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

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio II.

ARTICLE I

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 132-135.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 132-135.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum Angeli creati sint in gratia.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether the Angels were created in grace?

SUPPOSITO, QUOD Angeli non sint creati in gloria, quaeritur, utrum sint creati in gratia.  Et videtur, quod sic:

HAVING SUPPOSED, THAT the Angels were not created in glory, there is asked, whether they were created in grace.  And it seems, that (it was) so:

1. Per Augustinum de Civitate duodecimo:9  « Creavit Deus Angelos, simul in eis condens naturam et largiens gratiam ».

1. Through (St.) Augustine in the twelfth (book) On the City (of God):9  « God created the Angels, in them at once granting completely a nature and bestowing grace ».

9  Cap. 9. n. 2.

9  Chapter 9, n. 2.

p. 133

2. Item, super illud Oseae tertio:1  « Dilexerunt vinacia uvarum », Glossa Hieronymi:  « Per vinacia intelliguntur daemones, qui creati sunt in magna pinguedine Spiritus sancti, sed per superbiam arefacti de caelo ceciderunt »; constat, quod pinguedo Spiritus sancti est gratia Spiritus sancti.

2. Likewise, on that (verse) in the third (chapter) of Hosea:  « They loved the husks of the grapes », the Gloss of (St.) Jerome (says):  « Through “husks” [vinacia] there are understood the demons, who were created in a great anointing [pinguedine] of the Holy Spirit, but having grown dry through pride fell down from Heaven »; it is established, that the anointing of the Holy Spirit is the grace of the Holy Spirit.

3. Item, Damascenus2 expressius:  « Per verbum Dei creati sunt omnes Angeli, et a Spiritu sancto per sanctificationem perfecti »:  si ergo sanctificatio perfecta non est nisi per gratiam gratum facientem, et ipse loquitur de omnibus:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, (St. John) Damascene2 (says) more expressly:  « Through the Word of God all the Angels were created, and by the Holy Spirit (they were) perfected through sanctification »:  if, therefore, sanctification is not perfect except through the grace making one pleasing [gratiam gratum facientem], and he himself is speaking of all (the Angels):  ergo etc..

4. Item, ratione videtur, quia Deus, cum sit liberalissimus, promptus est gratiam dare omnibus paratis recipere.  Unde et Anselmus:3  « Ideo homo non habet gratiam, non quia Deus non dat, sed quia ipse non recipit »; sed nulla melior praeparatio ad gratiam quam pura innocentia et voluntas recta:  ergo si haec erant in Angelis a sui origine et creatione, per consequens et gratia.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason, because God, since He is most liberal, is prompt to give grace to all prepared to receive (it).  Wherefore (St.) Anselm3 also (says):  « A man does not have grace for this reason, not because God does not give (it), but because he himself does not receive (it) »; but (there is) no better preparation for grace than pure innocence and an upright will:  therefore if these were in the Angels from their origin and creation, consequently [per consequens] grace (was) too.

5. Item, fecit Deus creaturam rationalem ad inhabitandum in ea, et hoc, quia ipse Deus vult in ea habitare; unde Proverbiorum octavo:4  Deliciae meae esse cum filiis hominum:  ergo quod non inhabitet, venit ex aliqua prava dispositione ex parte mentis:  cum ergo in Angelis nulla prava esset dispositio ex parte mentis, immo omnimoda idoneitas ad gratiam, videtur etc.

5. Likewise, God made the rational creature to indwell in it, and this, because God Himself wants to dwell in it; wherefore in the eighth (chapter)4 of Proverbs (there is written):  My delights (are) to be with the sons of men:  therefore that He does not indwell (in some), comes from some depraved disposition on the part of (their) mind:  therefore since in the Angels there was no depraved disposition on the part of (their) mind, nay an omnimodal idoneity for grace, it seems, that etc..

6. Item, pronior est Deus ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum; sed ipse fecit Angelos in statu, in quo statim poterant demereri:  ergo in statu, in quo poterant mereri.  Sed non contingit mereri sine gratia gratum faciente:  ergo etc.

6. Likewise, God is more prone to have mercy than to condemn; but He Himself made the Angels in a state, in which they could immediately demerit:  therefore in a state, in which they could merit.  But one does not happen to merit without the grace (which) makes one pleasing:  ergo etc..

