title: Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 539 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum eis qui praecesserunt adventum Christi, suffecerit ad salutem credere ea tantum, quae spectant ad Divinitatem.*

Secundo quaeritur de fidei sufficientia quantum ad eos qui praecesserunt adventum Christi, et quaeritur, utrum eis suffecerit ad salutem credere ea tantum, quae spectant ad Divinitatem. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Hebraeos undecimo[^p539-1]: *Oportet accedentem credere, quia est, et quia remunerator est*: si ergo Apostolus determinat sufficienter illud quod erat fidei opportunum, videtur, quod illud sufficiebat eis credere. Sed totum illud credi poterat nihil credendo de humanitate Christi: ergo videtur, quod tunc temporis ad salutem sufficiebat sola fides Divinitatis.

2. Item, fides, quae sufficienter dirigit ad sperandum et amandum, sufficit ad salutem[^p539-2]; sed fides, qua quis credit Deum creatorem et remuneratorem suum, sufficienter dirigit ipsum ad sperandum et amandum: ergo videtur, quod omni fide humanitatis exclusa, fides solius Divinitatis ad salutem sufficiebat.

3. Item, multi salvati sunt sine fide passionis Christi — paucissimi enim praecesserunt in veteri Testamento, qui crederent[^p539-3] Filium Dei esse crucifigendum pro salute generis humani — si ergo salvari potuerunt sine fide passionis, eadem ratione sine fide incarnationis: ergo et sine fide Mediatoris.

4. Item, nullus homo tenetur nosse quod ignorant Angeli; sed ante Christi adventum ignorabant Angeli Christi incarnationem: ergo homines non tenebantur illam credere. Maior propositio in se manifesta est; minor probatur per illud quod dicitur Isaiae sexagesimo tertio[^p539-4]: *Quis est iste qui venit de Edom?* ibi Glossa: «Aperte declaratur, quod quidam Angeli, donec impleretur, mysterium incarnationis non cognoverunt». Et ad Ephesios tertio dicitur: *Ut innotescat Principatibus et Potestatibus in caelestibus*; et ex aliis pluribus locis potest haberi. Unde Chrysostomus in Homilia prima super Ioannem: «Multum honorati sumus, quod nobiscum Angeli per vocem Ioannis didicerunt»; et idem habetur in Glossa super illud ad Ephesios tertio: *Quae sit dispensatio mysterii absconditi a saeculis in Deo.*

5. Item, qui implet in Lege evangelica quod est de dictamine eius, pervenit ad salutem, et similiter de Lege Mosaica: ergo pari ratione qui implebat, quae erant de dictamine Legis naturae, ad salutem perveniebat, secundum quod innuit Apostolus ad Romanos secundo[^p539-5]: ergo tempore Legis naturae non oportebat credere ad salutem, nisi quod erat de dictamine naturae. Sed Deum incarnari et Mediatorem futurum esse non erat de dictamine Le-

<!-- page 540 -->

gis naturae: ergo non videtur, quod oportebat illo tempore credere.

6. Item, nullus tenetur operari illud, ad quod non potest se erigere virtus sua operativa: ergo nullus tenebatur credere illud cuius notitiam non poterat acquirere nec per inventionem nec per doctrinam[^p540-1]. Si ergo tempore legis naturae cognitionem de Mediatore non poterant per se invenire, nec erat qui exterius doceret, nec adhuc erant revelationes propheticae; videtur, quod tunc temporis nihil tenebantur credere de Mediatore: ergo sine fide Mediatoris pervenire poterant ad salutem.

**Contra hoc** sunt auctoritates multae, quas Magister adducit in littera[^p540-2], et hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione.

1. Christus est caput totius Ecclesiae, ergo nullus potest salvari, nisi fiat membrum Christi; sed membrum Christi non potest fieri, nisi credat in Christum: ergo sine fide Mediatoris nullus unquam salvari potuit.

2. Item, nullus potuit ingredi in caelum, nisi aperta ianua; sed ianua non potuit aperiri nisi per passionem Christi: ergo nullus potuit salvari nisi merito passionis Christi. Sed meritum passionis Christi non valet nisi eis, in quibus habitat Christus: si ergo Christus habitat per fidem et caritatem, quae habetur ad ipsum[^p540-3]; impossibile fuit, aliquem salvari sine fide Mediatoris.

3. Item, nullus potest salvari sine remissione peccati originalis; sed originale peccatum non potest remitti nisi per fidem, vel per aliquod fidei Sacramentum, quod sit ipsius Mediatoris signum[^p540-4]: ergo nullus potuit pervenire ad salutem ante adventum Christi, qui non crederet Mediatorem.

4. Item, nullus potest pervenire ad salutem, nisi qui sperat; nullus recte sperat, nisi qui credit, ad salutem se perventurum per merita, quia spes procedit «ex gratia et meritis[^p540-5]»: si ergo illi qui praecesserunt Christi adventum, salvabantur, credebant, se per merita salvari: aut ergo credebant, merita *propria* sibi sufficere, aut meritis *alienis* indigere. Si credebant, *propria* sibi sufficere: ergo efferebantur et decipiebantur, ergo non salvabantur; si credebant, se alienis meritis indigere: ergo habebant fidem de Mediatore: ergo nullus salvari potuit post lapsum absque fide Redemptoris.

### Conclusio.

> Nullus post lapsum salvari potuit absque Mediatoris fide saltem implicita.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut multis auctoritatibus probat Magister in littera[^p540-6], post lapsum Adae nullus salvari potuit absque fide Mediatoris. Nullus enim ab illo peccato poterat liberari, nisi in illum Mediatorem crederet, vel ipse pro se, si esset adultus, vel alius pro ipso, si esset parvulus.

Et ratio huius est: quia, cum *gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta sit*[^p540-7], et liberatio ab illo peccato sit per merita Christi, et merita Christi non se extendant nisi ad illos qui efficiuntur eius membra et ei copulantur per fidem; sicut impossibile est, nunc aliquem salvari, nisi eidem copuletur vel per fidem, vel per fidei Sacramentum: sic et impossibile fuit, post lapsum aliquem pervenire ad salutem, qui aliquo modo in Christum mediatorem non crederet. Ideo autem dico *aliquo modo*, quia fides Mediatoris potest haberi dupliciter, videlicet *implicite*, vel *explicite*: *explicite*, ut si quis crederet, Filium Dei assumpturum nostram humanitatem, nasciturum de Virgine, passurum in Cruce, resurrecturum tertia die etc. Et hoc modo *explicite credere* non erat omnibus opportunum, sed his solum, quibus a Deo erat revelatum, sicut sanctissimis Patribus[^p540-8]. — *Implicite* vero *credere* est exspectare redemptorem futurum, qualiter autem et quomodo hoc debeat esse, *credere* secundum quod illi credebant, quibus a Domino est revelatum; et hoc quidem erat omnibus opportunum.

Et hoc est quod dicit magister Hugo de sancto Victore in libro de Sacramentis[^p540-9]: «Haec sunt, inquit, quibus ab initio nihil minus recta fides unquam habere potuit, credere videlicet, unum esse Deum, creatorem omnium et rectorem universorum;

<!-- page 541 -->

ipsum quidem non esse mali auctorem, eorum tamen, qui in malis suis misericordiam eius quaererent et exspectarent futurum redemptorem. Hoc simplicium fidei in initio suffecisse credimus; et tamen fidem nativitatis eius, passionis et resurrectionis et ascensionis suae in hoc eos verissime habuisse dicimus, quia credentibus et scientibus hoc fide et devotione adhaeserunt». — Sic igitur concedendum est, quod nullus post lapsum salvari potuit absque fide Mediatoris; qua quia philosophi caruerunt, suis meritis et virtutibus inhaerentes, ideo tanquam superbi et a Christi membris et meritis separati, exclusi sunt a gaudiis paradisi[^p541-1]. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad istam partem adductae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de auctoritate Apostoli, dicendum, quod Apostolus praecise non intendit determinare totum, quod est ad salutem necessarium, sed illud, sine quo non potest esse salus. Dicit enim, quod hoc est *opportunum*, sed non dicit, quod hoc sit *sufficiens*. Tangit autem illa duo potissime, quia necessaria erant omni statui naturae, non solum statui naturae lapsae, sed etiam statui innocentiae[^p541-2].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides Creatoris et Remuneratoris sufficienter dirigit ad sperandum et amandum; dicendum, quod falsum est secundum statum naturae *lapsae*, quia, cum spes procedat ex meritis, sicut in opponendo[^p541-3] tactum est, si quis speraret salvari ex meritis propriis, sine meritis Mediatoris, non recte speraret, sed potius praesumeret. Ideo spes non sufficienter dirigitur per fidem Creatoris et Remuneratoris; similiter nec caritas, quia non tantum debemus amare, quia Creator et Remunerator, sed magis quia Redemptor.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multi salvati sunt sine fide passionis; dicendum, quod si loquamur de fide *explicita*, verum est; si de fide *implicita*, non est verum. Omnes enim salvandi exspectaverunt Redemptorem futurum, et etiam in suis sacrificiis et oblationibus hoc praefigurabant, in quibus omnibus significatur Christus offerendus. Unde quodam modo profitebantur *facto* occulte, quamvis *verbo* non proferrent manifeste[^p541-4]. Similiter non oportebat incarnationem *explicite* credere, sed sufficiebat credere, quod aliquis veniret, qui genus humanum redimere posset, sciret et vellet.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homines non tenentur nosse quod ignorant Angeli; dicendum, quod etsi Angeli mysterium incarnationis non cognoverunt ad plenum, tamen nullus fuit Beatorum[^p541-5], qui nesciret, genus humanum esse redimendum; et ideo ex hoc non concluditur, quod non oportuit fidem habere de Mediatore, sed quia non oportuit credere *explicite*, sed sufficiebat credere *implicite*.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omni tempore suffecit implere quod fuit de dictamine Legis illius, quae erat in illo statu; dicendum, quod hoc est verum, secundum quod hoc intelligitur de Lege *naturae* vel de Lege *Scripturae*, secundum quod est adiuta a dono gratiae. Sine enim dono gratiae in nulla Lege contingit ad salutem pervenire[^p541-6]. Quamvis autem Lex naturae, destituta auxilio gratiae, non possit aliquid dictare de ipso Mediatore; prout tamen est adiuta per gratiam, dum sentiebat infirmitatem suam et miseriam et advertebat Dei iustitiam et misericordiam, satis dictare poterat, quod homo reparatore indigebat, et quod divina bonitas dare disponebat. Unde semper fuerunt aliqui famosi Dei cultores ab initio mundi, qui haec profiterentur suis oblationibus, ad quorum aspectum et exemplum alii poterant erudiri.

