title: Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 154 -->

### ARTICULUS III.

*De conversione bonorum Angelorum.*

Consequenter tertio loco quaeritur de conversione bonorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur de ipsa conversione in comparatione ad suum principium. Secundo quaeritur de eadem in comparatione ad praemium.

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum conversio bonorum Angelorum fuerit virtute naturae, vel auxilio gratiae.*

Quaeritur igitur primo, utrum conversio bonorum[^1] Angelorum ad Deum fuerit virtute naturae, vel auxilio gratiae. Et quod virtute naturae, videtur:

1. Primo auctoritate Magistri in littera[^2]: «Non indigebat Angelus gratia, per quam iustificaretur», ergo iustus erat etiam praeter gratiam; sed qui iustus est recte et ordinate convertitur ad fontem omnis iustitiae: ergo videtur, quod hoc potuerint Angeli sine auxilio gratiae.

2. Item, Philosophus in tertio de Anima[^3]: «Intellectus semper est rectus»; sed hoc non esset, nisi rectitudo esset ei connaturalis: ergo Angeli intellectus vere et proprie de natura sua erat rectus. Sed nullus est rectus, nisi is qui sursum est conversus et qui habet caput mentis erectum ad divina: ergo videtur, quod hoc habuerit per naturam.

3. Item, facilius potest quis illud ad quod naturaliter ordinatur, quam illud ad quod non ordinatur; sed Angelus erat ordinatus ad Deum magis quam ad aliud, et natura erat ordinata in ipso: ergo cum sine aliquo adiutorio posset converti ad bonum commutabile et averti a Deo, multo fortius absque auxilio aliquo potest converti ad ipsum.

4. Item, naturale est alicui converti ad illud quod naturaliter magis diligit; sed Angelus naturali dilectione magis diligebat Deum quam aliquod creatum, ut in praecedentibus est habitum[^4]: ergo videtur, quod naturaliter converteretur ad ipsum.

5. Item, simus in instanti conversionis et aversionis; nulla est differentia inter Angelos ante hoc instans; si ergo aliqua incipit esse differentia, hoc est[^5] aversione et conversione: ergo prior est aversio et conversio quam gratiae infusio: ergo conversio non potuit esse a gratia.

6. Item, si conversio fuisset a gratia et non a natura, ergo illis Angelis, qui nunquam habuerunt gratiam, sed sola naturalia, non esset imputandum, quod ad Deum non sunt conversi: ergo nec diabolus esset culpandus nec puniendus, quod Domino non adhaesit.

Ad oppositum arguitur primo *auctoritate* et postea *demonstratione*[^6].

1. *Auctoritate* sic. Magister dicit in littera[^7]: «Conversio iustos fecit, sed aversio iniustos»; sed nihil facit iustum, nisi sit gratuitum: ergo conversio fuit a gratia. *Si dicas,* quod intelligit de iustitia naturali; hoc nihil est, quia illam habebant omnes Angeli a sua origine.

2. Item, conversio creaturae spiritualis ad Deum, ut dicit Augustinus[^8], est *dies,* quia ibi est fulgor cognitionis et calor affectionis; sed per naturam lux praecedit diem: cum ergo Angelus non sit lux nisi <!-- page 155 -->per informationem gratiae, prius suscepit gratiam, quam converteretur ad bonitatem divinam.

3. Item, non est meritum sine gratia, sicut melius patet infra[^9], quia non hominem propter opus, sed opus propter auctorem acceptat Deus; sed Angeli in sua conversione meruerunt, sicut alii in aversione demeruerunt: ergo etc.

4. Item, si per sola naturalia fuisset conversio, cum ergo in naturalibus praecelleret lucifer, potius videtur, quod ipse esset conversus quam alii. Si ergo non fuit conversus, non a virtute naturae fuit illa conversio, sed magis ab auxilio gratiae.

### Conclusio.

> Conversio bonorum Angelorum non potuit esse sine gratia.

**Respondeo:** Ad intelligentiam obiectorum praenotandum est, quod in conversione ad Deum attenditur rectitudo substantiae spiritualis quantum ad eius *mentem,* maxime ratione partis *motivae*[^10]; nec potest esse recta, nisi actu vel habitu sit ad Deum conversa. Quemadmodum igitur duplex est *rectitudo,* sic duplex est *conversio.* Est enim quaedam rectitudo *naturae institutae,* et penes hanc est iustitia originalis; et est rectitudo *gratiae,* et penes hanc est iustitia meritoria, quam acceptat iudex summus ad retributionem aeternam. Et quia videt in ea pulcritudinem gratiae, merito eius[^11] animam traducit in sponsam, et opera eius sunt ipsi amabilia. — Sic intelligendum est, quod duplex est *conversio,* quaedam a *naturali* rectitudine, quaedam a rectitudine *gratiae.* Primam potuerunt habere Angeli absque gratia, sed secundam non sine gratia.

Quando igitur quaeritur, a quo principio fuerit illa conversio; dicendum est, quod[^12] illa conversio fuit meritoria et Deo placita; et ideo non potuit esse sine gratia. *Rursus,* quia per illam conversionem obtinuerunt gratiam, oportet ponere, quod conversionem illam inchoaverit voluntas libera, sed consummaverit gratia; et ideo fuit ibi gratia *subsequens,* non *praeveniens;* gratia *cooperans,* non *operans,* ut dicit Magister in littera[^13]. — Concedendum est ergo, quod illa Angelorum conversio, in qua confirmati sunt, non fuit sine gratiae auxilio.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non indigebat Angelus gratia iustificante; dicendum, quod iustificationis actus dupliciter intelligitur. Est enim *iustificare* de non-iusto facere iustum. *Non-iustum* autem dupliciter accipitur, scilicet privative et negative. Privative idem est *non-iustum,* quod *iniustum,* et tunc *iustificare* idem est quod de impio facere pium; et hoc modo non fuit gratia in Angelis ad hunc effectum. Alio modo dicitur *non-iustum* negative, et sic non tantum dicitur *non-iustum* quod habet *impietatem,* sed quod non habet *iustitiam gratiae;* et sic fuit in Angelis iustificatio per gratiam, et ab hac iustitia fuerunt opera eorum meritoria[^14].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod intellectus semper est rectus; iam patet responsio: nam intelligit de rectitudine naturali. Illud tamen verbum Philosophi debet intelligi, ut dicatur *semper esse rectus* respectu illorum ad quae movetur ut *natura* sive naturaliter; et sic nos dicimus in theologia synderesim semper rectam[^15]. Si autem intelligatur respectu eorum in quae movetur ut *deliberans,* falsum est; immo, circumscripto omni imaginabili et phantasmate, posset intellectus peccare sive praevaricari, sicut forte fecit angelicus.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod facilius potest quis in id ad quod ordinatur etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, si illud sit *intra*[^16] terminos naturae; sed *converti* conversione perfecta et meritoria, hoc est *supra* naturam; sed *deficere* hoc est *infra;* ideo ratio illa non cogit. — Vel dic, quod illud est verum, quando genus operis, ad potentiam comparatum, est aequalis difficultatis, si in se consideretur; alias non habet veritatem, sicut patet in multis exemplis[^17].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de conversione, quod sequitur dilectionem; dicendum, quod uniformiter sumta *conversione* cum ipsa *dilectione,* non habet instantiam. Sicut enim quaedam dilectio est a voluntate *naturali,* ut[^18] qua desideratur Deus ut beatificans; quaedam a voluntate *electiva,* qua quis optat Deo honorem et gloriam; quaedam a *gratuita,* qua in obsequium divinum captivatur ipsa voluntas tota: sic et conversio per appetitum *concupiscentiae* est a *natura;* conversio per affectum *amicitiae* est a voluntate deliberativa sive electiva; conversio vero per *obsequium obedientiae gratae* est ab ipsa gratia. Et sic patet illud. <!-- page 156 -->

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in nullo differebant; dicendum, quod illud concludit, quod gratia non inchoaverit, sed non excludit, quin confirmaverit[^19]; et hoc est verum.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non esset imputandum malis, si conversio esset a gratia; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia stare poterant et non averti, si volebant; et ideo aversio eis imputatur in culpam[^20].

english:
<!-- page 154 -->

### ARTICLE III.

*On the conversion of the good Angels.*

Consequently, in the third place, it is asked about the conversion of the good [Angels]. And concerning this two [things] are asked. First it is asked about the conversion itself in comparison to its principle. Secondly it is asked about the same in comparison to the reward.

