title: Dist. 4, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem IV — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 4 — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 130 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV.

*De habitibus Angelos in statu perfectionis constituentibus.*

**Post haec videndum est etc.**

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

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.* 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. *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 et[^2] breviter ostendens, qualis facta fuerit natura angelica, resumendo praedicta, ibi: *Quales facti fuerunt Angeli in creatione.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeruntur tria. Primum est, quales creati sunt Angeli quantum ad *gloriam.* Secundum, quantum ad futuri eventus *praescientiam.* Tertium est, quantum ad *cognitionem matutinam.* Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primum est, utrum in sui creatione habuerint gloriam. Secundum est, utrum habuerint gratiam.

---

english:
<!-- page 130 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV.

*On the dispositions that constitute the Angels in the state of perfection.*

**"After these matters it must be considered" etc.**

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the natural dispositions, and of the dispositions preparatory to perfection[^1]. In this part he treats of the dispositions that constitute [them] in the perfect state; whence he inquires whether the Angels were created, or were, blessed and perfect. Now this part is divided into two. In the first he pursues the questions concerning *blessedness*; in the second concerning *perfection*, there: *To the question that was asked.* The first part has three [sections]. In the first he settles the question with respect to those who fell, showing that they were never blessed. In the second, with respect to those who remained, and this there: *But the good ones who stood fast* etc. In the third he briefly recapitulates what has been determined about both, there: *From the foregoing it follows* etc. *To the question that was asked* etc.: this is the second part, in which he pursues whether the Angels were created perfect, and this part has three subsections. In the first he indicates that the answer must be given by a distinction. In the second he subjoins the distinction, there: *For "perfect" is said* etc. In the third he recapitulates what has been determined, and[^2] briefly, showing what the angelic nature was made like, by recapitulating what was said before, there: *What the Angels were like at creation.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, three [things] are asked. The first is, what the Angels were created like with respect to *glory.* The second, with respect to the *foreknowledge* of the future outcome. The third is, with respect to the *morning knowledge.* Concerning the first, two [things] are asked. The first is, whether at their creation they had glory. The second is, whether they had grace.

la: Vat. in hac propositione pro *habitibus* bis substituit *habilitudinibus*; 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.*

en: The Vatican edition in this proposition twice substitutes *habilitudinibus* for *habitibus*; and it presents the following proposition thus: *In this part he treats of the dispositions [habilitates] that constitute [them] in the perfect state, whence he inquires whether the Angels, as soon as they were created, were blessed and perfect.*

la: Accipias particulam *et* pro *etiam.* Vat. omittit *et* ac deinde *resumendo praedicta.*

en: Take the particle *et* (and) for *etiam* (also). The Vatican edition omits *et*, and then [reads] *resumendo praedicta.*

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the COMMENTARIUS opening for Distinction IV: the *Divisio textus* (Bonaventure's division of Lombard's d.4 text into the *beatitudo* part and the *perfectio* part, with subsections) and the *Tractatio quaestionum* (the question-plan: three heads — glory, foreknowledge of outcome, morning knowledge — with the first head's two questions: whether the Angels had glory / grace at creation). Wholly on printed p.130 (= PDF 152).
- **Source discipline.** Clean prose in the IA djvu OCR (raw 9722–9762); transcribed verbatim from the OCR base and cross-verified on the 450 dpi p.130 column-band crop (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 130 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 130`), read L column then R column.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a divisio chunk has no scholion.
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.130 (INHERITED — no backfill).** p.130's footer is two-stream. The **main-stream** notes `¹ Cap. 19. n. 25, et seq. loc. ibid. c. 17. — Paulo postea esse possunt Vat. …` and `² Cfr. August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 13` anchor the *preceding* committed chunk `bon-sent-II-d4-littera`'s p.130 body (its *in eodem* / *qui ceciderunt* loci) and are already its `[^3]`/`[^4]` (the outgoing split documented in that chunk's Notes). **Not taken here; `d4-littera` not modified.** This divisio's apparatus is the dedicated **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** block (¹² → [^1][^2]): the variant note on the divisio's opening proposition (*habitibus*/*habilitudinibus*) and the *et*/*etiam* particle note. Same two-stream pattern as the littera's p.129.
- **Boundary to d4-a1-q1 — CLEAN.** The short `ARTICULUS I` opener (raw 9763, top of p.131) folds into the following `bon-sent-II-d4-a1-q1` (Vol II convention — no standalone article-divisio chunk). This divisio's footer is wholly the p.130 NOTAE-AD-COMMENTARIUM block; a1-q1's apparatus begins on p.131. No split, no backfill.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Prose clean in OCR, footer verified on the p.130 crop. Marginal lemma cue rendered as the bold incipit (`Post haec videndum est etc.`) and italic *ibi:* tags per the divisio convention; no editorial marginal glosses in this chunk.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 131 -->

### ARTICULUS I. *Quales creati sunt Angeli quoad gloriam et gratiam.*

### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum Angeli creati sint in beatitudine sive gloria.*

Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum Angeli creati sint in beatitudine sive gloria. Et quod sic, videtur.

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.

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: ergo 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».

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.

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.

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 Beato[^6] 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.

**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.

2. Item, obiicitur, quod perseverantia sive securitas est de essentia sive substantia beatitudinis — beatus enim non est qui potest amittere bonum, quod habet[^8] — sed Angeli potuerunt amittere, quia amiserunt: 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.

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], splendidissima habuit naturalia, magis debuit et congruum fuit, ipsius naturam gloria insigniri. Quod si ipse, ut patet, beatus factus non est, patet etc.

> **Conclusio.** Angeli non fuerunt creati in statu beatitudinis per visionem Dei perfectae, tamen sine malo culpae et poenae.

**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 aversi sunt, ita in prima conversione illi glorificati sunt aeternaliter qui conversi sunt; ita dicunt intellexisse Augustinum, et fuisse eius <!-- page 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[^12], dicuntur Angeli, quia illuminati sunt, ut beate sapienterque viverent». — Sed tamen haec positio supra[^13] improbata est tanquam falsa et erronea ratione illius partis, quae dicit, primo instanti fuisse aversos. Ratione alterius partis pari ratione improbata est, et patet falsitas per Augustinum de Correctione et gratia[^14], 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».

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[^15], nec aliqui nec omnes, sed habuerunt quidam ex eis in ipsa confirmatione. *Alio* modo dicitur beatitudo status perfectus privatione omnis mali, tam 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 in hac currunt auctoritates probantes, quod beati facti sunt.

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[^16]: simili modo intelligendum est in Angelo.

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[^17]. — Duae vero sequentes auctoritates loquuntur de beatitudine secundum illas duas differentias, quas dixi.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habebant fruitionem sine retardatione; dicendum, quod verum est; non tamen habebant in perfecta completione, quia Deum non videbant *facie ad faciem,* sed in *effectibus* cognoscebant et in *se ipsis* maxime, sicut melius patebit infra[^18].

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[^19]»; ideo utrumque posuit in manu consilii sui.

english:
<!-- page 131 -->

### ARTICLE I. *What the Angels were created like with respect to glory and grace.*

### QUESTION I. *Whether the Angels were created in blessedness or glory.*

It is asked, then, first, whether the Angels were created in blessedness or glory. And that [they were], it seems.