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod non poterant illud scire per inventionem et doctrinam; iam patet responsio: quia divina gratia omnibus praesto erat, et natura ad hoc manuducere poterat ex consideratione suae miseriae et curvitatis et ex eruditione quadam generali, quam accipere poterant a viris, qui erant in cultu Dei famosi. Unde cum non esset tunc prophetia nec revelatio aperta; non tenebantur omnino ad fidem explicitam. Indubitanter tamen verum est, quod eis praesto erat notitia Mediatoris, quanta opportuna erat secundum exigentiam temporis, tum ex dictamine naturae tum ex aliena instructione tum etiam ex Dei inspiratione, qui se offert omnibus qui eum requirunt humiliter[^p541-7].

english:
### Question II. *Whether for those who came before the advent of Christ it sufficed for salvation to believe only those things which pertain to the Divinity.*

Secondly there is inquiry concerning the sufficiency of faith as to those who came before the advent of Christ, and the question is whether for them it sufficed for salvation to believe only those things which pertain to the Divinity. And that it is so, it seems.

1. To the Hebrews, chapter eleven[^p539-1]: *It is necessary that one approaching believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder*: if therefore the Apostle determines sufficiently that which was fitting for faith, it seems that it sufficed for them to believe that. But all that could be believed while believing nothing concerning the humanity of Christ: therefore it seems that at that time for salvation faith in the Divinity alone sufficed.

2. Likewise, faith which sufficiently directs to hoping and loving suffices for salvation[^p539-2]; but the faith by which one believes God to be his creator and rewarder sufficiently directs him to hoping and loving: therefore it seems that, with all faith of the humanity excluded, faith in the Divinity alone sufficed for salvation.

3. Likewise, many were saved without faith in the passion of Christ — for very few came before in the Old Testament who believed[^p539-3] that the Son of God was to be crucified for the salvation of the human race — if therefore they could be saved without faith in the passion, by the same reasoning [also] without faith in the incarnation: therefore also without faith in the Mediator.

4. Likewise, no man is bound to know what the Angels are ignorant of; but before the advent of Christ the Angels were ignorant of the incarnation of Christ: therefore men were not bound to believe it. The major proposition is manifest in itself; the minor is proved through that which is said in Isaiah, chapter sixty-three[^p539-4]: *Who is this who comes from Edom?* there the Gloss: «It is openly declared that certain Angels, until it was fulfilled, did not know the mystery of the incarnation». And to the Ephesians, chapter three, it is said: *That it may be made known to the Principalities and Powers in the heavenly places*; and it can be had from several other passages. Hence Chrysostom in the first Homily on John: «We are greatly honored, in that together with us the Angels learned through the voice of John»; and the same is had in the Gloss on that passage to the Ephesians, chapter three: *What is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from the ages in God.*

5. Likewise, he who fulfills in the evangelical Law that which is of its dictate attains to salvation, and likewise of the Mosaic Law: therefore by parity of reasoning he who fulfilled those things which were of the dictate of the Law of nature attained to salvation, according as the Apostle intimates to the Romans, chapter two[^p539-5]: therefore in the time of the Law of nature it was not necessary to believe for salvation, except what was of the dictate of nature. But that God should become incarnate and that there should be a future Mediator was not of the dictate of the Law

of nature: therefore it does not seem that it was necessary to believe at that time.

6. Likewise, no one is bound to do that to which his operative power cannot raise itself: therefore no one was bound to believe that whose knowledge he could not acquire either through discovery or through teaching[^p540-1]. If therefore in the time of the law of nature they could not by themselves discover knowledge of the Mediator, nor was there one who might teach externally, nor were there as yet prophetic revelations; it seems that at that time they were bound to believe nothing concerning the Mediator: therefore without faith in the Mediator they could attain to salvation.

**Against this** there are many authorities, which the Master adduces in the text[^p540-2], and this same thing is shown by reason.

1. Christ is the head of the whole Church, therefore no one can be saved unless he be made a member of Christ; but one cannot be made a member of Christ unless he believe in Christ: therefore without faith in the Mediator no one could ever be saved.

2. Likewise, no one could enter heaven unless the gate were open; but the gate could not be opened except through the passion of Christ: therefore no one could be saved except by the merit of the passion of Christ. But the merit of the passion of Christ does not avail except for those in whom Christ dwells: if therefore Christ dwells through faith and charity, which is had toward him[^p540-3]; it was impossible for anyone to be saved without faith in the Mediator.

3. Likewise, no one can be saved without the remission of original sin; but original sin cannot be remitted except through faith, or through some Sacrament of faith, which is a sign of the Mediator himself[^p540-4]: therefore no one could attain to salvation before the advent of Christ who did not believe in the Mediator.

4. Likewise, no one can attain to salvation except one who hopes; no one rightly hopes except one who believes that he will attain to salvation through merits, because hope proceeds «from grace and merits[^p540-5]»: if therefore those who came before the advent of Christ were saved, they believed that they were saved through merits: either therefore they believed their *own* merits to suffice for themselves, or [believed themselves] to need the merits of *another*. If they believed their *own* [merits] to suffice for themselves: therefore they were puffed up and deceived, therefore they were not saved; if they believed themselves to need the merits of another: therefore they had faith concerning the Mediator: therefore no one could be saved after the fall without faith in the Redeemer.

### Conclusion.

> No one after the fall could be saved without faith in the Mediator, at least implicit.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master proves by many authorities in the text[^p540-6], after the fall of Adam no one could be saved without faith in the Mediator. For no one could be freed from that sin unless he believed in that Mediator, either he himself for himself, if he were an adult, or another for him, if he were a little child.

And the reason of this is: that, since *grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ*[^p540-7], and the liberation from that sin is through the merits of Christ, and the merits of Christ do not extend except to those who are made his members and are joined to him through faith; just as it is impossible that anyone now be saved, unless he be joined to him either through faith, or through the Sacrament of faith: so also it was impossible, after the fall, for anyone to attain to salvation who in no way believed in Christ the mediator. But I say *in some way*, because faith in the Mediator can be had in two ways, namely *implicitly*, or *explicitly*: *explicitly*, as if someone believed that the Son of God would assume our humanity, would be born of the Virgin, would suffer on the Cross, would rise again on the third day, etc. And to believe in this manner *explicitly* was not fitting for all, but only for those to whom it had been revealed by God, as for the most holy Fathers[^p540-8]. — But to believe *implicitly* is to await a future redeemer, but in what manner and how this ought to be, to *believe* according as those believed to whom it has been revealed by the Lord; and this indeed was fitting for all.

And this is what master Hugh of St. Victor says in the book *On the Sacraments*[^p540-9]: «These are, he says, the things which right faith from the beginning could never have any less of, namely to believe that there is one God, the creator of all things and the ruler of the universe;

that he indeed is not the author of evil, yet [is the author of good things] of those who in their evils sought his mercy and awaited a future redeemer. This we believe to have sufficed for the faith of the simple in the beginning; and yet we say that they most truly had in this [implicit faith] faith in his nativity, passion, resurrection, and ascension, because they clung [to it] with faith and devotion, believing and knowing this». — Thus therefore it must be granted that no one after the fall could be saved without faith in the Mediator; of which, because the philosophers lacked it, clinging to their own merits and virtues, therefore as proud and separated from the members and merits of Christ, they were excluded from the joys of paradise[^p541-1]. — The reasons adduced for this side are therefore to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected first concerning the authority of the Apostle, it must be said that the Apostle does not precisely intend to determine the whole that is necessary for salvation, but that without which there can be no salvation. For he says that this is *fitting*, but he does not say that this is *sufficient*. And he touches upon those two especially, because they were necessary for every state of nature, not only for the state of fallen nature, but also for the state of innocence[^p541-2].

2. To that which is objected, that faith in the Creator and Rewarder sufficiently directs to hoping and loving; it must be said that this is false according to the state of *fallen* nature, because, since hope proceeds from merits, as was touched upon in the [arguments] opposing[^p541-3], if someone were to hope to be saved by his own merits, without the merits of the Mediator, he would not rightly hope, but rather presume. Therefore hope is not sufficiently directed through faith in the Creator and Rewarder; likewise neither is charity, because we ought to love not only because [he is] Creator and Rewarder, but more because [he is] Redeemer.

3. To that which is objected, that many were saved without faith in the passion; it must be said that if we speak of *explicit* faith, it is true; if of *implicit* faith, it is not true. For all who were to be saved awaited a future Redeemer, and also in their sacrifices and oblations prefigured this, in all of which Christ to be offered is signified. Hence in a certain way they professed it *by deed* secretly, although *by word* they did not utter it openly[^p541-4]. Likewise it was not necessary to believe the incarnation *explicitly*, but it sufficed to believe that someone would come who could, would know how, and would will to redeem the human race.

4. To that which is objected, that men are not bound to know what the Angels are ignorant of; it must be said that even if the Angels did not know the mystery of the incarnation fully, yet there was none of the Blessed[^p541-5] who did not know that the human race was to be redeemed; and therefore from this it is not concluded that it was not necessary to have faith concerning the Mediator, but that it was not necessary to believe *explicitly*, but it sufficed to believe *implicitly*.

5. To that which is objected, that in every time it sufficed to fulfill what was of the dictate of that Law which was in that state; it must be said that this is true, according as this is understood of the Law of *nature* or of the Law of *Scripture*, according as it is aided by the gift of grace. For without the gift of grace it does not befall [anyone] in any Law to attain to salvation[^p541-6]. But although the Law of nature, destitute of the help of grace, cannot dictate anything concerning the Mediator himself; yet insofar as it is aided through grace, when it perceived its own infirmity and misery and noticed the justice and mercy of God, it could sufficiently dictate that man needed a repairer, and that the divine goodness was disposed to give [it]. Hence there were always certain renowned worshippers of God from the beginning of the world, who professed these things by their oblations, at whose sight and example others could be instructed.

