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 V.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION V

ARTICULUS III.

 

Quaestio II.

ARTICLE III

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 156-158.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 156-158.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum in conversione bonorum Angelorum meritum praecesserit praemium, vel e converso.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether in the conversion of the good Angels merit preceded reward, and/or vice versa?

SECUNDO QUAERITUR de conversione bonorum in comparatione ad praemium, et quaeritur, utrum in eorum conversione meritum sequatur praemium, vel praecedat.  Et quod praecedat, videtur.

SECOND THERE IS ASKED concerning the conversion of the good (Angels) in comparison to (their) reward, and there is the question, whether in their conversion merit follows the reward [praemium], and/or precedes (it). And it seems, that it precedes (it).

1. Augustinus de Correptione et gratia:3  « Angeli sancti, qui cadentibus aliis steterunt, illius vitae mercedem recipere meruerunt »:  si ergo meruerunt recipere, meritum praecessit receptionem mercedis.

1. (St.) Augustine (says) On Correction and Grace:3  « The holy Angels, who when the others fell stood (firm), merited to receive the wage [mercedem] of that (heavenly) life »;  if, therefore, they merited to receive (it), merit preceded the reception of the wage.

2. Item, meritum est via ad praemium; sed recto ordine procedendo, prior est status viatoris quam comprehensoris, et viae quam patriae:  ergo in Angelis fuit meritum ante praemium.

2. Likewise, merit is the way to a reward; but proceeding in right order, the state of a wayfarer is prior to (the state) of a comprehensor, and (the state) of the way to (the state) of the fatherland:  therefore among the Angels merit was before reward.

3. Item, dispositio praecedit illud, ad quod disponit, vel tempore vel natura; sed gratia est dispositio ad gloriam:  ergo si Deus dedit Angelis gratiam, qua possent mereri, et gloriam, qua sunt beati, prius habuerunt gratiam quam gloriam.  Sed . . .

3. Likewise, a disposition precedes that, to which it disposes, either in time and/or in nature; but grace is a disposition to glory:  therefore, if God gave the Angels the grace, by which they could merit, and the glory, by which they are blessed, they had grace before glory.  But . . .

3  Chap. 11. n. 32:  Angeli sancti, qui, cadentibus aliis per liberum arbitrium, per idem liberum arbitrium steterunt, ipsi et huius permansionis debitam mercedem recipere meruerunt.  —  Paulo inferius post si ergo Vat. repetit mercedem.

3  Chapter 11, n. 32:  The holy Angels, who, when the others fell through (their) free will, stood (firm) through the same free will, these also merited to receive a due wage.  —  A little below this after if, therefore, [si ergo] the Vatican edition repeats the wage [mercedem] for (it).

p. 157

gratia, quando invenit liberum arbitrium in actu debito, facit illum1 esse meritorium:  ergo si liberum arbitrium Angeli in ingressu gratiae et gloriae erat in actu, ergo prius habuit motum meritorium quam gloriosum.

grace, when it finds free will in a due act, it causes it1 to be meritorious:  therefore if an Angel’s free will was in act upon stepping into [in ingressu] grace and glory, therefore it had a meritorious movement before a glorious one.

4. Item, per impossibile videtur, quia Deus dedit Angelis gloriam, aut ergo dignis, aut indignis.  Si indignis; iniuste et inordinate fecit, quod est impossibile:  ergo dedit dignis.  Sed nullus est dignus corona2 nisi per merita:  ergo etc.

4. Likewise, per impossibile it seems, that God gave the Angels glory, therefore either to (them) as ones worthy, or as ones unworthy.  If as to ones unworthy; He did (so) unjustly and inordinately, which is impossible:  therefore He gave (it) to (them) as ones worthy.  But no one is worthy of a crown2 except through merit:  ergo etc..

5. Item, si mereri contingit habitum, dum quis servit Deo et bene utitur habito:  ergo cum omnis perseverans in gratia bene utatur ea, qui perseverat in gratia meretur eam; sed quod est ex meritis non est gratia:  ergo merendo gratiam, desineret esse gratia.3

5. Likewise, if one happens to merit (something) had, so long as he who serves God also uses (what is) had well:  therefore since everyone persevering in grace uses it well, he who perseveres in grace merits it; but what is on account of merits is not a grace:  therefore by meriting grace, it would cease to be a grace.3

6. Item, si praemium pracedit meritum, quaero:  quod est illud meritum?  Aut quantum ad actum contemplationis, aut ministerii.  Non contemplationis; sic enim omnes Beati mererentur; si quantum ad actum ministerii, ergo videtur, quod si non esset homo, Angelus non posset mereri, ergo nec dignus esset beatificari; quod falsum est plane.