1. Ezekiel 28[^1]: *You were full of wisdom and perfect in beauty in the delights of paradise;* but to be in the delights of paradise and to be full of wisdom is blessedness itself, which we call eternal glory: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the book *On the Marvels of Sacred Scripture*[^2]: «An Angel, constituted in the highest honor of his order, fell» — he speaks of the Angel before the fall — but the highest honor of the angelic order is blessedness and glory: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Augustine *On the Faith, to Peter*[^3]: «The angelic spirits, by the fact that they were made rational, received the gift of eternity and blessedness divinely in the very creation of their spiritual nature».

4. Likewise, the same, *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*[^4]: «The Angels who persevere in that blessedness in which they were created do not possess [it] by nature, so as not to be changed»: therefore if they now have true blessedness, it is clear that they were created in blessedness.

5. Likewise, it seems by reason: because the Angel from his creation had the aptitude to love God for his own sake and above all things[^5], therefore he had the aptitude to enjoy God; but he had no retardant on the part of the affection, nor anything obscuring on the part of the intellect: therefore he was borne wholly into God himself with the love of fruition: therefore, since such a state and act is blessedness and glory, it is clear etc.

6. Likewise, God made free choice changeable: therefore, since a rational creature can have it unchangeable, as is now evident in the holy Angels, he ought to have made [it so] for some in this way; but there is no unchangeableness of free choice in the Blessed[^6] except through glory: therefore etc. Or if you say that he ought not to have done [so]; this does not seem [right], because he ought to make things in the best way; but this is the best state of the Angel itself: therefore he ought to have made someone in this state.

**On the contrary:** 1. John 8[^7]: «He did not stand in the truth»; but blessedness is «a state made perfect by the gathering together of all goods»: therefore it is a state in the truth: therefore lucifer was not made blessed. But he was created perfect and noble among all: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it is objected that perseverance or security is of the essence or substance of blessedness — for he is not blessed who can lose the good that he has[^8] — but the Angels could lose [it], since they did lose [it]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no one is praised or blamed for the things he has by nature or by condition[^9]; but just as blame is essential to damnation, so praise is essential to blessedness: therefore it is impossible that anyone be blessed from [his] condition; rather, it is a contradiction in the term.

4. Likewise, either God made all [the Angels] blessed, or some. Not all; it is established, since many of them fell. Not some, as it seems, because then those would surpass the others by a disproportionate pre-excellence: therefore lucifer would not have dared to set himself above them. But if he did dare, it seems that none were created blessed. If you say that he presumed a greater audacity, namely to be equaled to God, [and] how much more to be set above the Blessed; still that does not resolve [it]. For if God created the Angels blessed from their very condition, this was because it was consonant with their nature that they should be made under such perfection and so noble: if therefore lucifer, as the Saints say, and the Master says in what follows[^10], had the most splendid natural endowments, it was the more fitting and congruous that his nature should be marked with glory. But if he, as is evident, was not made blessed, it is clear etc.

> **Conclusion.** The Angels were not created in a state of blessedness through the perfect vision of God, yet without the evil of fault and of punishment.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched on above[^11], it was the opinion of certain [people] that the Angels, because they are spiritual and actual, in the instant of their creation were in the act of conversion and aversion; and just as in the first aversion those who turned away were damned eternally, so in the first conversion those who turned [to God] were glorified eternally; and thus they say Augustine understood [it], and that it was his <!-- page 132 -->position, that some were created blessed and formed, since at the same time in time, though posterior in nature, the heaven and the light were made, that is, the angelic nature, unformed and formed. «For "light," as Augustine says in the eleventh [book] *On the City of God*[^12], the Angels are called, because they were illumined so that they might live blessedly and wisely». — But nevertheless this position was disproved above[^13] as false and erroneous by reason of that part which says that at the first instant [some] were turned away. By reason of the other part it is disproved on a like ground, and its falsity is evident through Augustine *On Correction and Grace*[^14], where he says «that, although the Angels were made blessed, there was still something to be added to their blessedness, if they had remained». It is established that nothing is added to blessedness and glory, since it is unchangeable; it is established also that he speaks in common of the good and the evil [Angels], when he says: «if they had remained».

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that blessedness can be spoken of in two ways. In *one* way, a state made perfect by the fullness of every good, and this posits the clear vision of God and perfect holding [of him]; and in this way the Angels were not created [blessed][^15], neither some nor all, but certain of them had [it] in the confirmation itself. In *another* way blessedness is called a state made perfect by the privation of every evil, both of punishment and of fault; and in this way the Angels were created, since [they were] innocent and impassible. And of this blessedness Augustine speaks; but this is not perfect unless the other is added to it, and to this run the authorities proving that they were made blessed.

1. To that, then, which Ezekiel says: *You were in the delights of paradise;* it must be said that just as the first man was created and placed in the delights of paradise, which nevertheless were not the delights of perfect blessedness; and just as wisdom was given to him for knowing all worldly things, but not that [wisdom] which is the vision of God in the fatherland[^16]: in a like way it must be understood in the Angel.

2. 3. 4. What Augustine says *On the Marvels of Sacred Scripture* he understands with respect to the natural [endowments], because he had goods so [great] that he was not going to have better ones. Whence also he was created in that place in which he was to be beatified[^17]. — But the two following authorities speak of blessedness according to those two differences which I have stated.

5. To that which is objected, that they had fruition without retardation; it must be said that it is true; yet they did not have [it] in perfect completion, because they did not see God *face to face,* but knew [him] in *effects* and most of all in *themselves,* as will be shown better below[^18].

6. To that which is objected, that he ought to have given to some [the gift of being] unchangeable; it must be said that, as far as concerns [their] condition, it *ought* to be given to none, although it *can* [be], because «God judged men and Angels better, if they served him freely[^19]»; therefore he placed both in the hand of their own counsel.

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: Libr. I. c. 2, ubi textus originalis verbis transpositis habet *in summo honoris sui ordine.*

en: Book I, c. 2, where the original text, with the words transposed, has *in summo honoris sui ordine.*

la: Cap. 3. n. 32, in quo textu codd. cum tribus primis edd. perperam *spirituali* pro *spiritualis.*

en: C. 3, n. 32, in which text the codices, with the first three editions, wrongly [read] *spirituali* for *spiritualis.*

la: Cap. 29, ubi in textu originali ultima sententiae pars ita exhibetur: *non natura possident bonum, ut non mutarentur cum ceteris.*

en: C. 29, where in the original text the last part of the sentence is presented thus: *non natura possident bonum, ut non mutarentur cum ceteris.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Plures codd. propter abbreviationem sunt dubiae lectionis; potest enim legi vel *in Beato* vel *in bono.*

en: Several codices, on account of the abbreviation, are of doubtful reading; for it can be read either *in Beato* or *in bono.*

la: Vers. 44. — Beatitudinis definitio, quae mox affertur, est in Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 2.

en: Verse 44. — The definition of blessedness, which is presently adduced, is in Boethius, *Consolation* III, prose 2.

la: Cfr. August., de Beata Vita, n. 11; XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 22.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Blessed Life*, n. 11; *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* XI, c. 17, n. 22.

la: Vide supra pag. 113, nota 8.

en: See above, p. 113, note 8.

la: Dist. VI. c. 1. — Paulo superius plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 *quia natura eorum* pro *quia naturae eorum.*

en: Dist. VI, c. 1. — A little above, several codices with editions 1, 2, 3 [read] *quia natura eorum* for *quia naturae eorum.*

la: Cap. 11: *Quae cum ita sint, nullo quidem modo secundum aliquod temporis spatium prius erant illi spiritus tenebrarum 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. 10. et c. 17. n. 32, quod etiam supra in lit. Magistri, d. 3. c. 4. affertur; XII. Confess. c. 9. n. 9. et XIII. c. 10. n. 11.