6. To that which is objected last, that they could not know that through discovery and teaching; the response is already evident: because divine grace was at hand for all, and nature could lead them to this by the consideration of its own misery and crookedness and by a certain general instruction, which they could receive from the men who were renowned in the worship of God. Hence since there was not then prophecy nor open revelation; they were not bound altogether to explicit faith. Yet it is undoubtedly true that knowledge of the Mediator was at hand for them, as much as was fitting according to the exigency of the time, both from the dictate of nature and from instruction by another and also from the inspiration of God, who offers himself to all who seek him humbly[^p541-7].

la: Vers. 6: *Credere enim oportet accedentem ad Deum, quia est et inquirentibus se remunerator sit.* — In fine arg. pro *temporis ad salutem* codd. A K *ipsis*.

en: Verse 6: *For it is necessary that one approaching God believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him.* — At the end of the argument, for *temporis ad salutem* codices A K read *ipsis*.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 3. seq., et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. ac dub. 3. — Post *amandum* edd. supplent *Deum*.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXIII. c. 3. seq., and the Commentary a. 1. q. 1. and dub. 3. — After *amandum* the editions supply *Deum*.

la: Edd. *crediderunt*.

en: The editions read *crediderunt* ("believed").

la: Vers. 1. — De Glossa, quae est ordinaria et sumta ex Hieronymo, vide supra pag. 57, nota 7. — Seq. Scripturae locus est Eph. 3, 10. — Verba Chrysostomi habentur in homil. allegata (codd. et edd. *homilia 5.*) n. 2. — Glossa, quae deinde affertur super Eph. 3, 9, apud Petr. Lombard. sic sonat: *Et videte, quantum hoc est, quia per hoc aliquid accrevit Angelis, qui multa secreta in his didicerunt.* Strabus hanc Glossam exhibet ad vers. 10. — Pro *mysterii* Vat. et nonnulli codd. *ministerii*, Vulgata *sacramenti*.

en: Verse 1. — Concerning the Gloss, which is the ordinary [Gloss] and taken from Jerome, see above, page 57, note 7. — The following Scripture passage is Eph. 3, 10. — The words of Chrysostom are had in the homily cited (codices and editions: *homily 5*) n. 2. — The Gloss, which is then adduced on Eph. 3, 9, in Peter Lombard reads thus: *And see how great this is, because through this something accrued to the Angels, who learned many secrets in these things.* Strabo presents this Gloss at verse 10. — For *mysterii* the Vatican edition and some codices [read] *ministerii*, the Vulgate *sacramenti*.

la: Vers. 14. seq. — In initio arg. edd. pro *in Lege* posuerunt *de Lege*, et infra *nisi quod erat de dictamine Legis naturae* pro *nisi quod erat de dictamine naturae*. Deinde circa finem arg. edd. post *quod oportebat* inseruerunt *hoc*.

en: Verse 14. seq. — At the beginning of the argument the editions, for *in Lege*, put *de Lege*, and below *nisi quod erat de dictamine Legis naturae* for *nisi quod erat de dictamine naturae*. Then near the end of the argument the editions, after *quod oportebat*, inserted *hoc*.

la: Vide supra pag. 329, nota 10. — Maior innititur regulae 6. iuris (libr. V. Sexti Decret. in fine): *Nemo potest ad impossibile obligari.*

en: See above, page 329, note 10. — The major [premise] rests on the 6th rule of law (book V of the Sext, at the end): *No one can be obligated to the impossible.*

la: Hic c. 1. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 236, nota 10. — De arg. seq., in cuius minori edd. post *non potest* subdunt *quis*, vide supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Here c. 1. Cf. also above, page 236, note 10. — Concerning the following argument, in whose minor [premise] the editions add *quis* after *non potest*, see above, d. 13. a. 2. q. 3.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 3. De praecedentibus cfr. supra d. 18. a. 2. p. 3; d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. nec non ibid. dub. 2.

en: See above, the text of the Master, d. XXIII. c. 3. Concerning the preceding [arguments] cf. above, d. 18. a. 2. p. 3; d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. and also there, dub. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 20. q. 4.

en: Cf. above, d. 20. q. 4.

la: Ut Magister ait infra d. XXVI. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. dub. 2.

en: As the Master says below, d. XXVI. c. 1. Cf. there, dub. 2.

la: Hic c. 1. — *Utrum fides parentum sufficiat ad delendum originale peccatum in parvulis, an non*; haec quaestio fusius tractatur IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Inferius Vat. bis voci *peccato* adiungit *originali*.

en: Here c. 1. — *Whether the faith of the parents suffices for blotting out original sin in little children, or not*; this question is treated more fully IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Below the Vatican edition twice adds *originali* to the word *peccato*.

la: Ioan. 1, 17. — Paulo inferius pro *nunc aliquem* plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *nunc aliter* (cod. lv a secunda manu *nunc aliquem*). Deinde post *sic et impossibile fuit* edd. inserunt *tunc*.

en: John 1, 17. — A little below, for *nunc aliquem* very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *nunc aliter* (codex lv, by a second hand, *nunc aliquem*). Then after *sic et impossibile fuit* the editions insert *tunc*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi etiam seq. propos. explicatur, quam Vat., a codd. recedens, sic immutavit: *Implicite vero credere, est credere Redemptorem venturum taliter et eo modo, qualiter et quo modo illi credebant* etc. Etiam edd. 1, 2 hanc propos. aliquantulum mutarunt. Etenim post *Redemptorem futurum* posito puncto, sic prosequuntur: *Quaeritur autem, qualiter et quomodo debeat esse hoc credere; dico, quod hoc credere esse debet, secundum quod illi credebant* etc. Post *hoc debeat* [codd. A K *debebat*] *esse* cod. C interiicit *sufficiebat*, cod. bb *est*. Subinde pro *secundum quod* codd. A Q (N a secunda manu) *scilicet quod*, et post pauca pro *est revelatum* cod. A K *erat revelatum*. In lectione codd. *exspectare* etc. et *credere secundum* etc. sunt membra coordinata.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, where the following proposition is also explained, which the Vatican edition, departing from the codices, thus altered: *But to believe implicitly is to believe that the Redeemer will come in such a way and in that manner, in which way and in what manner those believed*, etc. The editions 1, 2 also altered this proposition somewhat. For after *Redemptorem futurum*, having placed a period, they continue thus: *But it is asked in what way and how this believing ought to be; I say that this believing ought to be according as those believed*, etc. After *hoc debeat* [codices A K *debebat*] *esse* codex C interjects *sufficiebat*, codex bb *est*. Then for *secundum quod* codices A Q (N by a second hand) [read] *scilicet quod*, and after a little, for *est revelatum* codices A K [read] *erat revelatum*. In the reading of the codices, *exspectare* etc. and *credere secundum* etc. are coordinate members.

la: Libr. I. p. X. c. 7. In textu origin. post *suffecisse credimus* plura inveniuntur, quae hic desunt; simulque ibi pro *ascensionis suae* habetur *ascensionis eius*, et locus sic terminatur: *et scientibus haec fide et devotione sub spe et exspectatione eiusdem redemptionis adhaeserunt.*

en: Book I. p. X. c. 7. In the original text after *suffecisse credimus* several things are found which are lacking here; and at the same time there for *ascensionis suae* there is *ascensionis eius*, and the passage ends thus: *and they clung [to it], knowing these things with faith and devotion, under the hope and expectation of the same redemption.*

la: August., Epist. 164. (alias 99.) c. 2. n. 4: *Quae quidem omnia [parcimonia, continentia etc.], quando non referuntur ad finem rectae veraeque pietatis, sed ad fastum inanem humanae laudis et gloriae, etiam ipsi inanescunt quodam modo steriliaque redduntur; verumtamen quadam indole animi ita delectant, ut eos, in quibus haec fuerunt, vellemus vel praecipue vel cum ceteris ab inferni cruciatibus liberari, nisi aliter se haberet sensus humanus, aliter iustitia Creatoris.*

en: Augustine, Epist. 164 (alias 99) c. 2. n. 4: *All which things indeed [frugality, continence, etc.], when they are not referred to the end of right and true piety, but to the empty pride of human praise and glory, even themselves become empty in a certain way and are rendered sterile; yet by a certain quality of mind they so delight that we would wish those in whom these things were, either especially or along with the rest, to be freed from the torments of hell, were not the human sense disposed one way, the justice of the Creator another.*

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1. ad eandem obiectionem respondet sic: *Dicendum, quod Apostolus ista duo ponit sicut principia ad omnes articulos, scil. oportet credere, quia est et quia remunerator est; omnes enim articuli reducuntur ad fidem, qua creditur ἀ et ω, principium et finis* (Apoc. 1, 8.). *Et haec duo sunt, quae propinquiora sunt nobis quantum ad cognitionem, et per quorum cognitionem manuducimur et elevamur ad cognitionem aeternorum, sicut patet conferenti singulos.* Hinc ergo est, quod Apostolus ponit hos principaliter *quia est*, id est principium conditionis, et *quia est remunerator*, hoc est finis beatitudinis.

en: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1, responds to the same objection thus: *It must be said that the Apostle sets down those two as principles for all the articles, namely it is necessary to believe that he is and that he is a rewarder; for all the articles are reduced to faith, by which is believed the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end* (Apoc. 1, 8). *And these are the two things which are nearer to us as to knowledge, and through the knowledge of which we are led and elevated to the knowledge of eternal things, as is evident to one comparing them individually.* Hence therefore it is that the Apostle sets these down principally [as] *that he is*, that is, the beginning of [our] making, and *that he is a rewarder*, that is, the end of [our] beatitude.

la: In fundamento 4. Cfr. supra d. 24. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. — Paulo inferius pro *et Remuneratoris* edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. perperam *et Mediatoris*.

en: In fundamentum 4. Cf. above, d. 24. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. — A little below, for *et Remuneratoris* the editions 1, 2 with many codices wrongly [read] *et Mediatoris*.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Aliquanto superius pro *si de fide* codd. A F H I K L T V aa bb *sed de fide*, et deinde pro *significatur* codd. A N U *significabatur*, edd. *figuratur*.

en: Cf. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Somewhat above, for *si de fide* codices A F H I K L T V aa bb [read] *sed de fide*, and then for *significatur* codices A N U [read] *significabatur*, the editions *figuratur*.

la: Codd. H I L Z *bonorum*.

en: Codices H I L Z read *bonorum* ("of the good").

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Mox pro *possit* codd. A K U *posset*. — Aliquanto inferius pro *famosi* cod. Z *famosissimi*.

en: Cf. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Soon, for *possit* codices A K U read *posset*. — Somewhat below, for *famosi* codex Z reads *famosissimi* ("most renowned").

la: Psalm. 144, 18: *Prope est Dominus omnibus invocantibus eum* etc.

en: Psalm 144, 18: *The Lord is near to all who call upon him*, etc.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hac et seq. quaestione nec non in toto 2. articulo multa dicuntur de explicatione fidei; quae, ut facilius intelligantur, opportunum videtur commemorare quasdam communiter receptas distinctiones. Sicut «occultum aliquid dicitur dupliciter: vel a parte cognoscentis, vel a parte rei cognitae» (infra a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.); ita etiam explicatio fidei considerari potest vel ex parte credentis, vel ex parte obiecti crediti sive articulorum. De explicatione fidei sumta in sensu secundo quaeritur infra a. 2. q. 1, utrum scilicet fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem; de eadem in primo sensu agitur infra a. 2. q. 2. 3. et etiam, licet alia ratione, in hac et seq. quaestione. Porro duplici modo aliquis potest fidem habere implicite: vel ita, ut implicetur cognitio alicuius articuli in alio articulo explicite cognito, quemadmodum in principiis universalibus scientiae implicantur conclusiones; vel ita, ut habeat scientiam implicatam in cognitione alterius scientis, ut discipulus respectu magistri, a quo per doctrinam potest scientiam accipere. Et bene observat S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4. ad 1.), quod in hoc «non est simile de scientia et fide, quia non sunt nobis innata aliqua principia naturalia, ad quae possint reduci articuli fidei, sed tota determinatio fidei est in nobis per doctrinam; et ideo oportet in cognitione hominis habere fidem implicitam». Hoc principio respectu fidei simplicium utitur S. Bonav., hic in corp., et q. 3. praesertim ad 6.

**II.** In hac 2. quaestione S. Bonav. distinguit statum ante lapsum a statu naturae lapsae; et cum antiqui doctores communius principalem incarnationis rationem a peccato Adami sumerent, multi etiam docebant, quod ante peccatum «sine Mediatore esset devenire in finem, scilicet Deum; ideo sufficiebat regula dirigens in finem, non in Mediatorem. Ad dirigendum vero in finem duo erant necessaria: scire, quod essemus ab ipso, et quod ad ipsum; ideo sufficiebat de Creatore omnium bonorum cum articulo de Remuneratore omnium bonorum. Sed post peccatum non est devenire in finem nisi per Mediatorem; ideo requirebatur regula dirigens in ipsum: oportuit ergo ex tunc, unum esse de Mediatore vel Redemptore articulum» (Pet. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1.). — Idem docet S. Thom., in Comment. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.). Sed in Sum. (II. II. q. 2. a. 7. 8.) ipse cum Scoto tenet, Adam ante peccatum habuisse fidem explicitam incarnationis, quatenus ordinabatur ad consummationem gloriae, non ad liberationem a peccato. — Observatione dignae sunt graves rationes, a nostro Doctore hic contra Naturalismum et Rationalismum allatae. Praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1. 2. — Scot. hic q. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica. — Biel, de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica.

**III.** Respectu seq. (3.) quaestionis notandum, quod recentiores theologi communiter distinguunt credenda necessitate medii et necessitate praecepti; sed inter se controvertunt, utrum etiam necessitate medii post promulgatum Evangelium requiratur fides explicita mysterii Trinitatis et incarnationis. De sententia affirmativa dicit S. Alphonsus (Theolog. Moral. libr. II. n. 2.): «Est communior et videtur probabilior»; sed satis probabilem censet etiam negativam sententiam multorum et insignium theologorum, qui docent, fidem de hoc non nisi implicitam necessitate medii requiri. Ss. Bonav. et Thom. cum aliis antiquis sustinent quidem necessitatem explicite credendi saltem quatuor principales articulos de redemptione, quos Magister (hic c. 3. et cfr. hic dub. 2.) commemorat; sed non loquuntur praecise de necessitate medii; insuper potius respiciunt simplices Christianos, non eos quibus Evangelium non est praedicatum; respectu quorum verba eorum interpretari licet de fide implicita, ut insinuare videtur S. Thom., S., II. II. q. 2. a. 7. ad 3. — De hac (3.) quaestione praeter supra laudatos cfr. S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. 4; S. III. q. 69. a. 4. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In this and the following question, as also in the whole second article, many things are said concerning the explication of faith; which, that they may be more easily understood, it seems fitting to recall certain commonly received distinctions. Just as «something is said to be hidden in two ways: either on the side of the knower, or on the side of the thing known» (below a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.); so also the explication of faith can be considered either on the side of the believer, or on the side of the object believed, that is, of the articles. Concerning the explication of faith taken in the second sense there is inquiry below a. 2. q. 1, namely whether faith grew as to the multitude of things to be believed; concerning the same in the first sense it is treated below a. 2. q. 2. 3. and also, though by another reasoning, in this and the following question. Furthermore, in two ways can someone have faith implicitly: either so that the knowledge of one article is implied in another article explicitly known, just as in universal principles the conclusions of a science are implied; or so that he have a knowledge implied in the knowledge of another who knows, as a disciple with respect to a master, from whom through teaching he can receive knowledge. And St. Thomas well observes (here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4. ad 1.) that in this «it is not the same with science and faith, because there are not innate in us any natural principles to which the articles of faith can be reduced, but the whole determination of faith is in us through teaching; and therefore it is necessary in the knowledge of man to have implicit faith». St. Bonaventure uses this principle with respect to the faith of the simple, here in the body, and q. 3, especially ad 6.

**II.** In this second question St. Bonaventure distinguishes the state before the fall from the state of fallen nature; and since the ancient doctors more commonly took the principal reason of the incarnation from the sin of Adam, many also taught that before sin «there was the attaining of the end, namely God, without a Mediator; therefore a rule directing to the end, not to the Mediator, sufficed. But for directing to the end two things were necessary: to know that we were from him, and that [we were ordered] to him; therefore [the article] concerning the Creator of all good things together with the article concerning the Rewarder of all good things sufficed. But after sin there is no attaining to the end except through the Mediator; therefore a rule directing to him was required: it was necessary therefore from then on that there be an article concerning the Mediator or Redeemer» (Pet. a Tar., here q. 3. a. 1.). — The same St. Thomas teaches in the *Commentary* (here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.). But in the *Summa* (II–II q. 2. a. 7. 8.) he himself with Scotus holds that Adam before sin had explicit faith of the incarnation, insofar as it was ordered to the consummation of glory, not to the liberation from sin. — Worthy of note are the weighty arguments brought forward here by our Doctor against Naturalism and Rationalism. Besides those already cited: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q., *Summa* p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1. 2. — Scotus here q. 1. — B. Albert here a. 2. — Richard of Middleton here a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Durand., on this and the following q., here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following q., here q. unica. — Biel, on this and the following q., here q. unica.

**III.** With respect to the following (third) question it must be noted that more recent theologians commonly distinguish things to be believed by necessity of means and by necessity of precept; but they dispute among themselves whether even by necessity of means, after the Gospel has been promulgated, explicit faith of the mystery of the Trinity and of the incarnation is required. Of the affirmative opinion St. Alphonsus says (*Theologia Moralis* libr. II. n. 2.): «It is more common and seems more probable»; but he judges sufficiently probable also the negative opinion of many and distinguished theologians, who teach that faith of this is required by necessity of means only as implicit. Sts. Bonaventure and Thomas with the other ancients indeed maintain the necessity of explicitly believing at least the four principal articles concerning the redemption, which the Master (here c. 3 and cf. here dub. 2) recalls; but they do not speak precisely of the necessity of means; moreover they rather regard simple Christians, not those to whom the Gospel has not been preached; with respect to whom it is permitted to interpret their words of implicit faith, as St. Thomas seems to insinuate, *Summa* II–II q. 2. a. 7. ad 3. — On this (third) question, besides those cited above, cf. St. Thomas, here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. 4; *Summa* III. q. 69. a. 4. ad 2. — B. Albert, here a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 1. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{539,540,541}-{L,R}-*.png`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 37486–37712). Vol III PDF-priority inversion applied to the cascade-fragmented Respondeo / Solutio bands (pp.540–541) and the SCHOLION (pp.541–542). PDF = printed + 22 (printed p.539 = PDF 561; running head `DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 541` confirmed eyes-on at p.541-R top).

**Alignment check — PASS.** q2's opener reads *Secundo quaeritur de fidei sufficientia quantum ad eos qui praecesserunt adventum Christi, et quaeritur, utrum eis suffecerit ad salutem credere ea tantum, quae spectant ad Divinitatem* — the pre-Christ-believers / Divinity-alone question, matching the title. No q-swap.

**Title verified eyes-on** on p.539 below the QUAESTIO II header: *Utrum eis qui praecesserunt adventum Christi, suffecerit ad salutem credere ea tantum, quae spectant ad Divinitatem.*

**Scholion (3 sections, I–III).** The printed SCHOLION (atop p.542 — running head `[5]42 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` confirms a fresh page after p.541) has three sections: §I (the antecedent distinctions on the *explicatio fidei* — the two senses of "hidden," the two modes of implicit faith, with S. Thomas on science-vs-faith); §II (St. Bonaventure's pre-lapsum / fallen-nature distinction, the ancient doctors' Mediator-article from the sin of Adam, Pet. a Tar. + S. Thomas Comment.-vs-Summa + the anti-Naturalism/Rationalism note + parallel authors); §III (concerns the *following* third question — the necessity-of-means vs necessity-of-precept distinction, S. Alphonsus, and q.3 parallel authors). The scholion uses **inline cross-references only — no superscript footnote markers**. Placed LAST in both language blocks (parser requirement, body-then-scholion). §I–II gloss this q2; §III previews q3.

**Page-split map (pp.539–542):**
- **p.539** = top of both columns finishes q1's scholion §III–IV; QUAESTIO II header (spanning) + title + body opener + args pro 1–3 (L col) / args pro 4–5 (R col; arg 5 breaks at *…non erat de dictamine Le-* / foot).
- **p.540** = arg 5 completes (*…gis naturae*) + arg 6 (L col) + *Contra hoc* + Fundamenta 1–4 (L col); CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (R col; opens *Dicendum, quod… post lapsum Adae nullus salvari potuit* + the implicite/explicite distinction + Hugo de S. Victore quote opener *Haec sunt… unum esse Deum, creatorem omnium et rectorem universorum;* / foot).
- **p.541** = Hugo quote completes + Epilogus (*Sic igitur concedendum est… exclusi sunt a gaudiis paradisi*) + Solutio ad 1 + ad 2 + ad 3 (L col, breaks *…Similiter non opor-*); ad 3 tail + ad 4 + ad 5 + ad 6 (R col; ends *…qui se offert omnibus qui eum requirunt humiliter*).
- **p.542** = SCHOLION §I–III (fresh page; q2 body closed at the foot of p.541-R). p.542's footer band = QUAESTIO III's argument footers (q3 args begin lower p.542) → forwarded to d25-a1-q3.

**Apparatus 21 entries**, NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart (verified eyes-on, both columns each page):
- **p.539 ×5** (`[^p539-1..5]`): n.1 Hebr. 11,6 + *ipsis* variant (arg pro 1) / n.2 supra lit. Magistri d.XXIII + *Deum* supplement (arg pro 2) / n.3 edd. *crediderunt* (arg pro 3) / n.4 Isaiah 63 Gloss + Eph. 3,10/3,9 + Chrysostom homily + *ministerii/sacramenti* variants (arg pro 4) / n.5 Rom. 2,14 + *in Lege/de Lege* edition variants (arg pro 5).
- **p.540 ×9** (`[^p540-1..9]`): n.1 *Nemo potest ad impossibile obligari* rule of law (arg pro 6) / n.2 hic c.1 + supra d.13 (Contra opener) / n.3 supra lit. Magistri d.XXIII + d.18/d.19 (Fundamentum 2) / n.4 supra d.20 (Fundamentum 3) / n.5 Magister d.XXVI on *ex gratia et meritis* (Fundamentum 4) / n.6 hic c.1 + IV.Sent. parent-faith question + *originali* (Respondeo opener) / n.7 John 1,17 + *nunc aliter* + *tunc* variants (*gratia et veritas*) / n.8 the long lit.-Magistri c.2 note on the Vatican/edition recensions of *Implicite credere* (sanctissimis Patribus clause) / n.9 Hugo *de Sacramentis* I. p. X. c. 7 textual note (Hugo quote).
- **p.541 ×7** (`[^p541-1..7]`): n.1 Augustine Epist. 164 on works not referred to true piety (paradise-exclusion clause) / n.2 Alex. Hal. on the *quia est / quia remunerator* principles (ad 1) / n.3 *In fundamento 4* + supra d.24 + *et Mediatoris* error (ad 2) / n.4 IV.Sent. + *sed de fide / significabatur / figuratur* variants (ad 3) / n.5 codd. *bonorum* (ad 4, Beatorum clause) / n.6 II.Sent. d.29 + *posset / famosissimi* variants (ad 5) / n.7 Psalm 144,18 (ad 6 close).

**Footer ownership / hand-offs.**
- IN: **p.539's FULL NOTAE band (nn.1–5) migrated IN from q1** — q1's scholion §I–IV carries no numbered footers (inline cross-refs only), and the d25-a1-q1 hand-off documented that p.539's footer notes are q2's argument footers. Confirmed eyes-on: p.539 L-col nn.1–4 + R-col n.5 all gloss q2's args pro 1–5. Plus all p.540 (nn.1–9) + p.541 (nn.1–7) NOTAE.
- OUT: **p.542's footer band belongs to d25-a1-q3 (QUAESTIO III).** The scholion §I–III carries NO numbered footers; q2 places no `[^p542-N]`. p.542's notes 1–2+ are QUAESTIO III's argument footnotes (*Deuteronomii vigesimo septimo¹*, *Levitici decimo quarto²*, etc.). q2 takes none of p.542's footers.

**Seam.**
- *Open:* QUAESTIO II raw 37486, continuous after q1's scholion §IV close at raw 37485 (*…Durand., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. unica*).
- *Close:* scholion §III ends at raw 37712 (*…Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2.*), immediately before QUAESTIO III header raw 37713.

**No [?] flags.** 450 dpi legible throughout. Running heads OCR digit-mangled (`840`=540 in the L-2 footer band region of p.540, `342`=542 atop the scholion page; `DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 541` clean on p.541) — trusted via the +22 offset and running-head text, not the OCR'd digits.

**HAND-OFF TO d25-a1-q3.** **bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q3** = DISTINCTIO XXV, ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO III — *Utrum omnes teneantur credere omnes articulos explicite post adventum Christi* ("Whether all are bound to believe all the articles explicitly after the advent of Christ"; title verified eyes-on at the QUAESTIO III header). This is the **LAST question of ARTICULUS I** (*De fidei sufficientia*); after it comes **ARTICULUS II QUAEST. I** at raw ~**37873** (running head `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`). `type: quaestio`, `articulus: 1`, `quaestio: 3`, `has_apparatus: true`, apparatus = `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`, **VERIFY `has_scholion` eyes-on** — q2's scholion §III already previews q3 (the necessity-of-means/precept distinction), so q3 may carry NO standalone scholion (check for a *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* footer redirect, or a printed SCHOLION between q3's solutio and ARTICULUS II raw ~37873). **Raw anchors:** QUAESTIO III header raw **37713**; title raw 37714; body opener *Tertio quaeritur de sufficientia fidei quantum ad eos qui adventum Christi sunt subsecuti, et est quaestio, utrum omnes teneantur credere omnes articulos explicite post adventum Christi. Et quod sic, videtur.* raw ~37716; args pro open *1. Deuteronomii vigesimo septimo: praecipitur, quod Lex lucide et aperte scribatur super lapides…* **Body range:** raw 37713 → up to ARTICULUS II QUAEST. I header raw ~**37873** (verify by grep `ARTICULUS`/`QUAESTIO` from 37713). **Page span:** QUAESTIO III args begin lower **p.542** (after the scholion §I–III); runs onto p.543+. pdf = printed + 22. **Footer migration: IN** = p.542's FULL NOTAE band (q2 placed no `[^p542-N]` — the scholion has no footers; p.542's nn.1–2+ gloss q3's args *Et scribes super lapides¹* Deut. 27,8 / *Glossa ex Hesychio²* Levit. 14,10) + all p.543+ NOTAE through the ARTICULUS II boundary, per-page restart. **Footers OUT from q2:** none beyond p.541. Generate `extract-pages.py --volume vol3 --pages 542-5NN --dpi 450` (542 not yet cropped) + `colcrop.py vol3 542…`. Template = `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q1.md` (sibling) or `vol3/bon-sent-III-d24-a1-q3.md` (the no-scholion redirect pattern).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 542 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum omnes teneantur credere omnes articulos explicite post adventum Christi.*

Tertio quaeritur de sufficientia fidei quantum ad eos qui adventum Christi sunt subsecuti, et est quaestio, utrum omnes teneantur credere omnes articulos explicite post adventum Christi. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Deuteronomii vigesimo septimo[^p542-1] praecipitur, quod Lex lucide et aperte scribatur super lapides; et ibi dicit Glossa, quod «laici et simplices sunt lapides»: ergo si Scriptura illa est per cognitionem, videtur, quod laici tenerentur Legem cognoscere lucide et aperte: ergo multo fortius videtur, quod in Novo tenentur cognoscere doctrinam fidei catholicae.

2. Item, Levitici decimo quarto[^p542-2] dicitur de leproso, ut offerat sextarium pro emundatione; ibi Glossa: «Sextarius est verissima fidei confessio, ubi si plus est, effunditur, si minus est, deficit»: ergo videtur ad hoc, quod aliquis possit a peccatis purificari, quod necesse est habere plenam mensuram fidei: ergo videtur, quod omnibus sit necessarium nosse omnes articulos explicite et distincte.

<!-- page 543 -->

3. Item, sicut se habet obedientia respectu praeceptorum, ita fides respectu articulorum; sed non est vera obedientia, nisi obediat omnibus praeceptis: ergo nec vera fides, nisi distincte et explicite assentiat omnibus articulis. Minor probatur per illud quod dicitur ad Galatas quinto[^p543-1]: *Testificor omni homini circumcidenti se, quod sit debitor omnis Legis faciendae*; et Iacobi secundo: *Si totam Legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus.*

4. Item, sicut se habet caritas ad diligibilia[^p543-2], sic se habet fides ad credibilia; sed caritas, quantumcumque sit parva et in quocumque sit, facit amare omne quod est amabile — necessarium est enim cuilibet ad salutem, quod diligat Deum, proximum et se ipsum — ergo pari ratione necessarium est fidei quantumcumque parvae, omnes articulos credere distincte.

5. Item, non vitatur malum nisi cognitum; sed quilibet quantumcumque simplex tenetur vitare errorem contra quemlibet articulum: ergo tenetur scire et credere quemlibet articulum. Quod autem teneatur quilibet vitare errorem contra quemlibet articulum, manifestum est, quoniam, si ignorantia non excusat in agendis, pari ratione videtur, quod nec excusare debeat in credendis[^p543-3]. Esto etiam, quod aliqua simplex et vetula audiat sacerdotem praedicantem errorem et contra aliquem articulum fidei et credat ei; constat, quod ista non excusatur, quia, si ad praedicationem sui sacerdotis committeret adulterium, vel homicidium, nequaquam excusaretur; sed constat, quod illum errorem, quem praedicat sacerdos, vitare non potest, nisi cognoscat, oppositum illius erroris esse verum: redit igitur illud quod prius inferebatur, scilicet quod omnes articulos fidei distincte credere cuilibet sit necessarium.

6. Item, omnes articuli aequaliter arctant ad assentiendum, omnes etiam indifferenter se habent ad hoc, ut per auditum manifestentur[^p543-4]: si ergo aequaliter obligant quantum ad assensum et aequaliter obligant quantum ad auditum, videtur, quod eodem modo omnes articuli se habeant ad fidem credentis: ergo vel omnes tenetur credere, vel nullum. Sed non nullum credere tenetur, quia tenetur credere aliquem: ergo tenetur credere omnes et singulos.

**Contra:** 1. Super illud Ioannis sexto[^p543-5]: *Colligite quae superaverunt fragmenta, ne pereant*; ibi Glossa dicit: «Fragmenta sunt secreta mysteria, quae populus communis capere non potest»: ergo si ista secreta mysteria sunt maxime ea quae spectant ad articulos fidei christianae, videtur, quod populus non teneatur ad ea cognoscenda.

2. Item, ad hoc quod aliquid sciatur scientia demonstrativa, sufficit, quod sciatur in universali, et non oportet, quod sciatur in particulari[^p543-6]: si ergo cognitio fidei contenta est minori certitudine, quam sit certitudo scientiae demonstrativae; videtur, quod non teneatur quis per fidem credere omnes articulos explicite.

3. Item, pauci sunt, nisi sint bene periti in theologia, qui sciant articulos Symbolorum bene distinguere et numerare: si ergo omnes tenerentur omnes[^p543-7] articulos fidei scire distincte et explicite, pauci salvarentur; quod est valde crudele dicere.

4. Item, si omnes tenerentur nunc scire omnes articulos fidei explicite, cum in veteri Testamento non tenerentur, sicut supra[^p543-8] probatum est; videtur, quod multo gravior sit Lex evangelica quam Mosaica: si ergo inconveniens est hoc dicere, restat, quod non tenentur omnes ad credendum singulos articulos explicite et distincte.

### Conclusio.

> Omnes Christiani tenentur credere omnes articulos, et quidem quosdam explicite, quosdam saltem implicite, quod sufficere potest simplicibus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod omnes Christiani post adventum Christi tenentur credere omnes articulos. Hoc autem tripliciter potest esse: aut omnes credere implicite, aut omnes credere explicite, aut quosdam explicite, quosdam implicite. — Credere omnes implicite est fidei diminutae. Non enim suf-

<!-- page 544 -->

ficit modo alicui, qui habet usum rationis, in generali credere Redemptorem et Remuneratorem; adeo enim notitia quorundam articulorum manifesta est, quod nullus habens usum rationis illos[^p544-1] ignoret, nisi omnino negligat et contemnat Dei cultum et salutem suam.

Credere autem quosdam implicite, quosdam explicite, hoc est fidei ad salutem necessariae; potest enim fidei simplicium sufficere. Ad illos enim tenentur explicite credendos, quos manifestat eis non solum praedicatio, sed etiam ecclesiasticus usus et consuetudo: sicut est de Unitate et Trinitate, quam possunt nosse ex ipso actu consignationis, consignant enim se in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti; sicut est de nativitate, passione, resurrectione et peccatorum remissione, quos cognoscere possunt ex ipsis solemnitatibus, quas Ecclesia celebrat, et actibus sacerdotum. Ideo ab horum cognitione et notitia nullus ratione utens excipitur; nec ignorantia excusatur, quia non potest esse talis ignorantia sine negligentia et contemptu. — Alios etiam articulos non ita manifestos tenentur utique credere implicite. Implicite autem voco credere, ut in generali credant universaliter omne quod credit sacrosancta mater Ecclesia, ita quod in particulari a nullo illorum dissentiant nec aliquem articulorum discredant.

Credere autem omnes articulos explicite et distincte est fidei iam provectae. Hoc enim non est de generali fidei necessitate; sed, si necessarium est alicui, illis est necessarium, qui in cognitione fidei profecerunt, et illis potissime, qui fidem aliis explicare et manifestare tenentur, vel etiam qui officium docendi et praedicandi assumunt, sicut sunt habentes curam animarum et praedicatores verbi Dei et doctores sacrae Scripturae et alii, quorum conversatio[^p544-2] versatur circa fidei veritatem. — Hoc tamen non credo esse opportunum omnibus qui salvantur. Multi enim sunt boni simplices, qui, quamvis sint parvae cognitionis, sunt tamen magnae devotionis; et tales pium est credere ad salutem pervenire. — Et propterea concedendum est, quod licet opportunum sit omnibus non solum credere omnes articulos implicite, sed etiam quosdam explicite post adventum Christi; non tamen est necessarium omnibus, maxime simplicibus, credere omnes explicite. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad istam partem.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod super lapides debebat scribi Lex lucide; dicendum, quod illud mandatum non erat datum laicis, sed illis qui debebant eos Legem docere. Unde ex hoc non potest concludi, quod simplices teneantur credere omnes articulos fidei, sed quod illi qui habent curam animarum ipsorum, tenentur fidem manifestare[^p544-3] lucide et aperte.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sextarius fidei consistit in plena confessione ipsius; dicendum, quod sextarius ille, qui significat confessionem fidei, impleri habet plenitudine sufficientiae et plenitudine[^p544-4] copiae. Tunc impletur plenitudine sufficientiae, quando quis omnes articulos credit, ita quod nullum discredit; aliquos tamen credit implicite et aliquos explicite, ita quod in credulitate sua, sive in istis quos credit implicite, sive in his quos credit explicite, nihil addit nec minuit de his quae credit sancta Ecclesia et dicit sancta Scriptura; et hunc sextarium sic impletum debent omnes offerre. Tunc autem est plenitudo copiae, quando quis distincte et explicite novit et credit ea quae spectant ad articulos fidei, et ea quae ad ipsos consequuntur; et haec mensura non est omnium, sed magis capacium.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio et quarto, quod sicut se habet obedientia respectu praeceptorum, et caritas respectu diligendorum, sic et fides respectu credendorum; responderi potest dupliciter: primo dicendo, quod non est simile: quia, cum fides consistat in cognitione[^p544-5], et cognitio potest scire aliquid in universali, ita tamen quod non sciat in particulari, et ita scire uno modo et ignorare alio modo; potest et ipsa fides aliquid credere implicite, quamvis non credat explicite. Non sic autem est de obedientia, quae consistit in mandatorum exsecutione; non enim potest mandatum impleri in universali, quin impleatur in particulari. Similiter ea quae caritas diligit, ita sunt manifesta, quod non possunt latere. — Aliter potest responderi[^p544-6], quod quodam modo sit simile: quia obedientia non tenetur omnia mandata exsequi in opere nisi pro loco et tempore, sed sufficit, quod promptum reddat et voluntarium ad exsequendum omnia, cum fuerit locus et tempus. Similiter nec caritas specialiter diligit unumquemque, sed omnes communiter amplectitur, illum autem specialiter diligit, quem specialiter cognoscit. Ideo ex hoc non potest concludi, quod aliquis per fidem teneatur omnes articulos explicite credere, sed implicite; explicite autem, cum se offert opportunitas, utpote quando aliquis articulus illi praedicatur et explicatur ab eo cui debet credere.

<!-- page 545 -->

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non vitatur malum nisi cognitum; dicendum, quod verum est. Sed cognitum potest esse aliquid dupliciter: vel in se, vel in alio[^p545-1]; et secundum hunc duplicem modum potest aliquis vitare malum, vel per notitiam propriam, vel per notitiam alienam. Ille autem, qui habet fidem implicitam de aliquo articulo, quamvis errorem contra illum articulum non possit omnino vitare per notitiam propriam, potest tamen vitare per notitiam alienam: innititur enim his qui credunt articulos explicite. Unde aliquis simplex homo vel vetula, cum audit aliquid novum praedicari, non debet statim assentire, quousque noverit, illud universaliter ab Ecclesia teneri. Unde praeter remedium divinae inspirationis et orationis, ad quod semper recurrendum est, habent simplices remedium humanae instructionis, ad quod possunt confugere[^p545-2], ut errores valeant declinare. Semper enim Deus habuit et habebit aliquos iustos et famosos, qui veritatem fidei non solum in se, sed etiam in simplicibus conservarent, dum simplices innituntur eis et credunt.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod omnes articuli se habent aequaliter ad assensum et auditum; dicendum, quod etsi indifferenter se habeant omnes articuli ad ipsam fidem quantum ad assendi promptitudinem, non tamen aequaliter se habent quantum ad instructionem. Quod enim frequentius versatur ante oculos et in auribus rudium et simplicium melius ab illis capitur et retinetur; et aliqui articuli sunt huiusmodi, qui ita frequentantur, sicut est de nativitate Christi et passione et similibus, quod non possunt ignorari sine culpa negligentiae[^p545-3]. Non sic autem est de omnibus aliis, et ideo non oportet, omnes aequaliter explicite credi. Quamvis enim habitus fidei sit per infusionem, explicatio tamen est per doctrinam et instructionem, ad quam non omnes articuli se habent uniformiter[^p545-4].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether all are bound to believe all the articles explicitly after the advent of Christ.*

Thirdly there is inquiry concerning the sufficiency of faith as to those who came after the advent of Christ, and the question is whether all are bound to believe all the articles explicitly after the advent of Christ. And that it is so, it seems.

1. In Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-seven[^p542-1], it is commanded that the Law be written clearly and openly upon stones; and there the Gloss says that «the laity and the simple are the stones»: therefore if that Scripture is through knowledge, it seems that the laity were bound to know the Law clearly and openly: therefore much more strongly does it seem that under the New [Testament] they are bound to know the doctrine of the catholic faith.

2. Likewise, in Leviticus, chapter fourteen[^p542-2], it is said of the leper that he should offer a *sextarius* for [his] cleansing; there the Gloss: «The *sextarius* is the most true confession of faith, where if there is more, it is poured out, if there is less, it falls short»: therefore it seems, in order that someone be able to be purified from sins, that it is necessary to have the full measure of faith: therefore it seems that it is necessary for all to know all the articles explicitly and distinctly.

3. Likewise, as obedience stands with respect to the precepts, so faith [stands] with respect to the articles; but there is no true obedience unless one obey all the precepts: therefore neither [is there] true faith unless one assent distinctly and explicitly to all the articles. The minor [premise] is proved through that which is said to the Galatians, chapter five[^p543-1]: *I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law*; and James, chapter two: *If he should keep the whole Law, but offend in one [point], he is made guilty of all.*

4. Likewise, as charity stands toward the things to be loved[^p543-2], so faith stands toward the things to be believed; but charity, however small it be and in whomsoever it be, makes one love everything that is lovable — for it is necessary for everyone for salvation that he love God, neighbor, and himself — therefore by parity of reasoning it is necessary for faith, however small, to believe all the articles distinctly.

5. Likewise, an evil is not avoided unless [it is] known; but everyone, however simple, is bound to avoid error against every article: therefore he is bound to know and believe every article. And that everyone is bound to avoid error against every article is manifest, since, if ignorance does not excuse in things to be done, by parity of reasoning it seems that neither ought it to excuse in things to be believed[^p543-3]. Granted even that some simple old woman should hear a priest preaching an error also against some article of faith and believe him; it is agreed that she is not excused, because, if at the preaching of her priest she were to commit adultery or homicide, she would in no way be excused; but it is agreed that she cannot avoid that error which the priest preaches unless she know that the opposite of that error is true: therefore that returns which was inferred before, namely that it is necessary for everyone to believe all the articles of faith distinctly.

6. Likewise, all the articles equally constrain to assent, all also stand indifferently to this, that they be made manifest through hearing[^p543-4]: if therefore they equally oblige as to assent and equally oblige as to hearing, it seems that in the same way all the articles stand toward the faith of the believer: therefore either he is bound to believe all, or none. But he is not bound to believe none, because he is bound to believe some: therefore he is bound to believe all and each.

**On the contrary:** 1. Upon that [text] of John, chapter six[^p543-5]: *Gather up the fragments that have remained over, lest they perish*; there the Gloss says: «The fragments are the secret mysteries which the common people cannot grasp»: therefore if those secret mysteries are especially those things which pertain to the articles of the Christian faith, it seems that the people are not bound to know them.

2. Likewise, in order that something be known by demonstrative science, it suffices that it be known in the universal, and it is not necessary that it be known in the particular[^p543-6]: if therefore the cognition of faith is content with a lesser certitude than is the certitude of demonstrative science; it seems that one is not bound through faith to believe all the articles explicitly.

3. Likewise, few there are, unless they be well skilled in theology, who know how to distinguish and number the articles of the Creeds well: if therefore all were bound to know all[^p543-7] the articles of faith distinctly and explicitly, few would be saved; which is very cruel to say.

4. Likewise, if all were now bound to know all the articles of faith explicitly, whereas in the Old Testament they were not bound [to do so], as was proved above[^p543-8]; it seems that the evangelical Law is much heavier than the Mosaic: if therefore it is unfitting to say this, it remains that all are not bound to believe each article explicitly and distinctly.

### Conclusion.

> All Christians are bound to believe all the articles, and indeed some explicitly, some at least implicitly, which can suffice for the simple.

**I respond:** It must be said that all Christians after the advent of Christ are bound to believe all the articles. But this can be in three ways: either to believe all implicitly, or to believe all explicitly, or [to believe] some explicitly, some implicitly. — To believe all implicitly is [the mark] of a diminished faith. For it does not now suf-

fice for anyone who has the use of reason to believe in general in a Redeemer and a Rewarder; for the knowledge of certain articles is so manifest that no one having the use of reason is ignorant of them[^p544-1], unless he altogether neglect and despise the worship of God and his own salvation.

But to believe some implicitly, some explicitly, this is [the mark] of a faith necessary for salvation; for it can suffice for the faith of the simple. For they are bound to believe explicitly those [articles] which not only preaching makes manifest to them, but also ecclesiastical usage and custom: as concerning the Unity and the Trinity, which they can know from the very act of signing [themselves], for they sign themselves in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; as concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, and the remission of sins, which they can know from the very solemnities which the Church celebrates and from the acts of the priests. Therefore from the knowledge and notice of these no one using reason is excepted; nor is ignorance excused, because there cannot be such ignorance without negligence and contempt. — Other articles too, not so manifest, they are indeed bound to believe implicitly. And I call [it] to believe implicitly, that they believe in general universally everything that holy mother Church believes, so that in particular they dissent from none of them nor disbelieve any of the articles.

But to believe all the articles explicitly and distinctly is [the mark] of a faith already advanced. For this is not of the general necessity of faith; but, if it is necessary for anyone, it is necessary for those who have advanced in the knowledge of faith, and most of all for those who are bound to explain and make faith manifest to others, or also for those who take up the office of teaching and preaching, such as those having the care of souls and the preachers of the word of God and the doctors of sacred Scripture and others whose manner of life[^p544-2] is occupied about the truth of faith. — Yet this I do not believe to be fitting for all who are saved. For there are many good simple people who, although they are of small knowledge, are nevertheless of great devotion; and of such it is pious to believe that they attain to salvation. — And therefore it must be granted that, although it is fitting for all not only to believe all the articles implicitly, but also some explicitly after the advent of Christ; nevertheless it is not necessary for all, especially for the simple, to believe all explicitly. — Hence the reasons which are on that side are to be granted.

1. But to that which is first objected on the contrary, that the Law ought to be written upon the stones clearly; it must be said that that command was not given to the laity, but to those who were to teach them the Law. Hence from this it cannot be concluded that the simple are bound to believe all the articles of faith, but that those who have the care of their souls are bound to make faith manifest[^p544-3] clearly and openly.

2. To that which is objected, that the *sextarius* of faith consists in the full confession of it; it must be said that that *sextarius*, which signifies the confession of faith, has to be filled with the fullness of sufficiency and the fullness[^p544-4] of abundance. It is filled with the fullness of sufficiency when someone believes all the articles, so that he disbelieves none; some, however, he believes implicitly and some explicitly, so that in his belief, whether in those which he believes implicitly, or in those which he believes explicitly, he adds nothing nor takes away from those things which holy Church believes and holy Scripture says; and this *sextarius* thus filled all ought to offer. But it is the fullness of abundance when someone distinctly and explicitly knows and believes those things which pertain to the articles of faith, and those things which follow from them; and this measure is not of all, but rather of the more capable.

3. 4. To that which is objected thirdly and fourthly, that as obedience stands with respect to the precepts, and charity with respect to the things to be loved, so faith too [stands] with respect to the things to be believed; it can be answered in two ways: first by saying that it is not similar: because, since faith consists in cognition[^p544-5], and cognition can know something in the universal, yet so that it does not know [it] in the particular, and thus know in one way and be ignorant in another way; faith too can believe something implicitly, although it does not believe explicitly. But it is not so with obedience, which consists in the execution of commands; for a command cannot be fulfilled in the universal without its being fulfilled in the particular. Likewise those things which charity loves are so manifest that they cannot be hidden. — Otherwise it can be answered[^p544-6] that in a certain way it is similar: because obedience is not bound to execute all commands in deed except according to place and time, but it suffices that it render [a person] prompt and willing to execute all, when there shall be place and time. Likewise neither does charity love each one specially, but embraces all in common, while it loves specially him whom it knows specially. Therefore from this it cannot be concluded that someone is bound through faith to believe all the articles explicitly, but [only] implicitly; explicitly, however, when the opportunity offers itself, namely when some article is preached and explained to him by one whom he ought to believe.

5. To that which is objected, that an evil is not avoided unless [it is] known; it must be said that this is true. But something can be known in two ways: either in itself, or in another[^p545-1]; and according to this twofold mode someone can avoid an evil, either through his own knowledge, or through another's knowledge. But he who has implicit faith concerning some article, although he cannot altogether avoid error against that article through his own knowledge, can nevertheless avoid [it] through another's knowledge: for he leans upon those who believe the articles explicitly. Hence some simple man or old woman, when he hears something new preached, ought not at once to assent, until he know that it is universally held by the Church. Hence besides the remedy of divine inspiration and prayer, to which recourse must always be had, the simple have the remedy of human instruction, to which they can have recourse[^p545-2], that they may be able to turn aside errors. For God always had and will have certain just and renowned [men] who preserve the truth of faith not only in themselves, but also in the simple, while the simple lean upon them and believe.

6. To that which is objected last, that all the articles stand equally toward assent and hearing; it must be said that, even if all the articles stand indifferently toward faith itself as to the readiness of assenting, nevertheless they do not stand equally as to instruction. For what is more frequently before the eyes and in the ears of the untrained and the simple is better grasped and retained by them; and certain articles are of this kind, which are so frequented — as concerning the nativity of Christ and the passion and the like — that they cannot be ignored without the fault of negligence[^p545-3]. But it is not so concerning all the others, and therefore it is not necessary that all be equally believed explicitly. For although the habit of faith is by infusion, the explication nevertheless is by teaching and instruction, toward which not all the articles stand uniformly[^p545-4].

---

la: Vers. 8: *Et scribes super lapides omnia verba Legis huius plane et lucide.* — Verba Glossae, quae ordinaria est et sumta ex Isidori exposit. in Iosue, c. 9, secundum Rabanum sic sonant: «Omnes ergo, qui in Christum Iesum credunt, lapides dicuntur vivi. De quibus ait Apostolus (I. Petr. 2, 5.): *Vos estis lapides vivi aedificati, domus spiritualis*». Fere eadem verba habentur apud Lyranum in Glossa interlineari super Iosue 8, 31. seq. (ubi ad locum illum e Deuteronomio allegatum spectatur). — Paulo inferius pro *tenerentur* codd. Z bb *teneantur*, edd. *tenentur*. Mox post *in Novo* edd. cum paucis codd. supplent *Testamento*.

en: Verse 8: *And you shall write upon the stones all the words of this Law plainly and clearly.* — The words of the Gloss, which is the ordinary [Gloss] and taken from Isidore's exposition on Joshua, c. 9, according to Rabanus run thus: «All therefore who believe in Christ Jesus are called living stones. Of whom the Apostle says (1 Pet. 2, 5): *You are living stones built up, a spiritual house*». Almost the same words are had in Lyra in the interlinear Gloss on Joshua 8, 31 seq. (where the passage there cited from Deuteronomy is regarded). — A little below, for *tenerentur* codices Z bb [read] *teneantur*, the editions *tenentur*. Soon after *in Novo* the editions with a few codices supply *Testamento*.

la: Vers. 10. — Glossa, quae ex Hesychio, in hunc loc. sumta est, apud Strabum, qui eam ut ordinariam exhibet, sic sonat: *Olei sextarium: quia fide intelligitur et agitur unumquodque praedictorum. Sextarius namque mensura est* [Isidor., XVI. Etymol. c. 26. n. 6: *Sextarius duarum librarum est*] *nec plus nec minus capietis; quod enim plus est, effunditur; si minus est, non est sextarius. Sic fides ad mentis nostrae mensuram datur nec capit plus aut minus, quam a Deo distribuitur; quod enim plus est, aut minus, extra fidem est.* — Pro *effunditur* edd. *effundit*.

en: Verse 10. — The Gloss, which is taken from Hesychius onto this passage, in Strabo, who presents it as the ordinary [Gloss], runs thus: *A sextarius of oil: because by faith each of the foresaid is understood and done. For a sextarius is a measure* [Isidore, *Etymologies* XVI, c. 26, n. 6: *A sextarius is of two pounds*] *— you shall take neither more nor less; for what is more is poured out; if it is less, it is not a sextarius. Thus faith is given according to the measure of our mind and takes neither more nor less than is distributed by God; for what is more, or less, is outside of faith.* — For *effunditur* the editions [read] *effundit*.

la: Vers. 3: *Testificor autem rursus omni homini circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae Legis faciendae.* — Seq. Script. locus est Iac. 2, 10: *Quicumque autem totam Legem* etc.

en: Verse 3: *But I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.* — The following Scripture passage is James 2, 10: *But whosoever [shall keep] the whole Law*, etc.

la: Cfr. Marc. 12, 29. seqq. — In maiori pro *diligibilia* edd. *diligenda*.

en: Cf. Mark 12, 29 ff. — In the major [premise], for *diligibilia* ["things to be loved"] the editions [read] *diligenda*.

la: Secundum quod August., Enchirid. c. 17. n. 5, dicit, quod «error, quanta possumus cura, cavendus sit non solum in maioribus, verum etiam in minoribus rebus». Et in Regula 13. iuris (in fine V. Sexti Decret.) proponuntur haec: *Ignorantia facti, non iuris excusat.* — Mox post *simplex* edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt *et*. Circa finem arg. pro *redit igitur illud* codd. A U *redit igitur idem*.

en: According as Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 17. n. 5, says, that «error, with as much care as we can, is to be guarded against not only in greater, but also in lesser matters». And in the 13th rule of law (at the end of book V of the Sext) these things are set down: *Ignorance of fact, not of law, excuses.* — Soon after *simplex* the editions with some codices omit *et*. Near the end of the argument, for *redit igitur illud* codices A U [read] *redit igitur idem*.

la: In maiori pro *ad hoc quod* cod. Z *esto quod*. — De minori cfr. supra d. 23. a. I. q. 1.

en: In the major [premise], for *ad hoc quod* codex Z [reads] *esto quod*. — On the minor [premise] cf. above, d. 23. a. 1. q. 1.

la: Vers. 12. — Glossa non quidem ad verbum, sed sententialiter apud Lyranum habetur ut ordinaria et ut interlinearis; delibata et formata esse videtur ex Bedae exposit. in Script. loc. cit. Cfr. Beda, in Matth. 14, 20. et Marc. 6, 43. — Pro *superaverunt* codd. partim cum edd. 1, 2 *superfuerunt*, partim *supersunt*.

en: Verse 12. — The Gloss, not indeed to the letter, but according to the sense, is had in Lyra as the ordinary [Gloss] and as the interlinear; it seems to be drawn and formed from Bede's exposition on the Scripture passage cited. Cf. Bede, on Matthew 14, 20, and Mark 6, 43. — For *superaverunt* the codices, partly with editions 1, 2, [read] *superfuerunt*, partly *supersunt*.

la: Aristot., I. Poster. c. 10. (c. 13.): *Hi enim* [mathematici] *habent causarum demonstrationes et frequenter nesciunt ipsum quia* [cfr. supra pag. 321, nota 8.], *sicut illi universale considerantes saepe quaedam singularia nesciunt, propter id quod non intendunt.* Et I. Metaph. c. 2: *Opinamur, sapientem maxime omnia, ut possibile est, scire, non habentem singulariter eorum scientiam.* — De minori cfr. supra d. 23. a. I. q. 4. — In maiori pro *ad hoc quod* cod. Z *esto quod*.

en: Aristotle, *Posterior [Analytics]* I, c. 10 (c. 13): *For these* [the mathematicians] *have demonstrations of the causes and frequently do not know the very* "that" [cf. above, p. 321, note 8], *just as those considering the universal often do not know certain singulars, on account of the fact that they do not attend [to them].* And *Metaphysics* I, c. 2: *We are of opinion that the wise man, as much as is possible, knows all things, [though] not having the knowledge of them singly.* — On the minor [premise] cf. above, d. 23. a. 1. q. 4. — In the major [premise], for *ad hoc quod* codex Z [reads] *esto quod*.

la: Codd. GHIL V Z aa omittunt *omnes*; edd. voci *omnes* praemittunt *nunc* et paulo ante pro *Symbolorum* substituunt *Symboli*.