6. Likewise, if the reward precedes the merit, I ask:  “What is that merit?”  Either (it is a merit) as much a regards an act of contemplation, or of ministry.  Not of contemplation, for thus all the Blessed would merit; if as much as regards an act of ministry, therefore it seems, that if man were not, an Angel would not be able to merit, therefore neither would he be worthy to be beatified; which is plainly false.

1. CONTRA hoc est quod Magister dicit in littera,4 quod sibi magis placet, quod merentur iam habitum.

1. AGAINST this is that which Master (Peter) says in the text,4 that it is more pleasing to him, that they merit (something) already had.

2. Item, ratione.  Angeli, dum ministrant nobis, aliquid merentur, cum ex magna caritate et liberalitate nobis condescendant, et ministerium non sit actus comprehensoris, sed viatoris potius aut ergo merentur habitum,5 aut habendum.  Si habitum, habeo propositum, quod meritum sequitur praemium; si habendum, tunc ergo, cum mereantur beatitudinem, non sunt beati; si aliud quam beatitudinem, ergo non est meritum eorum perfectum nec necessarium.  Praeterea, quidquid mereantur, cum spes, quae differtur, affligat animam,6 videtur, quod tale meritum respectu rei habendae non possit stare cum statu beatitudinis.

2. Likewise, by reason.  The Angels, while they minister to us, merit something, since they condescend to us out of great charity and liberality, and (since) ministry is not an act of a comprehensor, but rather of a wayfarer, therefore either they merit (something)5 had, or (something) to be had.  If (something) had, I have (proven) the proposed, that merit follows reward; if (something) to be had, then, therefore, since they merit beatitude, they are not blessed; if (something) other than beatitude, therefore their merit is not perfect nor necessary.  Besides, whatever they merit, since the hope, which is deferred, afflicts the soul,6 it seems, that such a merit in respect of the thing to be had cannot stand with the state of blessedness.

3. Item, magna praemia non debent dari sine magnis meritis, et magna merita non sunt sine magnis obsequiis:  ergo cum Angeli magna praemia habeant, et magna obsequia non praecesserint, in quibus meruerint, ergo debent sequi.

3. Likewise, great rewards ought not be given without great merits, and great merits are not without great, reverence services [magis obsequiis]:  therefore since the Angels have great rewards, and the great, reverent services, in which they merited, did not precede (their reward), therefore they ought to follow (it).

4. Item, secundum quod plus dat Deus, plus exigit a creatura:  si ergo maius robur virtutis dedit Angelo quam homini, ergo et maiora obsequia requirit.  Sed homo non glorificatur nisi per multos labores:7  ergo nec Angelus sine operibus debet glorificari; sed opera non praecesserunt, sed solus motus affectionis:  ergo oportet sequi.

4. Likewise, according to which God gives (a creature) more, He requires more from the creature:  if, therefore, He gave a greater strength [robur] of virtue to Angel than to man, therefore He also requires greater, reverent services.  But a man is not glorified except through many7 labors:  therefore neither ought an Angel be glorified without works; but works did not precede (his reward), but only a movement of affection (did):  therefore it is necessary [oportet] that they follow.

CONCLUSIO.

 

In Angelis meritum praecessit praemium, non tempore, sed natura.

CONCLUSION

 

Among the Angels merit preceded reward, not in time, but in nature.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod circa hoc, sicut dicit Magister,8 duplex fuit opinio.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that about this, just as Master (Peter)8 says, there was a twofold opinion.

Quidam enim dixerunt, quod in Angelis praemium praecedit meritum, et huius positionis fuit Magister; et ad hoc ponendum moti sunt rationabiliter et quantum ad motivum, et quantum ad modum.  Quantum ad motivum:  quia enim intellexerunt, quod non est meritum sine gratia, nec magnum meritum, ubi non est magnum obsequium, et in Angelis propter naturae velocitatem et idoneitatem simul duratione datur gratia et gloria; dixerunt, quod in Angelis meritum non potuit praecedere praemium, meritum inquam condigni, sed solum, si aliquid praecedit, hoc est meritum congrui, sed sequitur meritum condigni. Hos9 etiam ad hoc ponendum instigavit, quod meritum rei habendae sonat in indigentiam, quae non videtur posse stare cum gloria.  —  Modum autem huius meriti satis advertere possumus in militibus, qui bene pugnando merentur equum ante merita datum.  —  Haec autem opinio, quamvis sit probabilis, tamen plura habet sibi adversantia, quae in opponendo tacta sunt.

For certain (authors) said, that among the Angels the reward preceded the merit, and to this position belongs Master (Peter); and they were moved to posit this reasonably both as much as regards the motive (cause), and as much as regards the manner.  As much as regards the motive (cause):  for because they understood, that there is no merit without grace, nor great merit, where there is not a great, reverent service, and (because) among the Angels on account of the velocity and idoneity of (their) nature, grace and glory is given together in duration; they said, that among the Angels merit could not precede the reward, the merit, I say, of one completely worthy [meritum condigni], but only, if anything preceded (at all), this (anything) is the merit of one fitting, but the merit of one completely worthy follows.  There also instigated them9 to posit this, that the merit of a thing to be had sounds unto indigence, which (indigence) does not seem able to stand with glory.  —  But the manner of this merit we can sufficiently advert to among soldiers, who when fighting well merit to be given a horse before merits.  —  But this opinion, though it is probable, yet has several adversary (reasons), which have been touched upon in the Contrary.

Propter quod fuit alia positio, quod in Angelis meritum praecessit praemium, non tempore, sed natura.  Et rationem huius assignant:  quia gratia naturaliter praecedit gloriam, et gratia, cum invenit motum in libero arbitrio ordinatum, facit meritorium, et pensatur meritum secundum quantitatem gratiae, non secundum multitudinem operum; ideo, cum Angelis data sit perfecta gratia, et liberum arbitrium omnino sit cooperatum gratiae, dicunt, quod in sua conversione sufficienter meruerunt glorificationem.  —  Et haec positio rationabilior est et melius habet fundamentum, quia meritum requirit et fundatur in perfectione voluntatis, non in multitudine operationis.  Hanc communiter tenent moderni doctores; ideo huic adhaerendum est.

On which account there was another position, that among the Angels merit did precede the reward, not in time, but in nature.  And they assign a reason for this:  because grace naturally precedes glory, and grace, when it finds an ordered movement in free will, makes (this) meritorious, and (because) merit is weighed according to the quantity of grace, not according to the multitude of works; for this reason, since perfect grace was given to the Angels, and (their) free will cooperated entirely with grace, they say, that in their conversion (the good Angels) sufficiently merited (their own) glorification.  —  And this position is more reasonable and has a better fundament, because merit requires and is founded upon the perfection of the will, not upon the multitude of (will’s) working [operationem].  This the contemporary doctors (of Scholastic theology) commonly hold; for this reason one must adhere to it.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Magistro, dicendum, quod in hac opinione et in pluribus aliis non assentitur ei.10

1. To that which is objected concerning Master (Peter), it must be said, that in this opinion and in several others one does not assent to him.10

1  Cod. Y addit motum, Vat. motum sive actum.  Paulo inferius post in actu cod. L repetit debito, et in fine argumenti cod. aa post quam interserit praemium.

2  Cod. U corona aeterna.

3  Cfr. Rom. 11, 6.

4  Hic. c. 6.

5  Cod. aa hic bene addit aliquid (vel supple:  praemium), et paulo inferius post propositum adiungit scilicet.  In secunda parte argumenti non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 modo singulari pro plurali tunc ergo, cum mereatur beatitudinem, non est beatus . . . meritum eius perfectum . . . quidquid mereatur etc.; incongrue.

6  Prov. 13, 12.

7  Vat. cum nonnullus mss. subiungit et magnos.

8  Hic c. 6.

9  Non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 Hoc; inter quos cod. Z dein post instigavit addit eos.

10  Vide supra in Praelocutione pag. 2.

1  Cod. Y adds the movement [motum], the Vatican edition has the movement or act [motum sive actum].  A little below this for in act [in actu] codex L reads in a due act [in actu debito], and at the end of the argument codex aa after before [quam] reads a glorious reward [praemium gloriosum] for a glorious one [gloriosum].

2  Codex U has of an eternal crown [cornoa aeterna].

3  Cf. Rm. 11:6.

4  Here in ch. 6.

5  Codex aa here adds well something [aliquid] and/or supply reward [praemium] instead, and a little below this after the proposed [propositum] it adds namely [scilicet].  In the second part of the argument not a few codices, together with edition 1, read in the singular instead of in the plural:  then, therefore, since one merits beatitude, he is not blessed . . . therefore his merit . . . whatever one merits etc. [tunc ergo, cum mereatur beatitudinem, non est beatus . . . meritum eius perfectum . . . quidquid mereatur], incongruously.

6  Prov. 13:12.

7  The Vatican edition, with not a few manuscripts, subjoins and great [et magnos].

8  Here in ch. 6.

9  Not a few codices, together with editions 1 and 2, have This also instigated (them) to posit this [Hoc etc.] for There also instigated them to posit this [Hos etc.]; among which codex Z then after instigated [instigavit] adds explicitly them [eos].

10  See above in (St. Bonaventure’s) Preface (to Book II), p. 2.

p. 158

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod merentur; dicendum, quod est praemium substantiale, et hoc meruerunt per conversionem sui in Deum; et est praemium accidentale, et hoc merentur per ministerium, quod faciunt homini.  Et quia accidit beatitudini, ideo sine tali praemio cum eius merito potest stare beatitudo; nec affliguntur ex exspectatione, sicut nec animae beatae de secundae stolae perceptione, et adhuc minus, quia minus inclinatur.1

2. To that which is objected, that they merit; is must be said, that there is a substantial reward, and this they merited through the conversion of themselves unto God; and there is an accidental reward, and this they merit through the ministry, which they do for man.  And because it accedes to (their) beatitude, for that reason (their) beatitude can stand without such a reward with its merit; nor are they afflicted on account of expectation, just as neither the blessed souls (are) from the perception of (their) second stole, and still less, because (an accidental reward) is less inclined (to cause this).1

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magna praemia requirunt magna merita; dicendum, quod magnitudo meriti non consistit in opere2 exteriori principaliter, sed in interiori.  Unde sicut diabolus multum peccavit propter improbam voluntatem, etsi nihil exterius fecerit; sic et contrario multum meruerunt Angeli boni.

3. To that which is objected, that great rewards require great merits; it must be said, that the magnitude of merit does not consist principally in exterior work,2 but in interior (work).  Wherefore just as the Devil sinned much on account of (his) bad will [improbam vountatem], even if he had done nothing exterior; so also contrariwise the good Angels merited much.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de homine, dicendum, quod homo non ita cito movetur, ut Angelus; ideo tempus meriti habet diuturnius.  Et ideo non est simile; sed hoc melius patebit infra, distinctione septima.3

4. To that which is objected concerning man, it must be said, that man is not so swiftly moved, as an Angel; for this reason he has a longer lasting [diuturnius] time for merit.  And for that reason it is not similar; but this will be more clear below, in the Seventh Distinction.3

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Opinio Magistri, cuius fit mentio in corp. et ad 1, communiter reiicitur; et etiam S. Bonav. contrariae sententiae adhaerendum esse dicit.  Hinc patet, ipsum dictam opinionem non aestimasse vere probabilem, licet propter reverentiam erga Magistrum inter alia dicat, patronos huius opinionis motos esse « rationabiliter » i. e. aliquibus rationibus in se non falsis.  —  Verba:  « Meritum praecessit praemium, non tempore, sed natura » a multis antiquis doctoribus approbantur, ut a B. Alberto, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R.; et etiam S. Thom. in Comment. hanc opinionem defendit, in hypothesi, quod Angeli non sint creati cum gratia sanctificante.  In Summa theolog. autem tenet cum Scoto, Durando aliisque posterioribus, merita etiam duratione praecessisse gloriam.

I. The opinion of Master (Peter), mention of which is made in the body of the Question and in reply to n. 1, is commonly rejected, and even St. Bonaventure says that one must adhere to the contrary sentence.  Hence it is clear, that he did not judge the said opinion to be truly probably, even though on account of (his) reverence for Master (Peter) he says among other (things), that the patrons of this opinion were moved « reasonably », i. e.  by some reasons, not false in themselves.  —  The words:  « Merit preceded reward, not in time, but in nature » are approved by many ancient doctors (of theology), such as Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, Giles the Roman; and even St. Thomas defends this opinion, on the hypothesis, that the Angels were not created with sanctifying grace.  But in the Summa Theologiae he holds with (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, Durandus and other later (theologians), that even (their) merits preceded in duration the glory (they received).

II. Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1.  —  S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. I. q. 62. a. 4. 5.  —  B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 19.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2.  —   Richard. a. Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2.  —  Durand., hic q. 3.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.  —  Biel, hic q. unica.

II. (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in each version of his Commentary, here in q. 1.  —  St. Thomas, here in q. 2, a. 2; Summa., I, q. 62, aa. 4 and 5.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 7; Summa., p. II, tr. 4, q. 19.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 2.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 2, q. 2.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, a. 2.  —  Durandus, here q. 3.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 3.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, here in the q. sole.

1  Fusius de hoc infra d. 11. a. 2. q. 2. seq.

2  Nonnulli codd. ut F K Y operatione.

3  Parte I. a. 1. q. 1.

1  On this, more at length below in d. 11, a. 2, q. 1 f..

2  Not a few codices, such as F K and Y, have working [operatione] for work [opere].

3  In part I, a. 1, q. 1.

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.