CONTRA:  1. Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram:5  « Per caelum intelligitur angelica natura informis »; sed non fuit informis per defectum formae naturalis:  ergo informis fuit per defectum formae superadditae naturae.  Sed haec est gratia:  ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. (St.) Augustine (says) On a Literal Exposition of Genesis:  « Through “heaven” there is understood the formless, angelic nature »; but it was not formless through a defect of (its) natural form:  therefore it was formless through a defect of a form superadded to the nature.  But this is grace:  ergo etc..

2. Item, Gregorius trigesimo secundo Moralium,6 tractans illud verbum Ezechielis vigesimo octavo:  Aurum opus decoris tui, et foramina tua in die, qua conditus es, praeparata sunt:  « Huius lapidis in die conditionis suae foramina praeparata sunt, qui videlicet capax caritatis conditus fuit, qua si repleri voluisset, stantibus Angelis, tanquam in ornamento regis positis lapidibus, inhaerere potuisset.  Habuit ergo iste lapis foramina, sed per superbiae vitium caritatis auro non sunt repleta ».  Ecce, expresse, quod non habuit caritatem.

2. Likewise, (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) in the third-second (book) of Morals.,6 treating of that verse in the twenty-eighth (chapter) of Ezekiel:  Gold the work of thy ornament, and thy portals [foramina] were prepared in the day, on which thou was founded:  « For this stone (i. e. Lucifer) in the day of his founding there were prepared portals, namely, who had been founded capable of the charity, to which he could have clung [inhaerere], if he had wanted to be filled (with it), while the Angels stood, as stones placed for the ornament of a king.  Therefore this stone had portals, but through the vice of pride they were not filled with the gold of charity ».  Behold, (he says) expressly, that he did not have charity.

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia gratia in Angelo nullum habet retardativum:7  ergo si haberet gratiam unientem Deo, totaliter Angelus ferretur in Deum:  ergo nunquam peccasset.  Sed peccavit:  ergo nunquam caritatem vel gratiam habuit.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason, because grace in an Angel has nothing retardative [retardativum]:7  therefore if he had grace uniting (him) to God, an Angel would be totally born unto God:  therefore he would have never sinned.  But he did sin:  therefore he never had charity and/or grace.

4. Item, sicut se habet culpa ad damnationem aeternam, ita gratia ad gloriam; sed statim ut habuerunt culpam, fuerunt damnati aeternaliter et obstinati:  ergo statim ut habuerunt gratiam, fuerunt confirmati:  ergo nunquam ruissent, si gratiam habuissent.

4. Likewise, just as fault holds itself to eternal damnation, so grace to glory; but immediately as they had a fault, they were eternally damned and obstinate:  therefore immediately as they had grace, they were confirmed:  therefore they never would have been ruined, if they had had grace.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Probabilius videtur, Angelos non habuisse gratiam sanctificantem a primo instanti suae creationis.

CONCLUSION

 

It seems more probable, that the Angels did not have sanctifying grace from the first instant of their creation.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod haec quaestio facti est; et quia non invenimus aliam rationem quam congruitatis, probabiliter utrumque possumus opinari, sicut et alii ante nos.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that this is a question of fact, and because we do not find a reason other than (one) of congruity, we can opine each in a probable manner, just as also the others before us.

Fuerunt enim aliqui8 dicentes, quod Angeli omnes creati sunt in gratuitis gratum facientibus.  —  Et ratio, quae movit eos, fuit haec, ex parte Dei scilicet perfecta liberalitas, et ex parte creatorum idoneitas.  Quia enim ab instanti creationis erant vasa et receptacula munda, et Deus est promptus suam gratiam impartiri, nisi habeat obstaculum ex parte suscipientis; non dimisit Deus illa ad momentum vacua, sed statim ut condidit, gratia illustravit.  Et talia debuerunt de manu Dei exire receptacula, ut statim essent prompta in bonum usum.  Unde sicut probabiliter coniiciunt aliqui, quod Deus fecerit arbores plenas fructibus et alia9 in statu nobilissimo et perfectissimo; sic etiam naturam Angeli ornaverit gratia a sui conditione, quae in primo usu bono sive victoria erat perpetuanda, et in prima deordinatione perpetualiter amittenda.  —  Haec est una positio, et satis videtur consona auctoritatibus Sanctorum, ut patet inspicienti.