### QUESTION I.

*Whether the conversion of the good Angels was by the power of nature, or by the help of grace.*

It is asked, then, first, whether the conversion of the good[^1] Angels to God was by the power of nature, or by the help of grace. And that [it was] by the power of nature, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of the Master in the text[^2]: «The Angel did not need a grace by which he might be justified», therefore he was just even apart from grace; but he who is just is rightly and orderly converted to the fount of all justice: therefore it seems that the Angels could [do] this without the help of grace.

2. Likewise, the Philosopher in the third [book] On the Soul[^3]: «The intellect is always right»; but this would not be unless rightness were connatural to it: therefore the Angel's intellect was truly and properly of its own nature right. But no one is right except he who is converted upward and who has the head of the mind erect toward divine things: therefore it seems that he had this by nature.

3. Likewise, one can more easily [attain] that to which he is naturally ordered, than that to which he is not ordered; but the Angel was ordered to God more than to anything else, and nature was ordered in him: therefore, since without any aid he could be converted to a changeable good and averted from God, much more strongly can he without any help be converted to him.

4. Likewise, it is natural for someone to be converted to that which he naturally loves more; but the Angel by natural love loved God more than any creature, as has been had in the preceding[^4]: therefore it seems that he would naturally be converted to him.

5. Likewise, let us be at the instant of conversion and aversion; there is no difference among the Angels before this instant; if therefore some difference begins to be, this is by aversion and conversion[^5]: therefore the aversion and conversion is prior to the infusion of grace: therefore the conversion could not be from grace.

6. Likewise, if the conversion had been from grace and not from nature, then to those Angels who never had grace, but only natural [gifts], it would not be imputable that they were not converted to God: therefore neither would the devil be blameworthy or punishable for not having adhered to the Lord.

To the opposite it is argued first *by authority* and then *by demonstration*[^6].

1. *By authority* thus. The Master says in the text[^7]: «The conversion made [them] just, but the aversion [made them] unjust»; but nothing makes [one] just unless it be gratuitous: therefore the conversion was from grace. *If you say* that he means [it] of natural justice; this is nothing, because all the Angels had that from their origin.

2. Likewise, the conversion of a spiritual creature to God, as Augustine says[^8], is *day,* because there is the brightness of cognition and the warmth of affection; but by nature light precedes day: since therefore the Angel is not light except <!-- page 155 -->through the information of grace, he first received grace before he was converted to the divine goodness.

3. Likewise, there is no merit without grace, as is clearer below[^9], because God accepts not the man on account of the work, but the work on account of the author; but the Angels merited in their conversion, just as the others demerited in [their] aversion: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if the conversion had been by natural [gifts] alone, since then Lucifer excelled in natural [gifts], it rather seems that he would be converted rather than the others. If therefore he was not converted, that conversion was not by the power of nature, but rather by the help of grace.

### Conclusion.

> The conversion of the good Angels could not be without grace.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the objections it must be premised that in conversion to God the rightness of the spiritual substance is considered with respect to its *mind,* especially by reason of the motive part[^10]; nor can it be right unless it be converted to God in act or in habit. As therefore rightness is twofold, so conversion is twofold. For there is a certain rightness of *instituted nature,* and according to this is original justice; and there is a rightness of *grace,* and according to this is meritorious justice, which the supreme judge accepts for eternal retribution. And because he sees in it the beauty of grace, by its merit[^11] he leads the soul into a bride, and its works are lovable to him. — Thus it must be understood that conversion is twofold, one from *natural* rightness, one from the rightness of *grace.* The first the Angels could have without grace, but the second not without grace.

When therefore it is asked from what principle that conversion was; it must be said that[^12] that conversion was meritorious and pleasing to God; and therefore it could not be without grace. *Again,* because through that conversion they obtained grace, it must be posited that the free will began that conversion, but grace consummated [it]; and therefore there was there a *subsequent* grace, not a *preceding* one; a *cooperating* grace, not an *operating* one, as the Master says in the text[^13]. — It must therefore be conceded that that conversion of the Angels, in which they were confirmed, was not without the help of grace.

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that the Angel did not need a justifying grace; it must be said that the act of justification is understood in two ways. For *to justify* is to make just out of the non-just. But *non-just* is taken in two ways, namely privatively and negatively. Privatively, *non-just* is the same as *unjust,* and then *to justify* is the same as to make pious out of the impious; and in this way there was not grace in the Angels for this effect. In another way *non-just* is said negatively, and thus *non-just* is said not only [of] that which has *impiety,* but [of] that which does not have *the justice of grace;* and thus there was in the Angels justification through grace, and from this justice their works were meritorious[^14].

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the intellect is always right; the response is now clear: for he means [it] of natural rightness. Yet that word of the Philosopher must be understood so that it is said *always to be right* with respect to those things to which it is moved as *nature* or naturally; and thus in theology we say that synderesis is always right[^15]. But if it is understood with respect to those things into which it is moved as *deliberating,* it is false; nay, with everything imaginable and [every] phantasm circumscribed, the intellect could sin or transgress, as perhaps the angelic [intellect] did.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that one can more easily [attain] that to which he is ordered etc.; it must be said that it is true, if that be *within*[^16] the bounds of nature; but to be *converted* by a perfect and meritorious conversion, this is *above* nature; but *to fail* is *below;* therefore that argument does not compel. — Or say that that is true when the kind of work, compared to the power, is of equal difficulty, if it be considered in itself; otherwise it does not have truth, as is clear in many examples[^17].

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning conversion, that it follows love; it must be said that, conversion being taken uniformly with love itself, it has no instance [against it]. For just as a certain love is from the *natural* will, as[^18] [that] by which God is desired as beatifying; a certain [love] from the *elective* will, by which one wishes honor and glory to God; a certain [love] from the *gratuitous* [will], by which the whole will itself is taken captive into the divine service: so also conversion by the appetite of *concupiscence* is from *nature;* conversion by the affection of *friendship* is from the deliberative or elective will; but conversion by the *service of pleasing obedience* is from grace itself. And so that is clear. <!-- page 156 -->

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that they differed in nothing; it must be said that that concludes that grace did not begin [it], but does not exclude that it confirmed[^19] [it]; and this is true.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that it would not be imputable to the evil [Angels], if the conversion were from grace; it must be said that it is false, because they could stand and not be averted, if they willed; and therefore the aversion is imputed to them as a fault[^20].

la: Ita codd. F K V bb; multi alii cum Vat. *beatorum.*

en: Thus codices F K V bb; many others, with the Vatican edition, [read] *beatorum.*

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here, chapter 4.

la: Text. 51. (c. 10.): *Intellectus igitur omnis rectus est.* — Mox plures codd. cum ed. 1 *angelicus intellectus* pro *Angeli intellectus.* In fine argum. cod. T *a natura* pro *per naturam.* — De definitione *recti,* quae mox affertur, cfr. S. Bernard., in Cant. Cant. serm. 24. n. 6. seq., ex quo iam supra pag. 124, nota 3. quaedam proposuimus.