en: C. 11: *Since these things are so, in no way were those spirits of darkness whom we call Angels prior according to any space of time, but as soon as they were made, they were made light; yet they were not so created merely that they should be in any way and live in any way, but also illumined, that they might live wisely and blessedly. Turned away from this illumination, certain Angels did not obtain the excellence of the wise and blessed life, which without doubt is nothing if not eternal and certain and secure of its own eternity.* Cf. ibid. c. 9; *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* I, c. 1, n. 3, c. 5, 10, and c. 17, n. 32, which is also adduced above in the Master's text, d. 3, c. 4; *Confessions* XII, c. 9, n. 9, and XIII, c. 10, n. 11.

la: 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.*

en: C. 10, n. 27: *But the devil and his angels, although they were blessed before they fell, and did not know that they were going to fall into wretchedness, there was nevertheless still [something] that would be added to their blessedness, if through free choice they had stood in the truth.*

la: 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.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *beati.* Codex cc and ed. 1, at the beginning of this proposition, [read] *et in hac* for *et hoc modo.* Presently, after *habuerunt,* supply, with codex aa, *eam,* or with codex A, *hanc,* or with codex F, *hoc.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. et 3.

en: Cf. below, d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 and 3.

la: Scil. in caelo empyreo, de quo vide supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1.

en: Namely in the empyrean heaven, concerning which see above, d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1.

la: 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.*

en: Augustine, *On True Religion* c. 14, n. 27: *For God judged such servants of his to be better, if they served him freely.* Cf. *On the Christian Combat* c. 10, n. 11. — At the beginning of the solution, after *aliquibus,* supply, with the Vatican edition and several codices, *liberum arbitrium.*

latin_scholion:
**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.

**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 q. 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.

english_scholion:
**I.** This question coheres with those which were discussed in d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 2, and it is now resolved by all in the negative sense, if it is asked *as a matter of fact.* But certain [people] in antiquity doubted about this on account of certain testimonies of St. Augustine either badly understood or taken from non-genuine books, such as are those cited here in the arguments *ad oppositum.* God certainly *could* have given them blessedness without merits from the beginning (cf. here q. 2, ad 4, 5); but whether they could have merited glory in the first instant is disputed; cf. the Scholion at the cited place, a. 1, q. 2.

**II.** Scotus, II *Sent.* d. 6, q. 2; *Reportatio* here, q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 62, a. 1. — B. Albert, here q. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here a. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following q., here q. unica.

translators_notes:
- This is Dist. IV, Art. I, Quaest. I — *Utrum Angeli creati sint in beatitudine sive gloria.* The short ARTICULUS I opener + its title (*Quales creati sunt Angeli quoad gloriam et gratiam*) are folded into this q1 per the Vol II convention (no standalone article-divisio chunk). 6 *videtur* args (the *ad oppositum* set) + 4 CONTRA (the *Fundamenta*) + a one-sentence *Conclusio* (rendered as the blockquote) + Respondeo (the *quorundam opinio* reported and twice disproved, then the twofold sense of *beatitudo*) + 6 numbered replies (the *solutio oppositorum*) + Scholion I–II. Spans printed pp. 131–132 (= PDF 153–154).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** The Respondeo and Solutio are cascade-shattered in the IA djvu OCR (raw 9763–9872 has the classic diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation at 9805–9860); they were re-set off the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 131`/`132 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 131`/`132`), read L column top→bottom then R column. The clean prose (videtur/contra args) is the OCR base; the footers were read off the crops L then R.
- **Scholion I–II** present (`has_scholion: true`); the Scholion carries no numbered apparatus (inline cross-refs only).
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–19).** p.131 footer notes 1–11 → [^1]–[^11] (1–5 in the left-column footer, 6–11 in the right-column footer); p.132 footer notes 1–8 → [^12]–[^19] (1–3 left-column footer, 4–9 right-column footer, of which 4–8 are this chunk's). All 19 markers are anchored in this chunk's body (11 on p.131: the 6 args + 4 CONTRA + the Respondeo `praetactum est supra`; 8 on p.132: 4 in the Respondeo, 4 in the Solutio).
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.132 (OUTGOING — no backfill; note for the d4-a1-q2 build).** This q1's Scholion I–II carries no apparatus and ends on p.132; QUAESTIO II (`bon-sent-II-d4-a1-q2`, raw 9873) begins lower on the same p.132 with its own first arg *Per Augustinum de Civitate duodecimo⁹*. p.132's footer note 9 (`⁹ Cap. 9. n. 2`) anchors that q2 opener, **not** taken here — `d4-a1-q2` (still a skeleton) takes p.132 note 9 onward at its build. Incoming divisio→a1-q1 boundary clean (the p.130 NOTAE-AD-COMMENTARIUM is the committed `d4-divisio`'s; p.131 footer is wholly this q1's).
- **No `[?]` flags.** Cascade regions resolved on the 450 dpi crops; footers verified L then R on both pages. Marginal editorial glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Ad oppositum`, `Fundamenta`, `Conclusio`, `Opinio quorundam`, `Improbatur`, `Distinctio`, `Conclusio 1`, `Conclusio 2`, `Solutio oppositorum`).

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 132 -->

### QUAESTIO II. *Utrum Angeli creati sint in gratia.*

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

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

<!-- page 133 -->2. Item, super illud Oseae tertio[^2]: «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.

3. Item, Damascenus[^3] 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.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia Deus, cum sit liberalissimus, promptus est gratiam dare omnibus paratis recipere. Unde et Anselmus[^4]: «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.

5. Item, fecit Deus creaturam rationalem ad inhabitandum in ea, et hoc, quia ipse Deus vult in ea habitare; unde Proverbiorum octavo[^5]: *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.

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.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^6]: «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.

2. Item, Gregorius trigesimo secundo Moralium[^7], 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.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia gratia in Angelo nullum habet retardativum[^8]: ergo si haberet gratiam unientem Deo, totaliter Angelus ferretur in Deum: ergo nunquam peccasset. Sed peccavit: ergo nunquam caritatem vel gratiam habuit.

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.

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

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

Fuerunt enim aliqui[^9] 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 alia[^10] 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.

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<!-- page 134 -->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[^11]. Unde non videtur aliquo modo probabile, quod lucifer habuerit gratiam; et si ipse non habuit, cum inter ceteros esset excelsus, *a maiori* arguitur, nec alios habuisse a sui origine. Hanc positionem videtur acceptare Magister[^12], hanc positionem communiter tenent doctores; et ita huic tanquam probabiliori et communiori concordandum est.

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[^13]; 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[^14], 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[^15]. — Quando igitur dicitur, quod Angelis data sunt gratuita, aut non intelligitur de gratuitis tertio modo dictis, sed primo vel secundo, quia 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[^16], 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.

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 eum[^17] 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; ideo non dat nisi per meritum laudabile; et ideo convenit eam dari, praecedenti aliquo merito congrui[^18]. 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[^19]; 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[^20], quia non tantum exigit munditiam ut dispositionem, sed motum liberi arbitrii in adulto; parvulo vero potest alienum meritum suffragari, sicut et demeritum.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de statu, quod in malo erat[^21]; 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[^22] dicitur habere aliquid, quod statim habet, dum indiget et petit, quamvis non penes se habeat; sic etiam indirecte potuerunt dici Angeli gratiam habuisse. Quodsi habuissent maiorem facilitatem ad malum sive inclinationem, et divinum adiutorium in opportunitate deesset, recte obiiceret.

english:
<!-- page 132 -->

### QUESTION II. *Whether the Angels were created in grace.*

Supposing that the Angels were not created in glory, it is asked whether they were created in grace. And it seems [that they were]:

1. Through Augustine, *On the City of God*, book 12[^1]: «God created the Angels, founding nature in them and bestowing grace at the same time».