For there were some8 saying, that all the Angels were created in the gratuitous (gifts which) make one pleasing (to God) [in gratuitis gratum facientibus].  —  And the reason, which moved them, was this, namely, on the part of God (His) perfect liberality, and on the part of the creatures (their) idoneity.  For because from the instant of (their) creation they were vessels and clean receptacles, and God is prompt to impart His grace, unless He has an obstacle on the part of the one suscepting (it); God did not send them away empty [dimisit illa vacua] for the moment, but immediately as He founded (them), illustrated (them with) grace.  And receptacles ought to have gone forth from the Hand of God such, that they would be immediately prompt for a good use.  Wherefore, just as some conjecture in a probable manner, that God made trees full of fruit and other (living things)9 in a most noble and most perfect state; so also He ornamented [ornaverit] the nature of the Angel (with) grace from its foundation, which (grace) in (its) first good use or victory was to be perpetuated, and in (its) first deordination (was) to be perpetually lost.  —  This is one position, and it seems sufficiently consonant with the authorities of the Saints, as is clear to the one looking into (them).

Fuerunt etiam alii, qui dixerunt, Angelos non habuisse gratiam gratum facientem ab instanti creationis, sed post.  —  Et ratio, quae eos movit, est dispositio naturae angelicae, quae fertur in id quod ap- / -petit . . .

There were also others, who said, that the Angels did not have the grace (which) makes one pleasing from the instant of (their) creation, but afterwards.  —  And the reason, which moved them, is the disposition of the angelic nature, which is born unto that which it / desires . . .

1  Vers. 1.  Vulgata:  Et diligunt vinacia uvarum.  —  In Glossa Hieronymi, quae habetur apud Lyranum, in fine substituitur de caelo sunt proiecti pro de caelo ceciderunt; codd. autem non pauci per superabundantiam pro per superbiam.

2  Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3.

3  De Casu diaboli, c. 3.  Cfr. tom. I. pag. 720, nota 6.

4  Vers. 31.  —  Paulo superius plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 et hoc quidem pro et hoc quia; forsan legendum:  et hoc quidem quia.

5  Libr. I. c. 1. n. 3, c. 3. n. 7, c. 4. n. 9. et c. 9 .n. 17.

6  Cap. 23. n. 48.  —  Ezech. 28, 13.  —  In fine textus Gregorii plures codd. cum ed. 1 sed propter pro sed per.  Dein post expresse codd. I T U adnectunt dicit.

7  Ita codd. F T V aa bb etc.; Vat. nullam habet retardationem.  Cfr. infra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. circa finem.

8  Inter quos fuit Praepositivus, qui tamen in sua Summa contrariam opinionem vocat communem magistrorum.  —  Circa initium responsionis non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 omittunt quia; cod. bb (a. 2. manu) particulam quia interserit post Dicendum quod; cod. cc vero cum ed. 1 post congruitatis subiungit unde.

9  Codd. W bb animalia pro alia.  Paulo inferius Vat. cum nonnullis mss. sine victoria, cod. cc et ed. 1 sine mora pro sive victoria, quod cod. W (bb primitus) omittit.

1  Verse 1.  The Vulgate reads:  And they love the husks of grapes [Et diligunt vinacia uvarum].  —  In the gloss of (St.) Jerome, which is had in (Nicholas) of Lyra, there is substituted at the end were cast forth from Heaven [de caelo sunt proiecti] for fell down from Heaven [de caelo ceciderunt]; moreover not a few codices have through superabundance [per superabundantiam] for through pride [per superbiam].

2  On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 3.

3  On the Downfall of the Devil, ch. 3.  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 40, a. 4, q. 2, p. 720, footnote 6.

4  Verse 31.  —  A little above this very many codices, together with edition 1, have and this indeed [et hoc quidem] for and this, because [et hoc quia]; perhaps to be read as:  and this indeed, because [et hoc quidem quia].

5  Book I, ch. 1, n. 3; ch. 3, n. 7; ch. 4, n. 9; and ch. 9, n. 17.

6  Chapter 23, n. 48.  —  Ezch. 28:13.  —  At the end of the text from (St.) Greglory several codices, together with edition 1, have but on account of [sed propter] for but through [sed per].  Then after Behold [expresse] codices I T and U adjoin he says [dicit].

