would be added to their beatitude, if they had remained (in the Truth) ». It is established, that to beatitude and glory, since (each) is invariable, not addition is made; it is also established, that he is speaking commonly of the good and wicked, when he says: « if they had remained ».
Et ideo aliter est dicendum, quod beatitudo dupliciter potest dici. Uno modo status perfectus plenitudine omnis boni, et haec ponit visionem Dei claram et tentionem perfectam; et hoc modo Angeli non sunt creati,⁴ nec aliqui nec omnes, sed habuerunt quidam ex eis in ipsa confirmatione. Alio modo dicitur beatitudo status perfectus privatione omnis mali, tum poenae quam culpae; et tales creati sunt Angeli, quia innocentes et impassibiles. Et de hac beatitudine loquitur Augustinus; sed haec non est perfecta, nisi cum additur ei altera, et de hac currunt auctoritates probantes, quod beati facti sunt.	And for that reason it must be said, that “beatitude” can be said in a twofold manner. In one manner (it is) the state perfected by the plenitude of every good, and this posits the clear vision of and perfect holding of God; and in this manner the Angels were not created,⁴ neither some nor all, but certain of them did have (this) in their confirmation. In another manner “beatitude” is said (to be) the state perfected by the privation of every evil, both of punishment and of fault; and such the Angels were created, because (they were) innocent and unable to suffer [impassibiles]. And of this “beatitude” (St.) Augustine speaks; but this is not perfect, unless there be added to it the other, and concerning this run the authorities proving, that they were blessed.
1. Ad illud enim quod dicit Ezechiel: In deliciis paradisi fuisti; dicendum, quod sicut primus homo conditus est et positus in deliciis paradisi, quae tamen non erant deliciae beatitudinis perfectae; et sicut data est ei sapientia ad cognoscendum omnia mundana, sed non illa quae est visio Dei in patria:⁵ simili modo intelligendum est in Angelo.	1. For to that which Ezekiel says: Thou were in the delights of Paradise; it must be said, that just as the first man was founded and placed in the delights of Paradise, which however were not the delights of perfect beatitude; and just as wisdom was given to him to cognize all mundane (things), but not that (wisdom) which is the vision of God in the fatherland:⁵ in a similar manner must it be understood in the Angel.
2. 3. 4. Quod dicit Augustinus de Mirabilibus sacrae Scripturae, intelligit quantum ad naturalia, quia ita bona habuit, quod non erat habiturus meliora. Unde et in illo loco conditus est, in quo erat beatificandus.⁶ — Duae vero sequentes auctoritates loquuntur de beatitudine secundum illas duas differentias, quas dixi.	2. 3. 4. What (St.) Augustine says On the Miracles of Sacred Scripture, he understands as much as regards natural (goods), because he such great goods, that he was not going to have better. Wherefore he was also founded in that place, in which he was to be beatified.⁶ — But the two following authorities speak of beatitude according to those two differences, which he spoke of [dixi].
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habebant fruitionem sine retardatione; dicendum, quod verum est; non tamen habebant in perfecta complectione, quia Deum non videbant facie ad faciam, sed in effectibus cognoscebant et in se ipsis maxime, sicut melius patebit infra.⁷	5. To that which is objected, that they had enjoyment without being hindered [retardatione]; it must be said, that it is true; yet they did not have (enjoyment) in a perfect embrace, because they did not see God face to face, but cognized (Him) in (His) effects and most of all in themselves, just as will be more clear below.⁷
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debuit dare aliquibus invertibile; dicendum est, quod quantum est de conditione, nullis debuit dari, quamvis possit, quia « homines et Angelos meliores iudicavit Deus, si ei liberaliter deservirent »;⁸ ideo utrumque posuit in manu consilii sui.	6. To that which is objected, that He ought to have given to some an invertible (free will); it must be said, that as much as concerns (their) foundation, it ought to have been given to none, even though He can, because « God judged man and Angels better, if they would serve Him zealously, liberally »;⁸ for that reason He placed each in the hand of His counsel.
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Haec quaestio cohaeret cum iis, quae d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2, et a. 2. q. 2 discussa sunt, et ipsa nunc ab omnibus in sensu negativo solvitur, si de facto quaeritur. Quidam autem antiquitus de hoc dubitaverunt propter quaedam testimonia S. Augustini vel male intellecta, vel ex libris non genuinis desumta, ut sunt ea quae hic in argg. ad opposit. citata sunt. Deus certe eis beatitudinem sine meritis a principio dare potuit (cfr. hic q. 2. ad 4. 5.), utrum autem gloriam in primo instanti potuerint mereri, controvertitur; cfr. Schol. loc. cit. a. 1. q. 2.	I. This Question accompanies the things, which have been discussed in d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 2, and it is now solved by all in the negative sense, when it is asked concerning the fact (of whether God did create them thus). But certain (authors) in antiquity doubted this on account of certain testimonies of St. Augustine either badly understood, or taken from non-genuine books, such as those which are cited here in the opposed arguments. God from the beginning certainly could give them beatitude without merits (cf. here in q. 2, in reply to nn. 4 and 5), but whether they could have merited glory in the first instant (of their creation), is controverted; cf. Scholium, loc. cit., a. 1, q. 2.