en: Codices GHIL V Z aa omit *omnes* ["all"]; the editions prefix *nunc* ["now"] to the word *omnes*, and a little before, for *Symbolorum* [read] *Symboli*.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Ex Vat. retinuimus *illos*, quam voculam codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 male omittunt. Paulo inferius pro *hoc est fidei ad salutem necessariae* edd. *hoc est ad fidei salutem necessarium* et subinde *Ad illos autem* pro *Ad illos enim*. Mox pro *credendos* codd. L aa *credentes*.

en: From the Vatican [edition] we have retained *illos*, which little word the codices and also editions 1, 2 wrongly omit. A little below, for *hoc est fidei ad salutem necessariae* the editions [read] *hoc est ad fidei salutem necessarium* and thereupon *Ad illos autem* for *Ad illos enim*. Soon, for *credendos* codices L aa [read] *credentes*.

la: Cod. A *intentio*.

en: Codex A [reads] *intentio* ["intention"].

la: Edd. *tenentur credere et scire fidem* [Vat. adiicit *et ipsam*] *manifestare*.

en: The editions [read] *tenentur credere et scire fidem* [the Vatican adds *et ipsam*] *manifestare* ("are bound to believe and to know how to make faith [itself] manifest").

la: Edd. 1, 2 cum nonnullis codd. pro *plenitudine* hic et proxime ante *plenitudinem*, et paulo superius pro *impleri* dictae edd. solae *in plurali*. Aliquanto inferius cod. V omittit *sic impletum*, et mox plurimi codd. omittunt *quis* post *quando*.

en: Editions 1, 2 with some codices, for *plenitudine* here and immediately before, [read] *plenitudinem*, and a little above, for *impleri*, the said editions alone [read it] *in the plural*. Somewhat below, codex V omits *sic impletum*, and soon very many codices omit *quis* after *quando*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 23. a. I. q. 2.

la: Cod. Z hic subiicit *animum* et paulo superius pro *Aliter potest* [edd. addunt *etiam*] substituit *Aliter posset*.

en: Codex Z here adds *animum* ["the mind"], and a little above, for *Aliter potest* [the editions add *etiam*] substitutes *Aliter posset*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. circa finem corp., ubi de diversis modis cognoscendi Deum agitur.

en: See II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3, near the end of the body [of the article], where the diverse modes of knowing God are treated.

la: Cod. A *refugere* et mox pro *et habebit* cum cod. K *et habet*.

en: Codex A [reads] *refugere* ["flee back"], and soon, for *et habebit* with codex K [reads] *et habet* ("and has").

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Pro *quod non possunt* cod. A *quae non possunt*.

en: Cf. above, d. 9. a. 1. q. 2, in the body. — For *quod non possunt* ["which cannot"] codex A [reads] *quae non possunt* ["which [things] cannot"].

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. dub. 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. above, d. 24, dubium 2. — See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{542,543,544,545}-{L,R}-*.png`) over the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 37713–37902). Vol III PDF-priority inversion applied to the cascade-fragmented Respondeo / Solutio bands (pp.544–545). pdf = printed + 22 (printed p.542 = PDF 564). Running heads confirmed eyes-on: `DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 543` (p.543), `544` (p.544), `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 545` (p.545, the page on which q3 ends in the L column and ART. II begins). Template = `vol3/bon-sent-III-d24-a1-q3.md` (the no-scholion *Vide scholion* redirect pattern) and `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q2.md`.

**Alignment check — PASS.** q3's opener reads *Tertio quaeritur de sufficientia fidei quantum ad eos qui adventum Christi sunt subsecuti, et est quaestio, utrum omnes teneantur credere omnes articulos explicite post adventum Christi. Et quod sic, videtur.* — the post-Christ / believe-all-articles-explicitly question, matching the title. No q-swap.

**Title verified eyes-on** on p.542 (bottom of L column, below the QUAESTIO III header): *Utrum omnes teneantur credere omnes articulos explicite post adventum Christi.*

**Scholion disposition — NONE OF ITS OWN (redirect).** Verified on the PDF: there is NO standalone SCHOLION header anywhere in q3's range (raw 37713→37902); after q3's ad 6 (*…ad quam non omnes articuli se habent uniformiter*) the L column of p.545 runs straight into the ARTICULUS II header. Decisive confirmation: p.543 footnote **8** reads *Quaest. praeced.* ("The preceding question") — the redirect equivalent of `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`; q3 is glossed by q2's scholion, whose §III already previews this q3 (the *necessitate medii / necessitate praecepti* distinction + S. Alphonsus + the q3 parallel authors). Hence `has_scholion: false`. With q3 done, **ARTICULUS I (*De fidei sufficientia*) is COMPLETE — 3 questions (q1, q2, q3).**

**Page-split map (pp.542–545):**
- **p.542** = top of both columns finishes q2's SCHOLION §I–III (which prints atop this page; it belongs to q2 and carries no numbered footers). QUAESTIO III header + title + body opener begin at the FOOT of the L column; arg 1 (Deut. 27,8) continues into the R column, arg 2 (Levit. 14,10) finishes the R column. Footers: nn.1–2 (L n.1, R n.2), both q3's.
- **p.543** = args 3–6 (L col) + *Contra* 1–3 (R col, args begin) → *Contra* 4 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opener *Dicendum, quod omnes Christiani post adventum Christi tenentur credere omnes articulos… Credere omnes implicite est fidei diminutae. Non enim suf-* / foot. Footers nn.1–8 (L nn.1–5, R nn.6–8); **n.8 = *Quaest. praeced.* redirect**.
- **p.544** = Respondeo completes (Conclusio 3 + Conclusio 4 + Epilogus) + Solutio ad 1 opener (L col); ad 1 finishes + ad 2 + ad 3.4 (Solutio 1 + Solutio 2, R col), ending *…ab eo cui debet credere.* Footers nn.1–6 (L nn.1–3, R nn.4–6).
- **p.545** = Solutio ad 5 (L col) + ad 6 (R col), q3 ending *…ad quam non omnes articuli se habent uniformiter*; then ARTICULUS II + its QUAEST. I begin (L bottom + R column). Footers: **nn.1–4 are q3's** — n.1 (*in alio* / II.Sent. d.23), n.2 (*confugere/refugere*, *et habebit/et habet*), n.3 (*negligentiae*: d.9 a.1 q.2 + *quod/quae non possunt*), n.4 (*uniformiter*: d.24 dub.2 + *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*); nn.5–10 belong to d25-a2-q1.

**Apparatus 20 entries**, NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart (verified eyes-on, both columns each page): **p.542 ×2** (`[^p542-1..2]`) + **p.543 ×8** (`[^p543-1..8]`; n.8 = the *Quaest. praeced.* scholion-redirect) + **p.544 ×6** (`[^p544-1..6]`) + **p.545 ×4** (`[^p545-1..4]`; q3's share of the shared page — nn.1–2 gloss ad-5 *in alio* / *confugere*, nn.3–4 gloss ad-6 *negligentiae* / *uniformiter*). **Cross-chunk footer-split repair (2026-06-10):** p.545 nn.3–4 were originally mis-assigned to d25-a2-q1 in this Notes block; eyes-on the 450 dpi R-column footer band shows their markers ³⁴ sit in q3's ad-6 (*…sine culpa negligentiae³* and *…se habent uniformiter⁴*), so they are q3's. Backfilled here.

**Footer ownership / hand-offs.**
- IN: **p.542's FULL NOTAE band (nn.1–2) migrated IN from q2** — q2's scholion §I–III (printed atop p.542) carries no numbered footers (inline cross-refs only); the d25-a1-q2 hand-off documented that p.542's footer notes are q3's argument footers. Confirmed eyes-on: p.542 nn.1–2 gloss q3's args pro 1–2 (Deut. 27,8 / Levit. 14,10). Plus all p.543 (nn.1–8) + p.544 (nn.1–6) NOTAE.
- OUT to **d25-a2-q1**: **p.545's footer band splits by body anchor** — q3 keeps nn.1–4 (ad-5 *in alio* / *confugere*; ad-6 *negligentiae* / *uniformiter*); nn.5–10 (*cognitionis/assensus* / *Nomen unum, Adonai* / …) gloss ARTICULUS II's QUAEST. I args, forwarded to d25-a2-q1.

**Seam.**
- *Open:* QUAESTIO III header raw 37713, continuous after q2's scholion §III close at raw 37712 (*…Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2.*).
- *Close:* q3's ad 6 ends raw 37902 (*…ad quam non omnes articuli se habent uniformiter*), immediately before the ARTICULUS II header raw 37903.

**No [?] flags.** 450 dpi legible throughout. Running heads OCR digit-mangled in the raw (`M3`/`343`=543, `344`=544, `545` clean) — trusted via the +22 offset and running-head text, never the OCR'd digits, per the Vol III convention.

**HAND-OFF TO d25-a2-q1.** **bon-sent-III-d25-a2-q1** = DISTINCTIO XXV, **ARTICULUS II** (*De profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum* — "On the progress of faith according to the diversity of times"), **QUAESTIO I** — *Utrum fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem* ("Whether faith grew as to the multitude of things to be believed"; title verified eyes-on at the QUAESTIO I header). `type: quaestio`, `articulus: 2`, `quaestio: 1`, `has_apparatus: true`, apparatus = `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`. **The ARTICULUS II opener folds into q1** (Vol II/III convention): the short rubric *Consequenter quaeritur de profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem; Secundo, utrum creverit quantum ad luminis plenitudinem; Tertio quaeritur, utrum profecerit quantum ad cognitionis certitudinem* prefaces q1 — NO standalone divisio chunk. **Raw anchors:** ARTICULUS II header raw **37903**; rubric/theme raw 37905; QUAESTIO I header raw **37913**; q1 title raw 37914 (*Utrum fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem*); q1 body opener *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum fides creverit vel profecerit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Exodi sexto: Nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis…* raw ~37915. **Next boundary:** grep `QUAESTIO|ARTICULUS` from 37913 ahead to fix the QUAESTIO II anchor (Art. II q2 = *utrum creverit quantum ad luminis plenitudinem*). **Page span:** q1 begins lower **p.545** (PDF 567) — ARTICULUS II + q1 open in the L column (after q3 closes) and the whole R column of p.545; runs onto p.546+. pdf = printed + 22. **Footer migration: IN** = p.545's nn.5–10 (q3 owns nn.1–4; n.5 *Pro cognitionis cod. Z assensus* / n.6 *Vers. 3. Codd. … Nomen unum, Adonai* / nn.7–10 in the R column) + all p.546+ NOTAE, per-page restart. **Footers OUT from q3:** none beyond p.545 n.4 (q3's footer share on p.545 = nn.1–4). **VERIFY `has_scholion` eyes-on** for q1 — read the PDF band between q1's solutio and Art. II q2 for a printed SCHOLION header or a *Vide scholion* footer redirect. Generate `extract-pages.py --volume vol3 --pages 545-5NN --dpi 450` (545 already cropped) + `colcrop.py vol3 546…`. Template = `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q1.md` (the ARTICULUS-opener-folds-into-q1 pattern).

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