7  Thus codices F T V aa bb etc.; the Vatican edition has has no retardation [nullam habet retardationem].  Cf. below d. 8, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, in the body of the Question, near the end.

8  Among whom was Praepositivus, who, however, in his Summa call the contrary opinion “the common (opinion) of the masters (of theology)”.  —  Near the beginning of the Response not a few codices, together with editions 1 and 2, omit the particle because [quia]; codex bb (by a second hand) inserts the same after It must be said, that [Dicendum quod]; but codex cc, together with edition 1, subjoins wherefore [unde] after congruity [congruitatis].

9  Codices W and bb have the animals [animalia] for other (living things) [alia].  A little below this the Vatican edition, together with not a few manuscripts, has without victory [sine victoria], codex cc and edition 1 have without a delay [sine mora] for or victory [sive victoria], which codex W (bb primitive) omits.

p. 134

ap- / -petit sine retardatione.  Unde sicut ex conversione ad malum ita profunde conversi sunt, ut non possent redire, sic, immo multo magis, ex conversione ad bonum sive ex habilitate ita bono totaliter adhaesissent, si gratiam habuissent, quod nunquam lapsi essent.1  Unde non videtur aliquo modo probabile, quod lucifer habuerit gratiam; et si ipse non habuit, cum inter ceteros esset excelsus, a minori arguitur, nec alios habuisse a sui origine.  Hanc positionem videtur acceptare Magister,2 hanc positionem communiter tenet doctores; et ita huic tanquam probabilior et communiori concordandum est.

it / desires [appetit] without being retarding [sine retardatione].  Wherefore, just as from (their) conversion to evil they were so profoundly converted, that they could not return, so, nay much more, from (their) conversion to the good or from (their) ability they would have totally adhered to the good so much, if they had had grace, that they would have never fallen.1  Wherefore it does not seem probable in any manner, that Lucifer had grace; and if he did not have (it), since he excelled [excelsus] among all the others, it is argued a minori, that neither did the others have (it) from their origin.  Master (Peter2) seems to accept this position, the doctors (of theology) commonly hold this position; and thus one must be in agreement [concordandum est] with it as the more probable and more common (opinion).

1. 2. 3. Ad auctoritates in contrarium adductas respondendum est per distinctionem gratiae.  Uno enim modo gratia dicitur communiter, prout comprehendit quidquid naturalibus est superadditum, naturalibus, inquam, quae sunt de generali rei constitutione;3 sicut dicitur gratia habere bonum ingenium, bene legere, bene cantare et huiusmodi.  Alio modo dicitur, quod superadditum est libero arbitrio ad rectitudinem faciens et disponens, sicut dicimus virtutes naturales,4 sicut innocentia, mititas, pietas.  Tertio modo, quod est superadditum tanquam rectificans et complens et elevans, et haec dicitur gratia gratum faciens, quia facit hominem acceptabilem Deo, et ideo acceptabilem, quia conformem.5  —  Quando igitur dicitur, quod Angelo data sunt gratuita, aut non intelligitur de gratuitis tertio modo dictis, sed primo vel secundo, quia sic multa dona gratuita habuerunt; aut si intelligitur de gratuitis proprie dictis, non intelligitur ab instanti creationis; sed sicut intelligitur peccatum diaboli fuisse ab initio, quia statim post initium et post primum motum deliberativum cecidit,6 ita intelligendum est de gratia Angelorum.  Aut si intelligitur de gratuitis proprie dictis et ab instanti creationis, hoc non intelligitur formaliter sive essentialiter, sed dispositive; unde dicitur aliquis creatus in aliquo, quia in proxima dispositione ad illud.  —  Et ita per hanc triplicem viam ad auctoritates inductas et multas alias, quae possent induci, potest breviter responderi.

1. 2. 3. To the authorities adduces unto the contrary one must respond through the distinction of “grace”.  For in one manner “grace” is said commonly, insofar as (the word) comprehends whatever has been superadded to natural (goods), the “natural (goods)”, I say, which are from the general constitution of the thing;3 just as to have a good mind [ingenium], to read well, to chant well and (things) of this kind, is called a “grace”.  In another manner (a “grace”) is said to be, that which has been superadded to free will, causing and disposing to rectitude (of will), just as we say (there are)  “natural virtues”,4 as (are) innocence, meekness [mititas], (and) piety.  In a third manner, (as) that which has been superadded as (something) rectifying and completing and elevating, and this is said (to be) the “grace (which) makes one pleasing” [gratia gratum faciens], because it makes a man acceptable to God, and acceptable for this reason, because (it makes him) conform (with God).5  —  When, therefore, it is said, there have been given to the Angel “gratuitous (gifts)”, either (this) is not understood of “gratuitous (gifts)” said in the third manner, but in the first and/or second, because thus they had many gratuitous gifts; of if it is understood of “gratuitous (gifts)” properly said, it is not understood of the instant of creation; but just as the sin of the Devil is understood to have been from the start, because immediately after the start (of his existence) and after the first deliberative movement (of his will) he fell down,6 so must it be understood of the grace of the Angels.  Or if it is understood of “gratuitous (gifts)” properly said and from the instant of creation, this is not understood formally or essentially, but dispositively; wherefore something is said (to be) “created in something”, because (it is) in proximate disposition to it.  —  And thus through this threefold way, one can respond to the authorities brought forward and (to) the many others, which can be brought forward.

4. 5. Ad rationes autem sumtas a Dei liberalitate, dicendum, quod liberalitas est salvo ordine sapientiae et iustitiae.  Quamvis enim ab instanti creationis cuiuslibet hominis posset eum7 beatificare, tamen longo tempore tardat; similiter, quamvis posset cuilibet parvulo gratiam dare sine baptismate, sicut cum baptismate, tamen non dat.  Et ratio huius est, quia gloria est bonum laudabile; et ideo convenit eam dari, praecedenti aliquo merito congrui.8  Similiter, quando confert gratiam, si confert adulto, cum gratia faciat habentem dignum gloria, non confert nisi ad motum liberi arbitrii, si habet usum; si vero non habet, ad motum fidei alienae, sive ad meritum Christi;9 ideo secundum ordinem sapientiae non statim debuit dare, sed exspectare motum liberi arbitrii, quod et fecit, unde ad se conversis sine mora dedit gratiam.  —  Patet igitur responsio ad illud quod obiicit de liberalitate et habilitate,10 quia non tantum exigit munditiam ut dispositionem, sed motum liberi arbitrii in adulto; parvulo vero potest alienum meritum suffragari, sicut et demeritum.

4. 5. But to the reasons taken from God’s liberality, it must be said, that (His) liberality is with the order of (His) Wisdom and Justice conserved.  For though from the instant of the creation of any man He could beatify him,7 yet He delays a long time; similarly, though He could give grace to any little one without Baptism, just as with Baptism, yet He does not give (it).  And the reason for this is, because glory is a good worthy of praise [laudabile]; and for that reason it is fitting that it be given, according to some preceding, congruous merit.8  Similarly, when He confers grace, if He confers (it upon) an adult, since grace makes the one having (it) worthy of glory, He does not confer (it) except according to (his) movement of free will, if he has the use (of free will); but if he does not have (this use), (He confers it) according to the movement of the faith of another, or according to Christ’s merit;9 for that reason according to the order of (His) Wisdom He ought not have given grace immediately, but (ought to have) expected the movement of the free will, which He also made, wherefore to those having converted themselves He gave grace without a delay.  —  Therefore the response to that which it objects concerning (God’s) liberality and (their) ability10 is clear, because He does not require only cleanliness as a disposition, but (also) in an adult the movement of free will; but another’s merit can support a little one, just as also (another’s) demerit (can abandon the same).

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de statu, quod in malo erat;11 dicendum, quod falsum est.  Quamvis enim non posset mereri ex his quae acceperat, tamen, quia Dominus ita promptus erat dare, sicut ipse accipere, nullum habebat obstaculum in merendo, sicut nec in demerendo.  Et hoc patet:  sicut enim facile fuit diabolo averti, ita facile bonis Angelis converti; et sicut aversio fuit demeritoria, ita conversio facta est meritoria, statim apposita gratia.  Unde sicut aliquis indirecte dicitur habere aliquid, quod statim habet, dum indiget et petit, quamvis non penes se habeat; sic etiam indirecte12 potuerunt dici Angeli gratiam habuisse.  Quodsi habuissent maiorem facilitatem ad malum sive inclinationem, et divinum adiutorium in opportunitate deesset, recte obiiceret.

6. To that which is objected last concerning (the Devil’s) state, that it was in evil;11 it must be said, that it is false.  For though he could not merit on account of those which he had accepted, yet, because the Lord was as prompt to give, as he to accept, he had no obstacle in meriting, just as neither in demeriting.  And this is clear:  for just as it was easy for the Devil to turn away, so (it was) easy for the good Angels to turn away; and just as (his) aversion was demeritorious, so (their) conversion became meritorious, as soon as grace was apportioned (to them).  Wherefore just as someone is said indirectly “to have something”, which he has immediately, as he needs and seeks (it), though he does not have (it) from within himself; so too the Angels could be said indirectly12 “to have had grace”.  Wherefore if they had had a greater facility or inclination for evil, and the Divine Assistance was lacking in opportunity, it would be rightly objected.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Agitur hic de gratia sanctificante, non de gratia actuali, ut patet ex corp. et solut. ad 1. 2. 3, ubi notatu dignum est id quod dicitur de triplici distinctione gratiae.  Quaestio principalis est de tempore, quando Angeli gratiam sanctificantem a Deo acceperint.  De hoc S. Thom. in Comment. (hic q. unica a. 3.) dicit:  « Circa hoc est duplex opinio:  quidam enim dicunt, non in gratia, sed in naturalibus tantum creati sunt; et haec opinio est communior.  Alii vero dicunt, Angelos in gratia . . .

I. Here one deals with sanctifying grace, not with actual grace, as is clear from the body of the Question and the solution to nn. 1, 2, and 3, where it is worthy to note that which is said of the threefold distinction of grace.  The principle question concerns the time, when the Angels accepted sanctifying grace from God.  On this St. Thomas says in (his) Commentary (here in the q. sole, a. 3):  « About this there is a twofold opinion:  for certain (authors) say, that they were created not in grace, but only in natural (goods); and this opinion is the more common one.  But others say, that the Angels were created / in grace.

1  Cfr. infra d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.  —  Paulo inferius ed. 1 cum nonnullis mss. habuit gratiam pro habuerit gratiam, et dein cum cod. cc excellens pro excelsus.

2  Dist. III. c. 4. et in hac dist.  —  Plures codd. accipere pro acceptare, et in fine responsionis Vat. concordant pro concordandum est.

3  Vat.:  quae sunt de essentiali rei constitutione, sicut dicitur ex gratia etc.  Cod. cc et ed. 1:  sicut dicimus gratiam habere etc.  Paulo inferius post Alio modo dicitur codd. I Q repetunt gratia.

4  Cod. L:  sicut omnes virtutes naturales, scilicet innocentia etc.

5  Cod. cc et ed. 1 quia sufficienter conformem.  Mox post primum aut in cod. aa subiungitur dico quod; cod. Z substituit hoc pro aut, quod in pluribus mss. et tribus primis edd. deest.

6  De quo vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.

7  In cod. cc et ed. 1 additur ex liberalitate.

8  Cfr. infra d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. et d. 29. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

9  Vide IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 6. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.  —  Codd. W bb post si vero non habet adnectunt usum.

10  Vat. inhabitatione.

11  Quia scil. Angelus non posset mereri, sed tantum demereri.

12  Communissima lectio codd. et omnium edd., in qua hic et paulo inferius ponitur non indirecte, est aperte falsa.  Primitus fortasse legebatur non directe quidem, sed indirecte.  Quam lectionem, licet sit completior, non in textum recepimus, cum non fulciatur alicuius auctoritate, sed secuti sumus cod. I, qui simpliciter ponit indirecte.  Cfr. infra d. 28. dub. 3.

1  Cf. below d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.  — A little below this edition 1, together with not a few manuscripts, reads (in the indicative) had grace [habuit gratiam] for (the subjunctive) had grace [habuerit gratiam], and then together with codex cc has excellent [excellens] for excelled [excelsus].

2  Distinction III, ch. 4, and in this Distinction.  —  Several codices have accept [accipere] for accept [acceptare], and at the end of the Response the Vatican edition has they are in agreement [concordant] for one must be in agreement [concordandum est].