II. Scot., II. Sent. d. 6. q. 2; Report. hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 62. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic q. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica.	II. (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, Sent., Bk. II, d. 6, q. 2; Reportatio., here in the q. sole. — St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 1; Summa., I, q. 62, a. 1. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in q. 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 1. — Giles the Roman, here in a. 1. — Durandus, here in q. 1. — (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 1. — (Gabriel) Biel, on this and the following q, here in the q. sole.
¹ Cap. 11: Quae cum ita sint, nullo quidem modo secundum aliquod temporis spatium prius erant illi spiritus tenebrae, quos Angelos dicimus, sed simul ut facti sunt, lux facti sunt; non tamen ita tantum creati, ut quoquo modo essent et quoquo modo viverent, sed etiam illuminati, ut sapienter beateque viverent. Ab hac illuminatione aversi quidam Angeli non obtinuerunt excellentiam sapientis beataeque vitae, quae procul dubio non nisi aeterna est aeternitatisque suae certa atque secura. Cfr. ibid. c. 9; I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 3, c. 5. n. 10. et c. 17. n. 32, quod etiam supra in lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 4. affertur; XII. Confess. c. 9. n. 9. et XIII. c. 10. n. 11. ² Dist. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ³ Cap. 10. n. 27: Diabolus vero et angeli eius, etsi beati erant, antequam caderent, et se in miseriam casuros esse nesciebant, erat tamen adhuc quod eorum adderetur beatitudini, si per liberum arbitrium in veritate stetissent. ⁴ Vat. addit beati. Cod. cc et ed. 1 in principio huius prop. et in hac pro et hoc modo. Mox post habuerunt supple cum cod. aa eam, vel cum cod. A hanc, vel cum cod. F hoc. ⁵ Cfr. infra d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. et 3. ⁶ Scil. in caelo empyreo, de quo vide supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. ⁷ Art. 3. q. 1. ⁸ August., de Vera Relig. c. 14. n. 27: Tales enim servos suos meliores esse Deus iudicavit, si ei servirent liberaliter. Cfr. de Agone christ. c. 10. n. 11. — In principio solutionis post aliquibus supple cum Vat. et nonnullis codd. liberum arbitrium.	¹ Chapter 11: Which since they were thus, those spirits, whom we call “Angels”, indeed belonged in no manner according to any prior space of time to shadow, but at once as they were made, they were made light; yet not only created thus, that they might in any manner be and in any manner live, but illuminated too, so that they might live in a wise and blessed manner. From this illumination certain of the Angels (who) turned away did not obtain the excellence of a wise and blessed life, which far from doubt is not but eternal and certain and secure in its eternity [aeternitatis suae]. Cf. ibid., ch. 9; On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. I, ch. 1, n. 3; ch. 5, n. 10, and ch. 17, n. 32, which is also cited above in the text of Master (Peter), d. III, ch. 4.; (St. Augustine), Confessions, Bk. XII, ch. 9, n. 9, and Bk. XIII, ch. 10, n. 11. ² Distinction 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. ³ Chapter 10, n. 27: But the Devil and his angels, even if they were blessed, before they fell down, also did not know that they were going to fall down into misery, yet it still was that there would be added to their beatitude, if they had stood in the Truth through free will. ⁴ The Vatican edition adds blessed [beati]. Codex cc and edition 1 at the beginning of this proposition have and in this (beatitude) the Angels were not now etc. [et in hac modo etc.] for and in this manner the Angels were not etc. [et hoc modo]. Next after did have [habuerunt] supply, together with codex aa, it (i. e. beatitude) [eam], and/or with codex A this (beatitude) [hanc], and/or with codex F it (i. e. vision and holding) [hoc]. ⁵ Cf. below d. 23, a. 2, qq. 1, and 3. ⁶ Namely, in the empyrean Heaven, concerning which see above d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1. ⁷ (Here in) article 3, q. 1. ⁸ (St.) Augustine, On the True Religion, ch. 14, n. 27: For God judged such of His servants to be better, if they liberally served Him zealously. Cf. On Christian Warfare, ch. 10, n. 11. — At the beginning of the solution after to some [aliquibus] supply, together with the Vatican edition and not a few codices free will [liberum arbitrium].

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.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV