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

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

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

 

 

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

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Averti est odio habere vel invidere.  Contra:  Augustinus:4  « Nullius conscientia potest odisse Deum », cum omnes naturaliter appetant summum bonum:  ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod nullus avertatur.

In this part are the doubts about (Master Peter’s) text, and first there is asked concerning this which he says:  To had is to hold in hatred and/or to envy.  On the contrary:  (St.) Augustine (says):4  « The conscience of no one is able to have hated God », since all naturally desire the Most High Good:  therefore it seems according to this, that none (of the Angels) turned away (from God).

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod Magister non definit hic quamcumque aversionem, sed aversionem consummatam, in qua est obstinatio et rebellio contra Deum, quae fuit in diabolo, ex quo vidit, se non posse consequi quod ambiebat.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that Master (Peter) does not define here any aversion whatsoever, but the consummated aversion, in which there is obstinacy [obstinatio] and rebellion against God, which (aversion) was in the Devil, on account of which he saw, that he was not able to obtain [coinsequi] that which sought after [ambiebat].

Ad illud ergo quod dicitur, quod nullius conscientia potest Deum odisse; dicendum, quod Augustinus illud retractat.5  Attamen veritatem habet aliquo modo illud verbum, si intelligatur de Deo, in quantum est summum bonum, ad quod participandum facta est creatura rationalis; unde cum semper appetat beatificari, nunquam beatificantem odit.6  Nihilominus contingit, considerari Deum ut iustum, ponentem leges et infligentem poenas; et sic odiunt multi, qui scilicet peccant in Spiritum sanctum.

To that, therefore, which is said, that the conscience of no one is able to have hated God; it must be said, that (St.) Augustine retracts that.5  But yet that word has truth in some manner, if it be understood of God, inasmuch as He is the Most High Good, to participate in Which the rational creature had been made; wherefore since it always desires to be beatified, it never hates the One beatifying (it).6  Nevertheless it does happen, that God is considered as the Just One, imposing [ponentem] laws and inflicting punishments; and in this manner many hate (God), namely those who sin against the Holy Spirit.

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod data est gratia Angelis cooperans.  Contra:  gratia cooperans est subsequens respectu operantis; sed non habuerunt operantem, ut praedictum est:7  ergo nec cooperantem.

Likewise is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says, that cooperating grace has been given to the Angels.  On the contrary:  cooperating grace is subsequent in respect of the one operating; but they did not have operative (grace), as has been said beforehand:7  therefore neither cooperating (grace).

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod eadem gratia dicitur operans et cooperans ratione diversorum effectuum; et ideo dicuntur non habere gratiam operantem; et ideo dicuntur non habere gratiam operantem, quia non habuerunt gratiam mundificantem voluntatem; habent tamen ipsam eandem gratiam ut adiuvantem in bona operatione; et isti effectus sunt separabiles.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that the same grace is said (to be) “operating” and “cooperating” by reason of (its) diverse effects; and for the reason (the Angels) are said not to have “operating” grace; and for this reason they are said not to have “cooperating” grace, because they did not have grace cleansing the will; yet they have the same grace as assisting in good work; and these (two) effects of its are separable.

Ad hoc ergo quod dicitur, quod illa8 est praeveniens; dicendum, quod praeveniens non dicitur ratione gratiae subsequentis, sed ratione voluntatis.  —  Vel dicendum, quod illae sunt differentiae, prout habent esse in libero arbitrio lapso, scilicet hominis; et ideo non habent locum in Angelis.  Alia patent.9

To that, therefore, which is said, that it8 is prevenient; it must be said, that “prevenient” is not said by reason of a subsequent grace, but by reason of the will.  —  And/or it must be said, that those are differences, insofar as they have ‘being’ [esse] in a free, lapsed will, namely man’s (will); and for this reason they do not have a place among the Angels.  The other (doubts) are clear.9

4  Libr. II. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 14. n. 48:  Nullius enim fere conscientia Deum odisse potest.

5  Libr. I Retract. c. 19. n. 8.

6  Ita codd. F aa; Vat. cum plurimis aliis mss. beatificans odit; cod. T ut beatificans odit eum.  —  Idem dubium solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thoma, Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. litt. 1.

7  Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. et in Comment. S. Bonav., hic a. 3. q. 1. in corp.

8  Scilicet gratia operans.  Cfr. infra d. 27. dub. 1, ubi gratiae divisiones plenius explicantur.  —  Paulo superius post ut adiuvantem codd. U aa subnectunt et cooperantem.

9  Idem dub. solvit Aegid. R., hic dub. litt. 2.

4  On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Bk. II, ch. 14, n. 48:  For the conscience of nearly no one is able to have hated God.

5  Retractations, Bk. I, ch. 19, n. 8.

6  Thus codices F and aa; the Vatican edition, together with very many other manuscripts, reads the one being beatified never hates [nunquam beatificans odit]; codex T has as one being beatified it never hates (Him) [ut beatificans odit eum].  —  The same doubt is solved by Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 4; St. Thomas, (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text; Giles the Roman, here in the Doubts on the Texts, doubt 1.

7  Here in the text of Master (Peter), ch. 4, and in St. Bonaventure’s Commentary, here in a. 3, q. 1, in the body of the Response.

8  Namely:  operating grace.  Cf. below in d. 27, Doubt 1, where the divisions of grace are more fully explained.  —  A little above this after as assisting [ut adiuvantem] codices U and aa subjoin and cooperating [et cooperantem].

9  The same doubt it solved by Giles the Roman, here in the Doubts on the Texts, doubt 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.