<!-- page 133 -->2. Likewise, on that [text of] Hosea 3[^2]: «They loved the grape-skins of clusters», the Gloss of Jerome: «By *grape-skins* are understood the demons, who were created in the great richness of the Holy Spirit, but, dried up through pride, fell from heaven»; it is established that the richness of the Holy Spirit is the grace of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, Damascene[^3] more expressly: «Through the Word of God all the Angels were created, and perfected by the Holy Spirit through sanctification»: if therefore perfect sanctification is only through sanctifying grace, and he speaks of all [the Angels]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it seems by *reason,* because God, since he is most liberal, is prompt to give grace to all who are ready to receive [it]. Whence also Anselm[^4]: «Man does not have grace, 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 a right will: therefore if these were in the Angels from their origin and creation, consequently grace [was] also.

5. Likewise, God made the rational creature for dwelling in it, and this because God himself wills to dwell in it; whence Proverbs 8[^5]: *My delights [are] to be with the sons of men;* therefore that he does not dwell [in it] comes from some depraved disposition on the part of the mind: since therefore in the Angels there was no depraved disposition on the part of the mind, but rather every fitness for grace, it seems etc.

6. Likewise, God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn; but he made the Angels in a state in which they could at once demerit: therefore in a state in which they could merit. But it does not happen [that one] merits without sanctifying grace: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis*[^6]: «By *heaven* is understood the unformed angelic nature»; but it was not unformed through a lack of natural form: therefore it was unformed through a lack of a form superadded to nature. But this is grace: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Gregory, *Morals* book 32[^7], treating that word of Ezekiel 28: *Gold [was] the work of your beauty, and your perforations were prepared in the day in which you were created:* «The perforations of this stone were prepared in the day of its creation, [the stone] which, namely, was created capable of charity, with which, had it willed to be filled, it could, while the Angels stood, have adhered [to God] like stones set in a king's ornament. This stone therefore had *perforations,* but through the vice of pride they were not filled with the gold of charity». Behold, expressly, that it did not have charity.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason,* because grace in an Angel has nothing retardant[^8]: therefore if it had grace uniting [it] to God, the Angel would be borne wholly into God: therefore it would never have sinned. But it did sin: therefore it never had charity or grace.

4. Likewise, just as fault stands to eternal damnation, so grace [stands] to glory; but as soon as they had fault, they were damned eternally and obstinate: therefore as soon as they had grace, they were confirmed: therefore they would never have fallen, if they had had grace.

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

**I respond:** It must be said that this question is one *of fact;* and since we find no other reason than [that] of fittingness, we can probably hold either [view], as others before us [did].

For there were some[^9] saying that all the Angels were created in the gratuitous [gifts] that make [one] pleasing [to God]. — And the reason that moved them was this: namely, on God's part, perfect *liberality,* and on the part of the created [beings], *fitness.* For since from the instant of creation they were clean vessels and receptacles, and God is prompt to impart his grace unless he have an obstacle on the part of the recipient; God did not leave them empty for a moment, but as soon as he created [them], he made [them] resplendent with grace. And such receptacles had to come forth from God's hand, so as to be at once ready for good use. Whence, just as some probably conjecture that God made trees full of fruits and other things[^10] in the noblest and most perfect state; so also he adorned the Angel's nature with grace from its very condition, [a grace] which in the first good use or victory was to be perpetuated, and in the first disordering perpetually lost. — This is one position, and it seems sufficiently consonant with the authorities of the Saints, as is evident to one who inspects [them].

There were also others, who said that the Angels did not have sanctifying grace from the instant of creation, but afterward. — And the reason that moved them is the disposition of the angelic nature, which is borne toward what it <!-- page 134 -->seeks without retardation. Whence, just as from the conversion to evil they were so deeply turned that they could not return, so, indeed much more, from the conversion to good, or from [their] aptitude, they would have adhered wholly to the good, if they had had grace, so that they would never have fallen[^11]. Whence it does not seem in any way probable that lucifer had grace; and if he did not have [it], since among the rest he was lofty, it is argued *from the greater* [case] that the others too did not have [it] from their origin. This position the Master[^12] seems to accept, this position the doctors commonly hold; and so one must concur with this as the more probable and more common.

1. 2. 3. To the authorities adduced to the contrary, the answer must be given by a distinction of grace. For in *one* way *grace* is said commonly, insofar as it comprehends whatever is superadded to the *natural [endowments]* — the natural [endowments], I say, that are of the general constitution of the thing[^13]; as one is said by a *grace* to have a good native talent, to read well, to sing well, and the like. In *another* way it is said [of] what is superadded to *free choice,* making and disposing [it] toward rectitude, as we call [them] natural virtues[^14], such as innocence, mildness, piety. In a *third* way, [of] what is superadded as *rectifying* and *completing* and *elevating,* and this is called *sanctifying grace,* because it makes man acceptable to God, and acceptable for this [reason], because conformed[^15]. — When therefore it is said that gratuitous [gifts] were given to the Angels, either it is not understood of gratuitous [gifts] said in the third way, but in the first or second, since they had many gratuitous gifts; or, if it is understood of gratuitous [gifts] properly so called, it is not understood from the instant of creation; but just as the sin of the devil is understood to have been from the beginning, since at once after the beginning and after the first deliberative motion he fell[^16], so it must be understood of the grace of the Angels. Or if it is understood of gratuitous [gifts] properly so called and from the instant of creation, this is not understood *formally* or essentially, but *dispositively;* whence someone is said to be created in something, because in proximate disposition to it. And so by this threefold way one can briefly respond to the authorities adduced and to many others that could be adduced.

4. 5. To the reasons drawn from God's liberality, it must be said that liberality is [exercised] with the order of wisdom and justice preserved. For although from the instant of the creation of any man he could beatify him[^17], yet he delays for a long time; similarly, although he could give grace to any little child without baptism, as with baptism, yet he does not give [it]. And the reason of this is that *glory* is a praiseworthy good; therefore he does not give [it] except through praiseworthy merit; and therefore it is fitting that it be given when some merit of congruity precedes[^18]. Similarly, when he confers *grace,* if he confers [it] on an adult, since grace makes the one having [it] worthy of glory, he does not confer [it] except at a motion of free choice, if [the adult] has the use [of it]; but if he does not have [it], at a motion of another's faith, or at the merit of Christ[^19]; therefore according to the order of wisdom he ought not to give [it] at once, but to await a motion of free choice, which he did; whence to those turned to him he gave grace without delay. — The answer, then, is evident to that which is objected concerning liberality and aptitude[^20], because he requires not only cleanness as a disposition, but a motion of free choice in an adult; but for a little child another's merit can avail, as also [another's] demerit.