3  The Vatican edition has:  which are from the essential constitution of the thing, just as . . . is said (to be) “from grace” [quae sunt de essentiali rei constitutione, sicut dicitur ex gratia etc.].  Codex cc and edition 1 have:  we say that (it is) a “grace” to have . . . of this kind. [sicut dicimus gratiam etc.]  A little below this after In another manner [In alio modo dicitur] codex I and Q repeat a “grace” [gratia].

4  Codex L:  just as we speak of all the natural virtues, namley etc. [sicut omnes virtutes naturales, scilicet innocentia etc.].

5  Codex cc and edition 1 have because (it makes him) sufficiently conform (with God) [quia sufficienter conformem].  Next after either [aut] in codex aa there is subjoined I say that [dico quod]; codex Z subsitutes this [hoc] for either (this) [aut], which is missing in several manuscripts and in three first editions.

6  Concerning which see above d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2.

7  In codex cc and edition 1 there is added out of (His) liberality [ex liberalitate].

8  Cf. below d. 12, a. 1. q. 2, in the body of the Question, and in d. 29, a. 2, q. 2, in the body of the Question.

9  See Sent., Bk. IV, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 6, p. II, a. 1, q. 2.  —  Codices W and bb after but if he does not have [si vero non habet] adjoin (this) use [usum].

10  The Vatican edition has habitation [habitatione] for (their) ability [habilitate].

11  Because, namely, (this) Angel could not merit, but only demerit.

12  The most common reading of the codices and of all the editions, in which here and a little below this, there is put non indirectly [non indirecte], is patently false.  At first perhaps it used to read non directly, indeed, but indirectly [non directe quidem, sed indirecte].  Which reading, though it is more complete, we have not received into the text, since it is not supported by the authority of any (manuscript), but we have followed codex I, which has simply indirectly [indirecte].  Cf. below d. 28, Doubt 3.

p. 135

creatos esse.  Harum autem opinionum quae verior sit, non potest efficaci ratione deprehendi ».  De hac autem secunda sententia dicit:  « Quae opinio mihi magis placet, absque alterius partis praeiudicio ».  Sed Sum. theol. (I. q. 62. a. 3.) de eadem secunda sententia dicit, quod « hoc probabilius videtur tenendum »; quae sententia nunc fere communiter recipitur.  Eandem opinionem, quae fuit Praepositivi, etiam S. Bonav. iudicat esse « satis consonam Sanctorum auctoritatibus »; attamen primam esse « probabiliorem et communiorem », quam tenuerunt Hugo a S. Victore et Petrus Lombardus.  Haec autem sententia praecipue fundata est in duobus principiis, scil. quod Angeli per motum liberum voluntatis, gratia supernaturali adiuti, dispositi sint ad susceptionem gratiae sanctificantis (cfr. infra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1.); et quod in primo instanti creationis Angelus non potuerit esse « in actu electionis » (supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.).  Primum illud principium conceditur etiam a S. Thoma; secundum vero non.  —  Idem problema redit in quaestione, utrum primus homo conditus fuerit in gratia sanctificante, infra d. 29. a. 2. q. 2.  Notum est, Concil. Trident. hanc controversiam Scholasticorum quoad primum hominem noluisse decidere; unde consulto dixit (Sess. 5. can. 1.):  « Sanctitatem et iustitiam, in qua constitutus fuerat » (loco conditus erat).  Notandum autem, omnes antiquos Scholasticos in hac re non firmiter asserendo, sed secundum maiorem probabilitatem suam opinionem proferre.  Sententiam S. Bonaventurae praeferunt Alex. Hal., Richard. a Med., Aegid R., et Henr. Gand.; in sententiam S. Thomae magis inclinant B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Durand., Dionys. Carth. aliique; Scot. utramque censet esse probabilem.