en: Text 51 (c. 10): *Therefore every intellect is right.* — Soon, several codices with edition 1 [read] *angelicus intellectus* for *Angeli intellectus.* At the end of the argument codex T [reads] *a natura* for *per naturam.* — On the definition of *the right,* which is soon adduced, cf. St. Bernard, on the Song of Songs, sermon 24, n. 6 ff., from which we have already proposed some things above, p. 124, note 3.

en: Distinction 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 *haec est.*

en: Some codices, with edition 1, [read] *haec est.*

la: Ita cod. U, quae lectio confirmatur incongrua lectione ceterorum codd. et edd. 1, 2 qui, retenta voce *primo,* omittunt *postea.* Vat. omittit *primo* et *postea.*

en: Thus codex U, which reading is confirmed by the incongruous reading of the other codices and editions 1, 2 which, retaining the word *primo,* omit *postea.* The Vatican edition omits *primo* and *postea.*

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, chapter 1.

la: Libr. IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 22. n. 39. seqq.; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. — De conclusione cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 32.

en: Book IV On Genesis according to the letter, c. 22, n. 39 ff.; XI On the City of God, c. 7. — On the conclusion cf. Augustine, I On Genesis according to the letter, c. 17, n. 32.

la: Dist. 29. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Vat. post *Item* bene addit *demonstratione sic;* certe supplendum. Paulo inferius plures codd. pro *propter auctorem* substituunt *propter hominem.* Circa finem argumenti cod. bb voci *aversione* praemittit *sua.*

en: Distinction 29, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — The Vatican edition after *Item* well adds *demonstratione sic;* certainly to be supplied. A little below, several codices substitute *propter hominem* for *propter auctorem.* Near the end of the argument codex bb prefixes *sua* to the word *aversione.*

la: Sive *voluntatis.* — De iis quae sequuntur, cfr. infra d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Or *of the will.* — On those things which follow, cf. below, d. 29, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Plurimi codd. *cuius,* incongrue.

en: Very many codices [read] *cuius,* incongruously.

la: Codd. U Y, hic addito *quia,* paulo inferius ante *ideo* omittunt *et,* quod etiam in aliis non paucis codd. et ed. 1 deest.

en: Codices U Y, with *quia* added here, a little below before *ideo* omit *et,* which is also lacking in not a few other codices and edition 1.

la: Hic c. 3. et 4.

en: Here, chapters 3 and 4.

la: Eodem modo respondet Magister, hic c. 4.

en: The Master responds in the same way, here, c. 4.

la: De synderesi fusius infra d. 39. a. 2.

en: On synderesis more fully below, d. 39, a. 2.

la: Multi codd. cum ed. 1 perperam *infra,* inter quos est cod. V, qui paulo inferius cum edd. 2, 3 pro *infra* substituit *contra.*

en: Many codices with edition 1 wrongly [read] *infra,* among which is codex V, which a little below, with editions 2, 3, substitutes *contra* for *infra.*

la: Sub quo respectu Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 1. ait: «Nam facilius est quodlibet fecisse, quam bene fecisse; manifestum igitur, quoniam peccatum circa hoc plusculum, eo quod laboriosius». Et ibid. VII. c. 3. (c. 4.): *Facilius est corrumpere quam facere, et destruere quam construere.* Cfr. etiam Anselm., Dialog. de lib. arb. c. 3, ubi hoc ostendit de potentia videndi, ad quam plura requiruntur, quam ad non videndum.

en: Under which respect Aristotle, VI Topics, c. 1, says: «For it is easier to have done anything than to have done [it] well; it is manifest therefore that the sin [is] about this little more, in that it is more laborious». And ibid., VII, c. 3 (c. 4): *It is easier to corrupt than to make, and to destroy than to construct.* Cf. also Anselm, Dialogue on free choice, c. 3, where he shows this concerning the power of seeing, for which more is required than for not seeing.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 omittunt *ut.*

en: Codex cc and edition 1 omit *ut.*

la: Vat. *consummavit.*

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

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.

latin_scholion:
I. Non defuerunt qui, male intelligentes aliqua huius quaestionis verba, non sint veriti traducere S. Bonaventuram et etiam S. Thomam tanquam Pelagianismo faventes. Hinc ut sententia S. Doctoris recte intelligatur, haec observamus.

1. S. Bonav. cum sententia tunc communiore supponit, Angelos non simul cum creatione etiam gratiam sanctificantem accepisse (supra d. 4. a. 1. q. 2.); voluntatem autem eorum ab instanti creationis quoad appetitum *naturalem* ad Deum conversam fuisse, ita ut facile etiam per motum *deliberativum* et *liberum* Deo super omnia *naturali* dilectione adhaerere potuerint (hic ad 4, et supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.). Hinc sequitur, quod Angelus cum solo concursu Dei generali se convertere potuerit ad Deum ut auctorem *naturae.* Attamen «non potuit mereri ex his quae acceperat» (supra d. 4. a. 1. q. 2. ad 6.), et quidem nec gratiam sanctificantem nec gloriam supernaturalem, immo proprie loquendo, ne *dispositionem* quidem potuit acquirere sufficientem ad infusionem gratiae sanctificantis (infra d. 28. a. 2. q. 1.).

2. Verba (in corp.): «Ideo fuit ibi gratia subsequens, non praeveniens, gratia cooperans, non operans, ut dicit Magister in littera», quo sensu secundum modum loquendi illius aetatis accipienda sint, tangitur hic dub. 2, et diffusius explicatur infra d. 27. dub. 1. in fine. Ex quo patet, quod ista divisio respicit gratiam sanctificantem secundum duplicem eius effectum (cfr. etiam infra d. 26. q. 6; d. 4. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. et 6.). Unde Richard. a Med. (I. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 1.) secundum mentem Seraphici dicit: «Quod conversio bonorum Angelorum per naturam fuit inchoata, et per gratiam gratum facientem promota et facta placita, et per gloriam consummata; et quamvis inter illa non fuerit ordo secundum prius et posterius in duratione, tamen inter illa fuit prius et posterius ordine naturae».

3. De dispositione proxima et congrua ad infusionem gratiae sanctificantis hic explicite nihil dicitur; unde applicanda sunt principia infra d. 28. a. 2. q. 1. proposita; et verba, quod «conversionem illam inchoaverit voluntas libera, sed consummaverit gratia» [sanctificans], non intelligenda sunt ita, ut excludatur auxilium supernaturale actuale, sed tantum habituale, si auctor loquatur de motu voluntatis, quatenus est proprie dispositio congrua ad susceptionem gratiae sanctificantis, et quatenus implicat conversionem ad Deum ut finem supernaturalem (cfr. S. Thom., S. I. q. 62. a. 2.). Vel dicendum esset, quod loquatur de motu voluntatis, non quatenus est dispositio sufficiens ad gratiam sanctificantem, sed de sola substantia actus, sive de conversione ad finem naturalem. In hoc sensu plures antiqui intelligendi esse videntur, quando negant, gratiam gratis datam necessariam esse ad hanc conversionem. Ita Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 1.) dicit: «Nec fuit necessaria gratia gratis data, vel gratum faciens ad eliciendam substantiam actus, sicut quidam dixerunt, cum natura sana esset et integra, nulli subiecta vitio vel culpae» (cfr. Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1.). In hoc etiam sensu, ni fallimur, explicari potest modus loquendi in Comment. S. Thomae (hic q. 2. a. 1.), qui differt ab eo quem adhibet in Summa (loc. cit.), quia in illo explicite negat, necessariam esse gratiam gratis datam, a qua elicitur substantia actus, et quae liberum arbitrium inclinat ad volendum. Sed istam gratiam ponere non videtur necessarium, nisi ipsa libertas arbitrii gratia dicatur, quae procul dubio nobis a Deo est. Deinde dicit: «Ad eliciendum actum conversionis sufficit liberum arbitrium, quod se ad habendam gratiam per hunc actum praeparat et disponit; sed efficacia conversionis ad meritum non potest esse nisi per gratiam. Unde unus et idem motus est conversionis liberi arbitrii, in quo gratia infunditur, qui est dispositio ad gratiam, secundum quod exit a libero arbitrio, et meritorius, secundum quod gratia informatur». Etiam B. Albert. (S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 18. m. 4.) ait: «In actum meritorium non potuit Angelus ex solis naturalibus, sed indiguit gratia cooperante, quae stantibus est apposita ex merito congrui, non ex merito condigni. Congruum enim fuit, ut illis qui ex solis naturalibus bonum aeternum elegerunt, apponeretur gratia, qua illud efficaciter obtinere possent». De quo textu observandum est, terminum *meritum congrui* ab antiquis Scholasticis saepe accipi in sensu largissimo, ut iam observavit P. Trigosus (cfr. d. 41. a. 1. q. 4.), et accuratius cl. Dr. Scheeben, in praeclaro opere: *Handbuch der Kathol. Dogmatik,* t. II. § 172 n. 964.

II. Praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. II. q. 10. m. 2. — Loci Scoti collecti ab Hier. de Montefortino t. II. q. 62. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
I. There were not lacking those who, ill understanding some words of this question, did not shrink from traducing St. Bonaventure and also St. Thomas as favoring Pelagianism. Hence, that the opinion of the holy Doctor may be rightly understood, we observe these things.

1. St. Bonaventure, with the then more common opinion, supposes that the Angels did not receive sanctifying grace at the same time as [their] creation (above, d. 4, a. 1, q. 2); but that their will, from the instant of creation, was, as to the *natural* appetite, converted to God, so that they could easily, even by a *deliberative* and *free* motion, adhere to God above all things by *natural* love (here ad 4, and above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1). Hence it follows that the Angel, with the general concurrence of God alone, could convert himself to God as the author of *nature.* Yet «he could not merit from those things which he had received» (above, d. 4, a. 1, q. 2, ad 6), and indeed neither sanctifying grace nor supernatural glory, nay, properly speaking, he could not even acquire a *disposition* sufficient for the infusion of sanctifying grace (below, d. 28, a. 2, q. 1).

2. The words (in the body): «Therefore there was there a subsequent grace, not a preceding one, a cooperating grace, not an operating one, as the Master says in the text», in what sense they are to be taken according to the manner of speaking of that age, is touched here in dub. 2, and is more diffusely explained below, d. 27, dub. 1, at the end. From which it is clear that this division regards sanctifying grace according to its twofold effect (cf. also below, d. 26, q. 6; d. 4, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1 and 6). Whence Richard of Mediavilla (I Sent., d. 6, a. 2, q. 1), according to the mind of the Seraphic [Doctor], says: «That the conversion of the good Angels was begun through nature, and through grace making [them] pleasing was promoted and made pleasing, and through glory consummated; and although among those there was no order according to prior and posterior in duration, yet among those there was prior and posterior by order of nature».

3. Concerning the proximate and congruous disposition to the infusion of sanctifying grace nothing is here explicitly said; whence the principles proposed below, d. 28, a. 2, q. 1, are to be applied; and the words, that «the free will began that conversion, but grace consummated [it]» [sanctifying], are not to be understood so that supernatural actual help is excluded, but only habitual, if the author speaks of the motion of the will, insofar as it is properly a congruous disposition to the reception of sanctifying grace, and insofar as it implies conversion to God as a supernatural end (cf. St. Thomas, S. I, q. 62, a. 2). Or it would have to be said that he speaks of the motion of the will, not insofar as it is a disposition sufficient for sanctifying grace, but of the substance of the act alone, or of conversion to a natural end. In this sense several of the ancients seem to be understood, when they deny that grace freely given is necessary for this conversion. Thus Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 2, a. 1) says: «Neither was a grace freely given, or making [one] pleasing, necessary for eliciting the substance of the act, as some have said, since the nature was sound and entire, subject to no vice or fault» (cf. Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1). In this sense too, unless we are mistaken, can be explained the manner of speaking in the Commentary of St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 1), which differs from that which he uses in the Summa (loc. cit.), because in the former he explicitly denies that a grace freely given is necessary, from which the substance of the act is elicited, and which inclines the free will to willing. But to posit that grace does not seem necessary, unless the very liberty of choice be called a grace, which without doubt is to us from God. Then he says: «For eliciting the act of conversion the free will suffices, which by this act prepares and disposes itself to having grace; but the efficacy of the conversion unto merit cannot be except through grace. Whence one and the same is the motion of the conversion of the free will, in which grace is infused, which is the disposition to grace, according as it goes forth from the free will, and meritorious, according as it is informed by grace». Albert also (S. p. II, tr. 4, q. 18, m. 4) says: «The Angel could not [come] to a meritorious act from natural [gifts] alone, but needed a cooperating grace, which is applied to those who stand from the merit of congruity, not from the merit of condignity. For it was congruous that to those who from natural [gifts] alone chose the eternal good, grace should be applied, by which they might efficaciously obtain it». Concerning which text it must be observed that the term *merit of congruity* is often taken by the ancient Scholastics in the broadest sense, as P. Trigosus has already observed (cf. d. 41, a. 1, q. 4), and more accurately the renowned Dr. Scheeben, in the excellent work: *Handbuch der Kathol. Dogmatik,* t. II, § 172, n. 964.

II. Besides those praised: Alexander of Hales, on this and the following q., S. p. II, q. 10, m. 2. — The places of Scotus collected by Hieronymus de Montefortino, t. II, q. 62, a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is **Distinction V, Article III, Question I** — *Whether the conversion of the good Angels was by the power of nature, or by the help of grace* — with the short `ARTICULUS III.` opener + article title *De conversione bonorum Angelorum* + the article's two-question plan folded in (Vol II convention). 6 *videtur* (nature-power: Master's text, Aristotle *de Anima,* the facilius argument, natural love, the instant-of-conversion argument, the imputability argument), the *Ad oppositum* (Fundamenta) in 2 + 2 (the Master's «conversio iustos fecit», Augustine's *dies,* the no-merit-without-grace argument, the Lucifer-excelled argument), a *Conclusio,* the *Respondeo* (the twofold *rectitudo*/*conversio* — of instituted nature vs of grace; the *subsequens/cooperans* grace), the *Solutio* (*Ad 1–6*), and an editorial **Scholion I–II** (the anti-Pelagian clarification with Richard of Mediavilla / Peter of Tarentaise / St. Thomas / Albert quotations + the parallel-loci list). Spans printed pp. 154–156 (= PDF 176–178).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** The IA djvu OCR (raw 11354–11537) is two-column cascade-shattered through the *Respondeo*/*Solutio*; the chunk was fully re-set against the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 154-156 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 154|155|156`), each page read L column top→bottom then R column, body bands then footer bands.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (Quaracchi restarts per printed page; renumbered continuously 1–20):**
  - **p.154 (8 notes → [^1]–[^8]):** ³ (*bonorum*¹ title), ⁴ (*Magistri in littera*² vid 1), ⁵ (*Philosophus de Anima*³ vid 2), ⁶ (*habitum*⁴ vid 4), ⁷ (*hoc est*⁵ vid 5), ⁸ (*demonstratione*⁶ Fund intro), ⁹ (*Magister dicit in littera*⁷ Fund 1), ¹⁰ (*Augustinus*⁸ Fund 2). p.154's notes ¹² are the preceding `d5-a2-q2`'s [^12]/[^13] — not taken here.
  - **p.155 (10 notes → [^9]–[^18]):** ¹ (*melius patet infra*⁹ Fund 3), ² (*partis motivae*¹⁰ Respondeo), ³ (*merito eius*¹¹ Respondeo), ⁴ (*dicendum est, quod*¹² Respondeo), ⁵ (*Magister in littera*¹³ Respondeo), ⁶ (*opera eorum meritoria*¹⁴ Solutio Ad 1), ⁷ (*synderesim semper rectam*¹⁵ Ad 2), ⁸ (*intra*¹⁶ Ad 3), ⁹ (*multis exemplis*¹⁷ Ad 3), ¹⁰ (*ut*¹⁸ Ad 4).
  - **p.156 (2 notes → [^19]–[^20]):** ¹ (*confirmaverit*¹⁹ Solutio Ad 5 = `Vat. consummavit.`), ² (*in culpam*²⁰ Solutio Ad 6 = `Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.`).
- **Incoming boundary a2-q2→a3-q1 — RECEIVED split at p.154, no backfill.** The preceding committed `bon-sent-II-d5-a2-q2` Notes documented the p.154 split: its reply *Ad 4* owns p.154 footer notes ¹ (`Dist. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.`) and ² (`In solutione ad 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, its [^12]/[^13]); then this `ARTICULUS III`+`QUAESTIO I` opens lower on p.154. This chunk's p.154 apparatus starts at note ³ (*bonorum*¹, the title-variant). `d5-a2-q2` not modified.
- **Outgoing boundary a3-q1→a3-q2 — DISCOVERED SPLIT at p.156, documented for the next build.** The editorial **Scholion I–II carries no numbered apparatus** (Vol II convention). a3-q1's body (the *Ad 5* / *Ad 6* replies) runs to the top of p.156, then the Scholion (no apparatus), then `QUAESTIO II` (a3-q2, raw 11538) opens lower on p.156. p.156's footer splits by body anchor: **notes ¹ (`Vat. consummavit.`, → *confirmaverit*¹⁹ Ad 5) and ² (`Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.`, → *in culpam*²⁰ Ad 6) are this chunk's [^19]/[^20]**; **note ³ (`Cap. 11. n. 32: Angeli sancti, qui cadentibus aliis…`) and following anchor a3-q2's *videtur* body** (Augustine *de Correptione et gratia*). **`bon-sent-II-d5-a3-q2` build: start its p.156 apparatus at note ³, no backfill into this chunk.**
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 20 body superscripts and the three page-footers verified on the 450 dpi crops. Editorial marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (*Ad oppositum, Fundamenta, Praenotanda, Duplex rectitudo et conversio, Conclusio 1/2, Notandum, Solutio oppositorum, Quid iustificare, Aliter, Triplex dilectio et conversio*). The *Conclusio* is set as a `>` blockquote; the grouped *Solutio* replies tagged *Ad 1 … Ad 6* matching the printed grouping. The long Scholion I (anti-Pelagian) is editorial Latin transcribed verbatim from the OCR base + crops.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 156 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

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

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

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

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

3. Item, dispositio praecedit illud, ad quod disponit, vel tempore vel natura; sed gratia est dispositio ad gloriam: ergo si Deus dedit Angelis gratiam, qua possent mereri, et gloriam, qua sunt beati, prius habuerunt gratiam quam gloriam. Sed <!-- page 157 -->gratia, quando invenit liberum arbitrium in actu debito, facit illum[^2] esse meritorium: ergo si liberum arbitrium Angeli in ingressu gratiae et gloriae erat in actu, ergo prius habuit motum meritorium quam gloriosum.

4. Item, *per impossibile* videtur, quia Deus dedit Angelis gloriam, aut ergo *dignis,* aut *indignis.* Si *indignis;* iniuste et inordinate fecit, quod est impossibile: ergo dedit *dignis.* Sed nullus est dignus corona[^3] nisi per merita: ergo etc.

5. Item, si mereri contingit habitum, dum quis servit Deo et bene utitur habito: ergo cum omnis perseverans in gratia bene utatur ea, qui perseverat in gratia meretur eam; sed quod est ex meritis non est gratia: ergo merendo gratiam, desineret esse gratia[^4].

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

Contra: 1. Contra hoc est quod Magister dicit in littera[^5], quod sibi magis placet, quod merentur iam habitum.

2. Item, *ratione.* Angeli, dum ministrant nobis, aliquid merentur, cum ex magna caritate et liberalitate nobis condescendant, et ministerium non sit actus comprehensoris, sed viatoris potius; aut ergo merentur *habitum*[^6], aut *habendum.* Si *habitum,* habeo propositum, quod meritum sequitur praemium; si *habendum,* tunc ergo, cum mereantur beatitudinem, non sunt beati; si *aliud* quam beatitudinem, ergo non est meritum eorum perfectum nec necessarium. *Praeterea,* quidquid mereantur, cum *spes, quae differtur, affligat animam*[^7], videtur, quod tale meritum respectu rei habendae non possit stare cum statu beatitudinis.

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

4. Item, secundum quod plus dat Deus, plus exigit a creatura: si ergo maius robur virtutis dedit Angelo quam homini, ergo et maiora obsequia requirit. Sed homo non glorificatur nisi per multos labores[^8]: ergo nec Angelus sine operibus debet glorificari; sed opera non praecesserunt, sed solus motus affectionis: ergo oportet sequi.

### Conclusio.

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

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc, sicut dicit Magister[^9], duplex fuit opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt, quod in Angelis praemium praecedit meritum, et huius positionis fuit Magister; et ad hoc ponendum moti sunt rationabiliter et quantum ad *motivum,* et quantum ad *modum.* Quantum ad *motivum:* quia enim intellexerunt, quod non est meritum sine gratia, nec magnum meritum, ubi non est magnum obsequium, et in Angelis propter naturae velocitatem et idoneitatem simul duratione datur gratia et gloria; dixerunt, quod in Angelis meritum non potuit praecedere praemium, meritum inquam *condigni,* sed solum, si aliquid praecedit, hoc est meritum *congrui,* sed sequitur meritum *condigni.* Hos[^10] etiam ad hoc ponendum instigavit, quod meritum rei *habendae* sonat in indigentiam, quae non videtur posse stare cum gloria. — *Modum* autem huius meriti satis advertere possumus in militibus, qui bene pugnando merentur equum ante merita datum. — Haec autem opinio, quamvis sit probabilis, tamen plura habet sibi adversantia, quae in opponendo tacta sunt.

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

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Magistro, dicendum, quod in hac opinione sicut et in pluribus aliis non assentitur ei[^11]. <!-- page 158 -->

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod merentur; dicendum, quod est praemium *substantiale,* et hoc meruerunt per conversionem sui in Deum; et est praemium *accidentale,* et hoc merentur per ministerium, quod faciunt homini. Et quia accidit beatitudini, ideo sine tali praemio cum eius merito potest stare beatitudo; nec affliguntur ex exspectatione, sicut nec animae beatae de secundae stolae perceptione, et adhuc minus, quia minus inclinantur[^12].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magna praemia requirunt magna merita; dicendum, quod magnitudo meriti non consistit in opere[^13] exteriori principaliter, sed in interiori. Unde sicut diabolus multum peccavit propter improbam voluntatem, etsi nihil exterius fecerit; sic e contrario multum meruerunt Angeli boni.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de homine, dicendum, quod homo non ita cito movetur, ut Angelus; ideo tempus meriti habet diuturnius. Et ideo non est simile; sed hoc melius patebit infra, distinctione septima[^14].

english:
<!-- page 156 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Whether in the conversion of the good Angels merit preceded the reward, or conversely.*

Secondly it is asked about the conversion of the good [Angels] in comparison to the reward, and it is asked whether in their conversion the merit follows the reward, or precedes [it]. And that it precedes, it seems.

1. Augustine, On Correction and Grace[^1]: «The holy Angels, who stood while the others were falling, merited to receive the reward of that life»: if therefore they merited to receive [it], the merit preceded the receiving of the reward.

2. Likewise, merit is the way to the reward; but, proceeding in right order, the state of the wayfarer is prior to that of the comprehensor, and the way [prior] to the fatherland: therefore in the Angels there was merit before the reward.

3. Likewise, a disposition precedes that to which it disposes, either in time or in nature; but grace is the disposition to glory: therefore if God gave the Angels grace, by which they could merit, and glory, by which they are blessed, they had grace before glory. But <!-- page 157 -->grace, when it finds the free will in due act, makes it[^2] meritorious: therefore if the free will of the Angel at the entrance of grace and glory was in act, then it had a meritorious motion before a glorious one.

4. Likewise, it seems *by an impossibility,* because God gave the Angels glory, then either to the *worthy* or to the *unworthy.* If to the *unworthy;* he acted unjustly and inordinately, which is impossible: therefore he gave [it] to the *worthy.* But no one is worthy of a crown[^3] except through merits: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if one merits a habit while he serves God and uses well what he has: therefore, since everyone persevering in grace uses it well, he who perseveres in grace merits it; but what is from merits is not grace: therefore by meriting grace, it would cease to be grace[^4].

6. Likewise, if the reward precedes the merit, I ask: what is that merit? Either with respect to the act of *contemplation,* or of *ministry.* Not of *contemplation;* for thus all the Blessed would merit; if with respect to the act of *ministry,* then it seems that, if there were no man, the Angel could not merit, therefore neither would he be worthy to be beatified; which is plainly false.

On the contrary: 1. Against this is what the Master says in the text[^5], that it pleases him more, that they merit the habit already had.

2. Likewise, *by reason.* The Angels, while they minister to us, merit something, since out of great charity and liberality they condescend to us, and ministry is not the act of a comprehensor, but rather of a wayfarer; then either they merit the *habit*[^6], or what is *to be had.* If the *habit,* I have [my] thesis, that the merit follows the reward; if what is *to be had,* then therefore, since they merit beatitude, they are not blessed; if *something other* than beatitude, then their merit is not perfect nor necessary. *Moreover,* whatever they merit, since *hope that is deferred afflicts the soul*[^7], it seems that such a merit with respect to a thing to be had cannot stand with the state of beatitude.

3. Likewise, great rewards ought not to be given without great merits, and great merits are not without great services: therefore, since the Angels have great rewards, and great services did not precede, in which they merited, then [the merits] ought to follow.

4. Likewise, according as God gives more, he exacts more from the creature: if therefore he gave a greater strength of virtue to the Angel than to man, then he requires also greater services. But man is not glorified except through many labors[^8]: therefore neither ought the Angel to be glorified without works; but works did not precede, but only the motion of the affection: therefore [the merits] must follow.

### Conclusion.

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

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this, as the Master says[^9], there was a twofold opinion. For some said that in the Angels the reward precedes the merit, and of this position was the Master; and to posit this they were moved reasonably both as to the *motive* and as to the *manner.* As to the *motive:* because they understood that there is no merit without grace, nor a great merit where there is not a great service, and in the Angels, on account of the swiftness and fitness of [their] nature, grace and glory are given simultaneously in duration; they said that in the Angels merit could not precede the reward — the merit, I say, of condignity — but only, if anything precedes, this is the merit of *congruity,* but the merit of *condignity* follows. This[^10] also instigated them to posit it, that merit of a thing *to be had* sounds of an indigence, which does not seem able to stand with glory. — The *manner* of this merit we can sufficiently advert to in soldiers, who by fighting well merit the horse given before the merits. — But this opinion, although it is probable, yet has many things adverse to it, which were touched in objecting.

On account of which there was another position, that in the Angels merit preceded the reward, not in *time,* but in *nature.* And they assign the reason for this: because grace naturally precedes glory, and grace, when it finds a motion ordered in the free will, makes [it] meritorious, and merit is weighed according to the quantity of grace, not according to the multitude of works; therefore, since perfect grace was given to the Angels, and the free will wholly cooperated with grace, they say that in their conversion they sufficiently merited glorification. — And this position is more reasonable and has a better foundation, because merit requires and is founded in the perfection of the will, not in the multitude of operation. This the modern doctors commonly hold; therefore this is to be adhered to.

*To 1.* To that which is objected concerning the Master, it must be said that in this opinion, as also in many others, he does not assent to him[^11]. <!-- page 158 -->

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that they merit; it must be said that there is a *substantial* reward, and this they merited by the conversion of themselves into God; and there is an *accidental* reward, and this they merit by the ministry which they perform to man. And because it is accidental to beatitude, therefore without such a reward beatitude can stand together with its merit; nor are they afflicted by the expectation, just as neither are the blessed souls by the reception of the second stole, and still less, because they are less inclined [to it][^12].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that great rewards require great merits; it must be said that the magnitude of merit does not consist principally in the exterior work[^13], but in the interior. Whence, just as the devil sinned much on account of [his] wicked will, even though he did nothing exteriorly; so, on the contrary, the good Angels merited much.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning man, it must be said that man is not moved so quickly as the Angel; therefore he has a longer time of meriting. And therefore it is not similar; but this will be clearer below, in distinction seven[^14].

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

en: Chapter 11, n. 32: *The holy Angels, who, while the others were falling through free choice, by the same free choice stood, they also merited to receive the due reward of this perseverance.* — A little below, after *si ergo,* the Vatican edition repeats *mercedem.*

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

en: Codex Y adds *motum,* the Vatican edition *motum sive actum.* A little below, after *in actu,* codex L repeats *debito,* and at the end of the argument codex aa inserts *praemium* after *quam.*

la: Cod. U *corona aeterna.*

en: Codex U [reads] *corona aeterna.*

en: Cf. Romans 11:6.

la: Hic c. 6.

en: Here, chapter 6.

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

en: Codex aa here well adds *aliquid* (or supply: *praemium*), and a little below, after *propositum,* adds *scilicet.* In the second part of the argument not a few codices, with edition 1, [read] in the singular mode for the plural *tunc ergo, cum mereatur beatitudinem, non est beatus... meritum eius perfectum... quidquid mereatur* etc.; incongruously.

en: Proverbs 13:12.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis mss. subiungit *et magnos.*

en: The Vatican edition, with some manuscripts, subjoins *et magnos.*

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

en: Not a few codices, with editions 1, 2, [read] *Hoc;* among which codex Z then adds *eos* after *instigavit.*

la: Vide supra in Praelocutione pag. 2.

en: See above, in the Prefatory note, p. 2.

en: More diffusely on this below, d. 11, a. 2, q. 2 ff.

la: Nonnulli codd. ut F K Y *operatione.*

en: Some codices such as F K Y [read] *operatione.*

la: Parte I. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Part I, a. 1, q. 1.

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

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

---

english_scholion:
I. The opinion of the Master, of which mention is made in the body and ad 1, is commonly rejected; and St. Bonaventure too says that the contrary opinion is to be adhered to. Hence it is clear that he did not esteem the said opinion *truly probable,* although out of reverence toward the Master he says among other things that the patrons of this opinion were moved «reasonably», i. e. by some reasons in themselves not false. — The words: «Merit preceded the reward, not in time, but in nature» are approved by many ancient doctors, as by B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Giles of Rome; and St. Thomas too in the Commentary defends this opinion, on the hypothesis that the Angels were not created with sanctifying grace. But in the Summa theologica he holds, with Scotus, Durandus, and other later [doctors], that the merits preceded glory even in duration.

II. Scotus, in each Scriptum, here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; S. I, q. 62, a. 4, 5. — B. Albert, here a. 7; S. p. II, tr. 4, q. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3. — Biel, here q. unica.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is **Distinction V, Article III, Question II** — *Whether in the conversion of the good Angels merit preceded the reward, or conversely.* 6 *videtur* (merit-precedes: Augustine *de Correptione,* the way-to-reward argument, the disposition argument, the *per impossibile* worthiness argument, the merit-of-the-habit argument, the contemplation/ministry dilemma), 4 *Contra* (the Master's «merentur iam habitum», the ministry-to-us argument with the *spes differtur* objection, the great-rewards argument, the more-given-more-required argument), a *Conclusio,* the *Respondeo* (the two opinions — the Master's reward-precedes-merit [*motivum*/*modum,* merit of congruity vs condignity] vs the accepted merit-precedes-reward «non tempore, sed natura»), the *Solutio* (*Ad 1–4*), and an editorial **Scholion I–II** (the Master's opinion commonly rejected; the parallel-loci list). Spans printed pp. 156–158 (= PDF 178–180).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** The IA djvu OCR (raw 11538–11655) is two-column cascade-shattered through the *Respondeo*/*Solutio*; the chunk was fully re-set against the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 156-158 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 156|157|158`), each page read L column top→bottom then R column, body bands then footer bands.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (Quaracchi restarts per printed page; renumbered continuously 1–14):**
  - **p.156 (1 note → [^1]):** ³ (*de Correptione et gratia*¹ videtur 1; the long *Angeli sancti…* Augustine note). p.156's notes ¹² are the preceding `d5-a3-q1`'s [^19]/[^20] — not taken here.
  - **p.157 (10 notes → [^2]–[^11]):** ¹ (*facit illum*² vid 3-tail), ² (*corona*³ vid 4), ³ (*esse gratia*⁴ vid 5), ⁴ (*Magister dicit in littera*⁵ Contra 1), ⁵ (*merentur habitum*⁶ Contra 2), ⁶ (*affligat animam*⁷ Contra 2), ⁷ (*multos labores*⁸ Contra 4), ⁸ (*sicut dicit Magister*⁹ Respondeo), ⁹ (*Hos*¹⁰ Respondeo opinio 1), ¹⁰ (*non assentitur ei*¹¹ Solutio Ad 1).
  - **p.158 (3 notes → [^12]–[^14]):** ¹ (*minus inclinantur*¹² Solutio Ad 2), ² (*in opere*¹³ Solutio Ad 3), ³ (*distinctione septima*¹⁴ Solutio Ad 4).
- **Incoming boundary a3-q1→a3-q2 — RECEIVED split at p.156, no backfill.** The preceding committed `bon-sent-II-d5-a3-q1` Notes documented the p.156 split: its replies *Ad 5/6* own p.156 footer notes ¹ (`Vat. consummavit.`) and ² (`Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.`, its [^19]/[^20]); the editorial Scholion I–II (a3-q1's, no apparatus) follows; then this `QUAESTIO II` opens lower on p.156. This chunk's p.156 apparatus is note ³ (*de Correptione et gratia*¹). `d5-a3-q1` not modified.
- **Outgoing boundary a3-q2→d5-dubia — DISCOVERED SPLIT at p.158, documented for the next build.** The editorial **Scholion I–II carries no numbered apparatus** (Vol II convention). a3-q2's body (the *Ad 2/3/4* replies) runs through p.158, then the Scholion (no apparatus), then `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (d5-dubia, raw 11656) opens lower on p.158. p.158's footer splits by body anchor: **notes ¹ (`Fusius de hoc infra d. 11. a. 2. q. 2. seq.`, → *minus inclinantur*¹² Ad 2), ² (`Nonnulli codd. ut F K Y operatione.`, → *in opere*¹³ Ad 3), ³ (`Parte I. a. 1. q. 1.`, → *distinctione septima*¹⁴ Ad 4) are this chunk's [^12]/[^13]/[^14]**; **notes ⁴ (`Libr. II. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 14. n. 48…`), ⁵ (`Libr. I. Retract. c. 19. n. 8.`), ⁶ (`Ita codd. F aa; Vat. … beatificans odit…`), … anchor d5-dubia's DUB I body** (Augustine on «Nullius conscientia potest Deum odisse»). **`bon-sent-II-d5-dubia` build: start its p.158 apparatus at note ⁴, no backfill into this chunk.**
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 14 body superscripts and the three page-footers verified on the 450 dpi crops. Editorial marginal glosses trimmed per CLAUDE.md (*Fundamenta, Ad oppositum, Opinio 1, Non omnino placet, Opinio 2 et conclusio, Iudicium de 2. opinione, Notandum*). The *Conclusio* is set as a `>` blockquote; the grouped *Solutio* replies tagged *Ad 1 … Ad 4* matching the printed grouping. The Scholion I–II is editorial Latin transcribed verbatim from the OCR base + crops.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 5, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 158 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Averti est odio habere vel invidere. Contra:* Augustinus[^1]: «Nullius conscientia potest odisse Deum», cum omnes naturaliter appetant summum bonum: ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod nullus avertatur.

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

Ad illud ergo quod dicitur, quod nullius conscientia potest Deum odisse; dicendum, quod Augustinus illud retractat[^2]. Attamen veritatem habet aliquo modo illud verbum, si intelligatur de Deo, in quantum est summum bonum, ad quod participandum facta est creatura rationalis; unde cum semper appetat beatificari, nunquam beatificantem odit[^3]. Nihilominus contingit, considerari Deum ut iustum, ponentem leges et infligentem poenas; et sic odiunt multi, qui scilicet peccant in Spiritum sanctum.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, *quod data est gratia Angelis cooperans. Contra:* gratia *cooperans* est subsequens respectu *operantis;* sed non habuerunt operantem, ut praedictum est[^4]: ergo nec cooperantem.

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

Ad hoc ergo quod dicitur, quod illa[^5] est *praeveniens;* dicendum, quod *praeveniens* non dicitur ratione gratiae *subsequentis,* sed ratione voluntatis. — Vel dicendum, quod illae sunt differentiae, prout habent esse in libero arbitrio lapso, scilicet hominis; et ideo non habent locum in Angelis. Alia patent[^6].

---

english:
<!-- page 158 -->

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *To be averted is to hold in hatred or to envy. On the contrary:* Augustine[^1]: «No one's conscience can hate God», since all naturally desire the highest good: therefore it seems, according to this, that no one is averted.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master does not here define just any aversion, but a consummated aversion, in which there is obstinacy and rebellion against God, such as was in the devil, from [the moment] he saw that he could not attain what he was seeking.

To that, then, which is said, that no one's conscience can hate God; it must be said that Augustine retracts that[^2]. Yet that word has truth in some manner, if it is understood of God insofar as he is the highest good, for the participation of which the rational creature was made; whence, since it always desires to be beatified, it never hates the one beatifying[^3]. Nevertheless it happens that God is considered as just, setting laws and inflicting punishments; and thus many hate [him], namely those who sin against the Holy Spirit.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, *that a cooperating grace was given to the Angels. On the contrary:* a *cooperating* grace is subsequent with respect to an *operating* one; but they did not have an operating [grace], as has been said before[^4]: therefore neither [did they have] a cooperating one.

**I respond:** It must be said that the same grace is called *operating* and *cooperating* by reason of diverse effects; and therefore they are said not to have an *operating* grace, because they did not have a grace cleansing the will; yet they have that same grace as *helping* in good operation; and these effects are separable.

To this, then, which is said, that that[^5] is *preceding;* it must be said that it is not called *preceding* by reason of a subsequent grace, but by reason of the will. — Or it must be said that those are differences according as they have being in the fallen free choice, namely of man; and therefore they have no place in the Angels. The rest is clear[^6].