6. To that which is objected lastly concerning the state, that he was in evil[^21]; it must be said that it is false. For although he could not merit from those [things] which he had received, nevertheless, since the Lord was as prompt to give as he himself [was] to receive, he had no obstacle in meriting, just as [none] in demeriting. And this is evident: for just as it was easy for the devil to turn away, so [it was] easy for the good Angels to turn [to God]; and just as the aversion was demeritorious, so the conversion became meritorious, grace being at once applied. Whence, just as someone is said indirectly[^22] to have something which he at once has, while he needs and asks [for it], although he does not have [it] in his own possession; so also the Angels could indirectly be said to have had grace. But if they had had a greater facility toward evil or [a greater] inclination, and the divine help in the [needed] opportunity were lacking, [the objection] would rightly object.

la: 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.*

en: Verse 1. The Vulgate: *And they love the grape-skins of clusters.* — In the Gloss of Jerome, which is found in Lyranus, at the end *de caelo sunt proiecti* is substituted for *de caelo ceciderunt;* and not a few codices [read] *per superabundantiam* for *per superbiam.*

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3.

en: *On the Orthodox Faith* book II, c. 3.

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

en: *On the Fall of the Devil,* c. 3. Cf. vol. I, p. 720, note 6.

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

en: Verse 31. — A little above, very many codices with ed. 1 [read] *et hoc quidem* for *et hoc quia;* perhaps it should be read: *et hoc quidem quia.*

la: 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. 1 T U adnectunt *dicit.*

en: C. 23, n. 48. — Ezek. 28:13. — At the end of the text of Gregory, several codices with ed. 1 [read] *sed propter* for *sed per.* Then, after *expresse,* codices 1 T U attach *dicit.*

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

en: Thus codices F T V aa bb etc.; the Vatican edition [reads] *nullam habet retardationem.* Cf. below, d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, in the body, near the end.

la: 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.*

en: Among whom was Praepositivus, who nevertheless in his *Summa* calls the contrary opinion *the common [opinion] of the masters.* — Near the beginning of the response, not a few codices with editions 1, 2 omit *quia;* codex bb (by a second hand) inserts the particle *quia* after *Dicendum quod;* but codex cc with ed. 1, after *congruitatis,* subjoins *unde.*

la: 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.

en: Codices W bb [read] *animalia* for *alia.* A little below, the Vatican edition with several mss. [reads] *sine victoria,* codex cc and ed. 1 *sine mora,* for *sive victoria,* which codex W (bb originally) omits.

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

en: Cf. below, d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. — A little below, ed. 1 with several mss. [reads] *habuit gratiam* for *habuerit gratiam,* then with codex cc *excellens* for *excelsus.*

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

en: Dist. III, c. 4, and in this distinction. — Several codices [read] *accipere* for *acceptare,* and at the end of the response the Vatican edition [reads] *concordant* for *concordandum est.*

la: 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. 1 Q repetunt *gratia.*

en: The Vatican edition: *which are of the essential constitution of the thing, as is said from grace* etc. Codex cc and ed. 1: *as we say to have grace* etc. A little below, after *Alio modo dicitur,* codices 1 Q repeat *gratia.*

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

en: Codex L: *as all the natural virtues, namely innocence* etc.

la: 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.

en: Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *quia sufficienter conformem.* Presently, after the first *aut,* in codex aa is subjoined *dico quod;* codex Z substitutes *hoc* for *aut,* which is lacking in several mss. and in the first three editions.

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

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

la: In cod. cc et ed. 1 additur *ex liberalitate.*

en: In codex cc and ed. 1 is added *ex liberalitate.*

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

en: Cf. below, d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body, and d. 29, a. 2, q. 2, in the body.

la: 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.*

en: See IV *Sent.* d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 6, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — Codices W bb, after *si vero non habet,* attach *usum.*

la: Vat. *inhabitatione.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *inhabitatione.*

la: Quia scil. Angelus non posset mereri, sed tantum demereri.

en: Namely, because the Angel could not merit, but only demerit.

la: 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 codicis auctoritate, sed secuti sumus cod. 1, qui simpliciter ponit *indirecte.* Cfr. infra d. 28. dub. 3.

en: The most common reading of the codices and of all editions, in which here and a little below is put *non indirecte,* is plainly false. Originally perhaps it was read *non directe quidem, sed indirecte.* Which reading, although it is more complete, we have not received into the text, since it is not supported by the authority of any codex, but we have followed codex 1, which simply puts *indirecte.* Cf. below, d. 28, dub. 3.

latin_scholion:
**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 <!-- page 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. (1. 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.

**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 oriri 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.

**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. 1. 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.

english_scholion:
**I.** It is treated here of *sanctifying* grace, not of *actual* grace, as is evident from the body and from the solution to 1, 2, 3, where what is said about the threefold distinction of grace is worthy of note. The principal question is of *time:* when the Angels received sanctifying grace from God. On this, St. Thomas in the *Commentary* (here q. unica, a. 3) says: «Concerning this there is a twofold opinion: for some say [they were] created not in grace, but in the natural [endowments] only; and this opinion is more common. But others say that the Angels were <!-- page 135 -->created in grace. But which of these opinions is the truer cannot be ascertained by efficacious reason». And of this second opinion he says: «This opinion pleases me more, without prejudice to the other part». But the *Summa theologiae* (1, q. 62, a. 3) says of the same second opinion that «this seems the more probable [view] to be held»; which opinion is now received almost commonly. The same opinion, which was Praepositivus's, St. Bonaventure too judges to be «sufficiently consonant with the authorities of the Saints»; yet [he judges] the first to be «more probable and more common», which Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Lombard held. But this opinion is founded chiefly on two principles, namely, that the Angels, by a free motion of the will, aided by supernatural grace, were disposed to the reception of sanctifying grace (cf. below, d. 5, a. 3, q. 1); and that in the first instant of creation the Angel could not be «in the act of election» (above, d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2). That first principle is conceded also by St. Thomas; the second, however, not. — The same problem returns in the question whether the first man was created in sanctifying grace, below, d. 29, a. 2, q. 2. It is known that the Council of Trent did not wish to decide this controversy of the Scholastics regarding the first man; whence it deliberately said (Sess. 5, can. 1): «the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted» (in place of *was created*). But it is to be noted that all the ancient Scholastics in this matter put forward their opinion not by firmly asserting, but according to greater probability. The opinion of St. Bonaventure is preferred by Alex. Hal., Richard of Mediavilla, Aegidius Romanus, and Henry of Ghent; toward the opinion of St. Thomas incline more B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Durandus, Dionysius Carthusianus, and others; Scotus judges each to be probable.

**II.** With this question is connected another, namely, whether not only the good Angels, but also the *evil* [ones] received sanctifying grace; concerning which a doubt can arise only on the hypothesis that posits that they did *not* have sanctifying grace in the first instant of creation. And on account of the arguments brought forward in favor of this opinion, those who favor the said view, with St. Bonaventure (here and below, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1), Alexander Hal., Richard of Mediavilla, Aegidius Romanus, and Henry of Ghent, are of the opinion that it is more probable that lucifer never had sanctifying grace, but only actual graces, which are required for conversion to God (d. 28, a. 2, q. 1). But the words at John 8:44, that the devil *did not stand in the truth,* are by the same [authors] expounded of natural rectitude with the gifts of actual grace. But the patrons of the other view, with St. Thomas, Scotus, and the view now commonly received, contend that the evil angels too had sanctifying grace either in the first instant or at least before the fall. This the Roman Catechism teaches in express words, p. I, c. 2, q. 17.

**III.** Alex. Hal., *S.* p. II, q. 19, m. 2. — Scotus, in each *Scriptum,* here q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 3; *S.* 1, q. 62, a. 3. — B. Albert, II *Sent.* d. 3, a. 12; *S.* p. II, tr. 4, q. 18, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 4. — Henry of Ghent, *Quodl.* 8, q. 10. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 2.

translators_notes:
- Dist. IV, Art. I, Quaest. II — *Utrum Angeli creati sint in gratia.* 6 *videtur* args (the *ad oppositum* set) + 4 CONTRA (the *Fundamenta*) + one-sentence *Conclusio* (the blockquote) + Respondeo (the question is *facti*; two reported positions — *omnes in gratuitis gratum facientibus* / *non ab instanti sed post* — the latter, the Master's and the common one, accepted) + replies grouped 1.2.3 (the threefold distinction of *gratia*) / 4.5 (God's liberality) / 6 (the state) + Scholion I–III. Spans printed pp. 132–135 (= PDF 154–157). The largest d.4 chunk.
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** The Respondeo and Solutio are cascade-shattered in the IA djvu OCR (raw 9873–10056; the diagonal fragmentation at 9962–10002); re-set off the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 132`/`133`/`134`/`135 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 132`/`133`/`134`/`135`), read L column then R column, body then footer. The clean prose (videtur/contra args) and the editorial Scholion I–III are the OCR base; footers read off the crops L then R.
- **Scholion I–III** present (`has_scholion: true`); it carries no numbered apparatus (inline cross-refs only). It is editorial (the gratia-sanctificans/actualis note + the S. Thomas/Trent doctrinal survey + the *mali angeli* connected question + the parallel-loci list); clean OCR prose, not cascade-shattered.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–22).** p.132 footer note 9 → [^1] (arg 1 *de Civitate duodecimo⁹*); p.133 footer notes 1–9 → [^2]–[^10] (1–6 left-column footer, 7–9 right-column footer; the 5 args + 3 CONTRA + the Respondeo *Fuerunt enim aliqui⁸* + *alia⁹*); p.134 footer notes 1–12 → [^11]–[^22] (1–5 left-column footer, 6–12 right-column footer; the opinio-2/Respondeo tail + the triplex-gratia distinction + replies 4.5 + reply 6). 22 markers, all anchored in this chunk's body across pp. 132–134 (none in the Scholion).
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.132 (INCOMING — no backfill).** This q2's body begins low on p.132 (arg 1 only). p.132's footer is two-stream and was fully resolved at the committed `bon-sent-II-d4-a1-q1` build: footer notes 1–8 anchor that q1's Respondeo/Solutio and are its `[^12]`–`[^19]`; **only footer note 9** (`⁹ Cap. 9. n. 2`) anchors this q2's arg 1 (*de Civitate duodecimo⁹*) → this chunk's [^1]. `d4-a1-q1` not modified.
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.135 (OUTGOING — CLEAN, no split).** This q2's Scholion I–III carries no numbered apparatus and tails onto p.135 (the S. Thomas quote breaks across the p.134/135 boundary at *Angelos in gratia | creatos esse*). ARTICULUS II + `bon-sent-II-d4-a2-q1` begin lower on p.135 with their own body and footer; p.135's footer is wholly a2-q1's. The no-apparatus-scholion-tail clean-boundary pattern — `d4-a2-q1` (still a skeleton) takes p.135's footer at its build, no split here.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Cascade regions resolved on the 450 dpi crops; footers verified L then R across pp. 132–134; the Scholion tail confirmed on the p.135 crop. Marginal editorial glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Ad oppositum`, `Fundamenta`, `Conclusio`, `Notandum`, `Opinio 1. et ratio eius`, `Iudicatur esse probabilis`, `Opinio 2`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `Gratia dicitur tripliciter`).


title: Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 135 -->

### ARTICULUS II. *De Angelis quoad futuri eventus praescientiam.*

Consequenter circa secundum duo quaeruntur. Primum est, utrum bonis revelari debuerit futura permansio. Secundum est, utrum revelari potuerit malis sua damnatio.

### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum bonis Angelis revelari debuerit futura permansio.*

Primo ergo quaeritur, cum nullis in creatione data sit gloria, nullis etiam data sit gratia, utrum aliquibus data sit futurae glorificationis praescientia. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Deus ab instanti suae conditionis Angelos condidit repletos scientia rerum mundanarum; sed Deo magis placet, quod servi sui habeant scientiam de his quae spectant *ad salutem:* si ergo praescientia futurae salutis erigit[^1] animum et delectat, ergo cum aliqui essent salvandi, videtur, quod saltem debuit eis dari praescientia talis; constat enim, quod potuit.

2. Item, si non fuerunt de salute certi, ergo potuerunt rationabiliter dubitare et timere; sed timor poenam habet: ergo poena ante culpam; sed hoc est inconveniens[^2]: ergo videtur, quod illi saltem debuerunt certificari, qui erant salvandi.

3. Item, propinquiores erant Angeli ad gloriam quam nos in miseriis constituti, ergo saltem tantam certitudinem vel maiorem habebant, quantam nos habemus; sed nos habemus certitudinem spei: ergo ipsi habebant hanc vel aliam. Sed non habebant hanc, quia «spes est certa exspectatio futurae beatitudinis proveniens ex gratia et meritis[^3]»: cum ergo ipsi non haberent gratiam et merita, certitudinaliter sperare eis fuisset praesumtio: non ergo habebant certitudinem spei. Sed non est aliam dare quam certitudinem praescientiae vel revelationis: ergo videtur, quod aliquibus saltem esset data.

**Contra:** 1. Plus est dare certitudinem de gloria quam dare gratiam — multis enim Deus dat gratiam, quibus tamen non revelat certitudinaliter suam gloriam — ergo cum non habuerint gratiam, sicut supra[^4] probatum est, patet, quod nec stabilitatis praescientiam.

2. Item, diabolus sive lucifer non habuit prae<!-- page 136 -->scientiam de statu, quia non erat permansurus: ergo si ipse fuit *plenus sapientia et perfectus decore*[^5] inter omnes, videtur, quod nulli alii habuerunt.

3. Item, ostenditur per deductionem ad duplex inconveniens. Unum inconveniens est *excusatio diaboli* sive sui peccati. Posset enim de peccato suo quodam modo se excusare, quia scientiam non habuit, quam Deus aliis Angelis dedit. Aliud inconveniens videtur *accusatio Dei,* quia ante videtur punisse malos, quam mali fuerint; et quod ante gratiam suam sive donum scientiae subtraxerit, quod aliis dedit, qui non praecellebant ipsos nec merito vitae nec dignitate naturae[^6].

> **Conclusio.** Nullis Angelis revelata est futura permansio ipsorum.

**Respondeo:** Circa hoc duplex fuit opinio, sicut tangit Magister in littera[^7].

Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod bonis, qui permansuri erant, data est revelatio sive praescientia suae stabilitatis, et hoc loco spei, ratione cuius iam quodammodo beati erant. Et innituntur illi verbo Augustini, quod dicit opinando super Genesim ad litteram[^8]: «Forte Deus diabolo revelare noluit, quid facturus vel passurus esset; ceteris vero revelare voluit, quod in veritate mansuri essent».

Alia est positio, quod nullis data est praescientia sui status, quia *habere certitudinem* de sua permansione est cognitio magis spectans ad statum praemii quam ad statum meriti; et huius signum est, quod Deus aut paucissimis, aut nullis revelat quantumcumque dilectis et amicis, se certitudinaliter glorificandos. Haec enim cognitio potius est expediens ad gaudendum quam ad merendum. Unde quia Angeli erant in statu meriti omnes, quia nondum erant beati; ideo nullis data est haec cognitio. — Et haec positio est magis rationabilis et magis placet Magistro et magis consonat verbis Augustini, sicut patet in littera[^9] et undecimo de Civitate Dei, ubi dicit, quod pares fuerunt Angeli quantum ad conditiones ante lapsum. Unde si alicubi videtur dicere contrarium, si quis inspiciat adiacentia, aut opinando, aut quaerendo dicit. Et ideo haec positio magis est tenenda.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Deus dedit Angelis praecognitionem rerum mundanarum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia cognitio universi spectat ad cognitionem *naturalem,* et perfecta cognitio universi spectat ad perfectionem naturalis cognitionis[^10]; sed certa cognitio sui status spectat ad perfectionem *gloriae;* et ideo solum debet dari, quando in statu tali ponitur, a quo non potest cadere. Et sic patet illud.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si non erant certi, ergo videtur, quod rationabiliter poterant dubitare et timere; dicendum, quod est certitudo ex parte *cognitivae* et ex parte *affectivae.* — Certitudo ex parte *cognitivae* est duplex, una scilicet *infallibilis,* ut quando ita scit aliquid, quod non potest falli; altera *probabilis,* ut quando habet verisimiles rationes ad hoc sive ad unam partem; ita quod ad oppositum aut nullas habet, aut paucas. Et in Angelis fuit certitudo secundo modo, non primo. Ipsi enim rationabiliter poterant coniicere ex his bonis, quae acceperant, quod ad beatitudinem parati erant, maxime, cum in se nullam viderent maculam[^11]. — Certitudo ex parte *affectivae* est duplex: una in *exspectando,* alia in *tenendo.* Exspectare est spei, sed *tenere* est comprehensionis. Secunda non potuit esse in Angelis ante confirmationem; prima fuit semiplene, et minus plene quam in viris sanctis, quia in his ex gratia et meritis, in illis erat affectione naturae. — Ex his patent obiecta: quia certitudo probabilitatis, quae non habebat rationes ad oppositum, liberabat et a dubitatione et a poenali timore.

3. Patet etiam ultimo obiectum, quia aliquam certitudinem habuerunt; sed tamen non oportet, quod esset maior certitudine *spei.* Et ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proximiores erant; dicendum, quod proximiores quantum ad *statum,* quia medii erant inter gloriam et miseriam. Sed tamen magis distabant quantum ad *meritum,* quia nondum habebant *pignus* gloriae nec *primitias spiritus*[^12], sicut habent viri sancti in hac vita, de quibus dicit Apostolus ad Romanos quinto: *Spes autem non confundit, quia caritas Dei* etc.

english:
<!-- page 135 -->

### ARTICLE II. *On the Angels with respect to the foreknowledge of the future outcome.*

Next, concerning the second [head], two [things] are asked. The first is, whether the future perseverance ought to have been revealed to the good [Angels]. The second is, whether their damnation could have been revealed to the evil [ones].

### QUESTION I. *Whether the future perseverance ought to have been revealed to the good Angels.*

First, then, it is asked — since to none was glory given at creation, and to none also was grace given — whether to some was given a foreknowledge of future glorification. And that [it was], it seems.

1. God from the instant of their condition created the Angels filled with knowledge of worldly things; but it pleases God more that his servants have knowledge of those things which pertain *to salvation:* if therefore the foreknowledge of future salvation lifts up[^1] the mind and delights [it], therefore, since some were to be saved, it seems that at least such a foreknowledge ought to have been given to them; for it is established that he could [give it].

2. Likewise, if they were not certain of [their] salvation, then they could reasonably doubt and fear; but fear has punishment [in it]: therefore punishment before fault; but this is unfitting[^2]: therefore it seems that at least those ought to have been certified who were to be saved.

3. Likewise, the Angels were nearer to glory than we who are set in miseries, therefore they had at least as much certainty, or more, as we have; but we have the certainty of hope: therefore they had this or another. But they did not have this, since «hope is the certain expectation of future blessedness proceeding from grace and merits[^3]»: since therefore they did not have grace and merits, to hope with certainty would have been presumption for them: therefore they did not have the certainty of hope. But there is no other [certainty] to assign than the certainty of foreknowledge or of revelation: therefore it seems that to some at least it was given.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is more to give certainty of glory than to give grace — for to many God gives grace, to whom nevertheless he does not reveal their glory with certainty — therefore, since they did not have grace, as was proved above[^4], it is clear that [they had] not the foreknowledge of stability either.

2. Likewise, the devil, or lucifer, did not have the fore<!-- page 136 -->knowledge of [his] state, because he was not going to remain: therefore if he was *full of wisdom and perfect in beauty*[^5] among all, it seems that no others had [it].

3. Likewise, it is shown by a deduction to a twofold unfitting [conclusion]. One unfitting [conclusion] is the *excuse of the devil* or of his sin. For he could in a certain way excuse himself concerning his sin, because he did not have the knowledge which God gave to the other Angels. The other unfitting [conclusion] seems to be an *accusation of God,* because he seems to have punished the evil [ones] before they were evil; and because he withdrew beforehand his grace, or the gift of knowledge, which he gave to others who did not surpass them either in merit of life or in dignity of nature[^6].

> **Conclusion.** To no Angels was their future perseverance revealed.

**I respond:** Concerning this there was a twofold opinion, as the Master touches [on it] in the text[^7].

For some wished to say that to the good [Angels], who were going to remain, was given the revelation or foreknowledge of their stability, and this in place of hope, by reason of which they were already in a certain way blessed. And they rely on that word of Augustine, which he says by way of opining, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis*[^8]: «Perhaps God did not wish to reveal to the devil what he would do or suffer; but to the others he willed to reveal that they would remain in the truth».

Another is the position, that to none was given a foreknowledge of their state, because *to have certainty* concerning one's perseverance is a knowledge pertaining more to the state of reward than to the state of merit; and a sign of this is that God reveals to very few, or to none — however much beloved and friends — that they will with certainty be glorified. For this knowledge is rather expedient for rejoicing than for meriting. Whence, since the Angels were all in the state of merit, because they were not yet blessed, therefore to none was this knowledge given. — And this position is more reasonable and pleases the Master more and accords more with the words of Augustine, as is evident in the text[^9] and in the eleventh [book] *On the City of God,* where he says that the Angels were equal as to [their] conditions before the fall. Whence, if anywhere he seems to say the contrary, if one inspects the surrounding [text], he says [it] either by opining or by inquiring. And therefore this position is rather to be held.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that God gave the Angels foreknowledge of worldly things; it must be said that it is not similar, because knowledge of the universe pertains to *natural* knowledge, and perfect knowledge of the universe pertains to the perfection of natural knowledge[^10]; but the certain knowledge of one's state pertains to the perfection of *glory;* and therefore it ought to be given only when [one] is placed in such a state from which one cannot fall. And so that [objection] is clear.

2. To that which is objected, that if they were not certain, then it seems that they could reasonably doubt and fear; it must be said that there is a certainty on the part of the *cognitive* [power] and on the part of the *affective.* — The certainty on the part of the *cognitive* is twofold, one namely *infallible,* as when one so knows something that one cannot be deceived; the other *probable,* as when one has likely reasons for this, or for one part, such that for the opposite one has either none or few. And in the Angels there was certainty in the second way, not the first. For they could reasonably conjecture from those goods which they had received that they were prepared for blessedness, especially since they saw in themselves no stain[^11]. — The certainty on the part of the *affective* is twofold: one in *expecting,* the other in *holding.* To expect is of hope, but to *hold* is of comprehension. The second could not be in the Angels before the confirmation; the first was half-full, and less fully than in holy men, because in these [it is] from grace and merits, [while] in those it was from the affection of nature. — From these the objections are clear: because the certainty of probability, which had no reasons for the opposite, freed [them] both from doubt and from penal fear.