were created / in grace.  But which of these opinions is the truer one, cannot be discovered by an efficacious reason ».  Moreover of this second sentence he says:  « Which opinion pleases me more, without prejudice for the other side ».  But in (his) Summa Theologiae (I, q. 62, a. 3) on the same sentence he says, that « this seems must be held (to be) more probable »; which sentence is now nearly commonly received.  The same sentence, which was (that of) Praepositivus, even St. Bonaventure judges to be « sufficiently consonant with the authorities of the Saints »; but yet the first is « more probable and more common », which Hugo of St. Victor and Peter Lombard held.  But this sentence was founded chiefly in two principles, namely, that the Angels through a movement of free will, helped by supernatural grace, were disposed to the susception of sanctifying grace (cf. below d. 5, a. 3, q. 1); and that in the first instant of (his) creation an Angel could not be « in an act of choosing » (above in d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q, 2).  The first principle is conceded even by St. Thomas; but the second (is) not.  —  The same problem returns in the question, whether the first man had been founded in sanctifying grace, below in d. 29, a. 2, q. 2.  It is known, that the Council of Trent did not want to decide this controversy of the Scholastics in regard to the first man; whence it deliberately [consulto] said (Session 5, canon 1):  « The holiness and justice, in which he had been constituted » (in place of he had been founded).  Moreover one must note, that all the ancient Scholastics proffer their opinion in this matter not firmly, by asserting, but according to a greater probability.  The sentence of St. Bonaventure is preferred by Alexander of Hales, Richard of Middleton, Giles the Roman, and Henry of Ghent; to the sentence of St. Thomas there incline rather Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Durandus, (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian and others; (Bl. John Duns) Scotus judges each to be probable.

II. Cum hac quaestione connectitur alia, utrum scil. non tantum boni Angeli, sed etiam mali gratiam sanctificantem acceperint; de quo solummodo in hypothesi, quae statuit, eos in primo instanti creationis non habuisse gratiam sanctificantem, dubium ori potest.  Et propter argumenta, quae in favorem huius opinionis afferuntur, ii qui dictae sententiae favent, cum S. Bonaventura (hic et infra d 6. a. 1. q. 1.), Alexandro Hal., Richard. a Med., Aegidio R., et Henr. Gand. opinantur, probabilius esse, luciferum nunquam gratiam sanctificantem habuisse, sed tantum gratias actuales, quae ad conversionem in Deum requiruntur (d. 28. a. 2. q. 1.).  Verba autem apud Ioan. 8, 44, quod diabolus in veritate non stetit, ab iisdem exponuntur de rectitudine naturali cum donis actualis gratiae.  Sed alterius sententiae patroni cum S. Thoma, Scoto et sententia nunc communiter recepta contendunt, etiam malos angelos habuisse gratiam sanctificantem vel in primo instanti, vel saltem ante lapsum.  Hoc expressis verbis docet Catechismus Romanus, p. I. c. 2. q. 17.

II. With this question is connected other, namely whether not only the good Angels, but even the evil ones accepted sanctifying grace; concerning which only on the hypothesis, which holds, that they in the first moment of (their) creation did not have sanctifying grace, does the doubt arise.  And on account of the arguments, which are cited in favor of this opinion, those who favor the said sentence, together with St. Bonaventure (here and below in d. 6, a. 1, q. 1), Alexander of Hales, Richard of Middleton, Giles the Roman, and Henry of Ghent opine, that it is more probable, that Lucifer never had sanctifying grace, but only the actual graces, which are required for conversion (d. 28, a. 1, q. 1).  Moreover the words in John 8:44, that the Devil did not stand in the Truth, are expounded by the same concerning (his) natural rectitude, together with the gifts of actual grace.  But the patrons of the other sentence, together with St. Thomas, (Bl.) Scotus, and the now commonly received sentence, contend that even the evil angels had sanctifying grace either in the first instant, and/or at least before (their) fall.  This the Roman Catechism expressly teaches in p. I, ch. 2, q. 17.

III. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 19. m. 2.  —  Scot., in utroque Scripto, hic q. unica.  —  S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 3; S. I. q. 62. a. 3.  —  B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 3. a. 12; S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 18. m. 1.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 4.  —  Henr. Gand., Quodl. 8. q. 10.  —  Durand., hic q. 2.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

III. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 19, m. 2.  —  (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in each edition of his Commentary, here in the q. sole.  —  St. Thomas, here in  the q. sole, a. 3; Summa., I, q. 62, a. 3.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Sent., Bk. II, d. 3, a. 12; Summa ., p. II, tr. 4, q. 18, m. 1.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in the q. sole, a. 2.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 2.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 1, a. 4.  —  Henry of Ghent, Quodlibetals, 8. q. 10.  —  Durandus, here in q. 2.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 2.

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.