3. The last objection too is clear, because they had some certainty; but yet it is not necessary that it should be greater than the certainty of *hope.* And to that which is objected, that they were nearer; it must be said that [they were] nearer as to *state,* because they were midway between glory and misery. Yet they were further as to *merit,* because they did not yet have the *pledge* of glory nor the *first-fruits of the spirit*[^12], as holy men have in this life, of whom the Apostle says to the Romans, chapter 5: *But hope does not confound, because the charity of God* etc.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *exhilarat.*

en: Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] *exhilarat* (gladdens).

la: Cfr. August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 18. n. 51: *Omnis autem poena si iusta est, peccati poena est et supplicium nominatur.* — Paulo anterius cod. F: *ergo poenam habuerunt ante culpam* pro *ergo poena ante culpam.* Circa finem arg. cod. W pro *saltem* substituit *de salute.*

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Free Choice* III, c. 18, n. 51: *But every punishment, if it is just, is the punishment of sin and is named a chastisement.* — A little earlier codex F [reads] *ergo poenam habuerunt ante culpam* for *ergo poena ante culpam.* Near the end of the argument codex W substitutes *de salute* for *saltem.*

la: Haec definitio spei invenitur in littera Magistri, III. Sent. d. XXVI. et apud Hugonem a S. Vict., Sent. tr. 1. c. 2; eadem a S. Bonav., ibid. dub. 2. tribuitur Haymoni, in quo tamen definitionem ad verbum non invenimus.

en: This definition of hope is found in the Master's text, III *Sent.* d. XXVI, and in Hugh of St. Victor, *Sentences* tr. 1, c. 2; the same is attributed by St. Bonaventure, ibid. dub. 2, to Haymo, in whom, however, we have not found the definition word for word.

la: Art. I. q. 2. — Plures codd. *cum non habuerunt* pro *cum non habuerint.*

en: Art. I, q. 2. — Several codices [read] *cum non habuerunt* for *cum non habuerint.*

la: Vide August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 22. et XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 13.

en: See Augustine, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* XI, c. 17, n. 22, and *On the City of God* XI, c. 13.

la: In hac distinctione.

en: In this distinction.

la: Libr. XI. c. 17. n. 22, in quibus verbis multi codd. contra textum originalem *qui in veritate* pro *quod in veritate.*

en: Book XI, c. 17, n. 22, in which words many codices, against the original text, [read] *qui in veritate* for *quod in veritate.*

la: In hac distinctione, in qua etiam sententia Augustini exponitur, quae XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 11. 13. et 15. exhibetur.

en: In this distinction, in which also the opinion of Augustine is expounded, which is presented in *On the City of God* XI, c. 11, 13, and 15.

la: Vat. hic omittit *ad cognitionem naturalem et perfecta cognitio universi spectat.*

en: The Vatican edition here omits *ad cognitionem naturalem et perfecta cognitio universi spectat.*

la: Plures codd. *malitiam;* cod. cc et ed. 1 *dispositionem mali.* Cod. U prosequitur *Item certitudo* etc.

en: Several codices [read] *malitiam;* codex cc and ed. 1 *dispositionem mali.* Codex U continues *Item certitudo* etc.

la: Rom. 8, 23. Verba *pignus gloriae* respicere videntur ad Eph. 1, 14, ubi de Spiritu S. dicitur: *Qui est pignus hereditatis nostrae.* — Sequens textus est Rom. 5, 5.

en: Rom. 8:23. The words *pledge of glory* seem to look to Eph. 1:14, where it is said of the Holy Spirit: *Who is the pledge of our inheritance.* — The following text is Rom. 5:5.

latin_scholion: Ad quaest. I. et 2. huius 2. articuli principales Scholastici, coniectantes potius quam asserentes, in eodem sensu, et multi una sola quaestione respondent. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 23. m. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 2. — B. Albert., hic q. 3; S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 18. m. 3. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

english_scholion: To questions 1 and 2 of this second article the principal Scholastics, conjecturing rather than asserting, [respond] in the same sense, and many [respond] with a single question. — Alex. Hal., *S.* p. I, q. 23, m. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 2. — B. Albert, here q. 3; *S.* p. II, tr. 4, q. 18, m. 3, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 3, 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 3.

translators_notes:
- Dist. IV, Art. II, Quaest. I — *Utrum bonis Angelis revelari debuerit futura permansio.* The short ARTICULUS II opener + its title (*De Angelis quoad futuri eventus praescientiam*) + the two-question sub-divisio (*Consequenter circa secundum duo quaeruntur…*) are folded into this q1 per the Vol II convention. 3 *videtur* args (the *ad oppositum* set) + 3 CONTRA (the *Fundamenta*) + one-sentence *Conclusio* (the blockquote) + Respondeo (two opinions — *data est revelatio* / *nullis data est*, the latter the Master's, accepted) + replies 1, 2, 3 (with the cognitiva/affectiva certitudo distinction) + a single-block Scholion. Spans printed pp. 135–136 (= PDF 157–158).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** The Respondeo and Solutio are cascade-shattered in the IA djvu OCR (raw 10057–10162; the diagonal fragmentation at 10095–10142); re-set off the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 135`/`136 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 135`/`136`), read L column then R column. The clean prose (videtur/contra args, Scholion) is the OCR base; footers read off the crops L then R.
- **Scholion** present (`has_scholion: true`) — a single block (not I/II/III), the "principal Scholastics conjecture rather than assert" note + the parallel-loci list; no numbered apparatus (inline cross-refs only).
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–12).** p.135 footer notes 1–4 → [^1]–[^4] (the 3 args + Contra 1); p.136 footer notes 1–8 → [^5]–[^12] (Contra 2–3 + the Respondeo's two opinions + replies 1–3). 12 markers, all anchored in this chunk's body across pp. 135–136 (none in the Scholion).
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.135 (INCOMING — CLEAN, no backfill).** The preceding committed `bon-sent-II-d4-a1-q2`'s Scholion I–III carries no numbered apparatus and merely tails onto p.135 (ending in the right column); ARTICULUS II + this q1's body begin lower on p.135. p.135's footer (notes 1–4) is therefore wholly this q1's — exactly as documented in the committed `d4-a1-q2` Notes ("p.135 footer wholly a2-q1's"). `d4-a1-q2` not modified.
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.136→137 (OUTGOING — CLEAN, no split).** This q1's single-block Scholion carries no numbered apparatus and ends on p.136 (above the p.136 footer). QUAESTIO II + `bon-sent-II-d4-a2-q2` begin on p.137 with their own body and footer; p.136's footer (notes 1–8) is wholly this q1's. The no-apparatus-scholion clean-boundary pattern — `d4-a2-q2` (still a skeleton) takes p.137's footer at its build.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Cascade regions resolved on the 450 dpi crops; footers verified L then R on both pages. Marginal editorial glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (`Ad oppositum`, `Fundamenta`, `Conclusio`, `Opinio 1`, `Opinio 2`, `Solutio oppositorum`, `Distinctio`, `Subdistinctio 1`, `Subdistinctio 2`).