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

en: Book II On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount, c. 14, n. 48: *For scarcely anyone's conscience can hate God.*

la: Libr. I. Retract. c. 19. n. 8.

en: Book I of the Retractations, c. 19, n. 8.

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

en: Thus codices F aa; the Vatican edition, with very many other manuscripts, [reads] *beatificans odit;* codex T *ut beatificans odit eum.* — The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. on the text, 1.

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

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 4, and in the Commentary of St. Bonaventure, here a. 3, q. 1, in the body.

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

en: Namely the *operating* grace. Cf. below, d. 27, dub. 1, where the divisions of grace are more fully explained. — A little above, after *ut adiuvantem,* codices U aa subjoin *et cooperantem.*

la: Idem dub. solvit Aegid. R., hic dub. litt. 2.

en: Giles of Rome resolves the same doubt, here dub. on the text, 2.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the **Dubia circa litteram Magistri** for Distinction V — two doubts on Lombard's text: **DUB I** (on «*Averti est odio habere vel invidere*» vs Augustine's «no one's conscience can hate God» — resolved by distinguishing a *consummated* aversion / God-as-just vs God-as-highest-good) and **DUB II** (on the *cooperating* grace given to the Angels vs the absence of an *operating* grace — resolved by the one-grace/diverse-effects distinction). Wholly on printed p.158 (= PDF 180). **This chunk closes Distinction V.**
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** The IA djvu OCR (raw 11656–11699) is two-column; the chunk was re-set against the 450 dpi p.158 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 158 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 158`), read L column top→bottom then R column, body bands then footer bands. DUB I is the L column (+ a short R-column tail *sic odiunt multi…*); DUB II is the R column.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a dubia chunk has no scholion.
- **Incoming boundary a3-q2→d5-dubia — RECEIVED split at p.158, no backfill.** The preceding committed `bon-sent-II-d5-a3-q2` Notes documented the p.158 split: its Solutio replies *Ad 2/3/4* own p.158 footer notes ¹ (`Fusius de hoc infra d. 11. a. 2. q. 2. seq.`), ² (`Nonnulli codd. ut F K Y operatione.`), ³ (`Parte I. a. 1. q. 1.`) — its [^12]/[^13]/[^14]; the editorial Scholion I–II (a3-q2's, no apparatus) follows; then this `DUBIA` opens lower on p.158. This chunk's apparatus is p.158 footer notes ⁴–⁹ (renumbered continuously [^1]–[^6]). `d5-a3-q2` not modified.
- **Outgoing boundary — CLEAN cross-distinction.** This chunk owns the whole tail of p.158's footer (notes ⁴–⁹ = its [^1]–[^6]); the next distinction `DISTINCTIO VI` (raw 11700) opens fresh on **p.159** with its own littera/apparatus. No outgoing split, no backfill (the d.6 littera build starts clean on p.159).
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 6 body superscripts and the p.158 footer verified on the 450 dpi crops. Editorial marginal gloss trimmed per CLAUDE.md (*Gratia operans et cooperans*). The `**Respondeo:**` of each doubt is set in bold per the structural-marker convention; the two doubts tagged *Dub. I / Dub. II*.
- **CLOSES DISTINCTION 5 — all 9 chunks Tier-2** (littera, divisio, a1-q1, a1-q2, a2-q1, a2-q2, a3-q1, a3-q2, dubia; sessions 35–36).


title: Dist. 6

title_alt: Distinction 6. The text of the Master of the Sentences.

source_text:
<!-- page 159 -->

### Distinctio VI.

### Cap. I. *Quod de maioribus et minoribus quidam ceciderunt, inter quos unus fuit celsior, scilicet lucifer.*

Praeterea sciri oportet, quoniam, sicut de maioribus et minoribus quidam perstiterunt, ita de utroque gradu quidam corruerunt. Inter quos unus fuit omnibus aliis cadentibus excellentior, nec inter stantes aliquis eo fuit dignior, sicut testimoniis auctoritatum monstratur. Ait enim Iob[^1]: *Ipse principium viarum Dei.* Et in Ezechiele legitur: *Tu signaculum similitudinis, plenus scientia et perfectione decorus, in deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti.* Quod Gregorius[^2] exponens ait: «Quanto in eo subtilior est natura, eo magis in illo imago Dei similis insinuatur impressa». Item in Ezechiele legitur: *Omnis lapis pretiosus operimentum eius*, id est, omnis Angelus quasi operimentum eius erat, quia, ut dicit Gregorius, «in aliorum comparatione ceteris clarior fuit». Unde et vocatus est lucifer, sicut testatur Isaias[^3]: *Quomodo*, inquit, *cecidisti lucifer, qui mane oriebaris* etc.? Qui non unus ordo, sed unus spiritus accipiendus est, qui, teste Isidoro, postquam creatus est, eminentiam naturae et profunditatem scientiae suae perpendens, in suum Creatorem superbivit in tantum, quod etiam Deo se aequare voluit, ut in Isaia dicitur: *In caelum ascendam, super astra caeli exaltabo solium meum, et ero similis Altissimo.* Similis quidem Deo esse voluit non per imitationem, sed per aequalitatem potentiae.

### Cap. II. *Unde et quo deiecti sunt.*

Et tantae superbiae merito de caelo, id est de empyreo, in quo cum aliis fuerat, deiectus est in istum caliginosum aërem cum omnibus suae pravitatis consortibus. Nam, ut Ioannes ait in Apocalypsi[^4]: *Draco de caelo cadens secum traxit tertiam partem stellarum*, quia lucifer ille aliis maior non solus cecidit, sed cum eo alii multi, qui ei in malitia consenserunt, eosque cadentes huius caliginosi aëris habitaculum excepit. Et hoc ad nostram probationem factum est, ut sit nobis exercitationis causa. Unde Apostolus[^5]: *Colluctatio est nobis adversus principes et potestates mundi huius et adversus rectores tenebrarum harum, contra spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus*; quia daemones, qui sunt spirituales et nequam, in hoc turbulento aëre, nobis propinquo, quod caelum appellatur, habitant. Unde et diabolus princeps aëris dicitur.

### Cap. III. *Quare non est eis concessum habitare in caelo, vel in terra.*

Non enim est eis concessum habitare in caelo, quia clarus locus est et amoenus; nec in terra nobiscum, ne homines nimis infestarent[^6]; sed iuxta Apostoli Petri doctrinam in Epistola canonica traditam, in aëre isto caliginoso, qui eis quasi carcer usque ad tempus iudicii deputatus est. Tunc autem detrudentur in baratrum inferni, secundum illud: *Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius.*

### Cap. IV. *De praelationibus daemonum.*

Et sicut inter bonos Angelos alii aliis praesunt, ita et inter malos alii aliis praelati sunt, et alii aliis subiecti. Quamdiu enim durat mundus, Angeli Angelis, daemones daemonibus, homines hominibus praesunt; sed in futuro omnis evacuabitur praelatio, ut docet Apostolus[^7]. Habent quoque, secundum modum scientiae maioris vel minoris, praelationes alias maiores vel minores. Quidam enim uni provinciae, alii uni homini, aliqui etiam uni vitio praesunt. Unde dicitur spiritus superbiae, spiritus luxuriae et huiusmodi, quia de illo vitio maxime potest homines tentare, a quo nominatur[^8]. Inde etiam est, quod nomine daemonis divitiae vocantur, scilicet mammona. Est enim mammon nomen daemonis, quo nomine vocantur divitiae secundum Syricam linguam. Hoc autem non ideo est, quod diabolus in potestate habeat dare, vel auferre divitias, cui velit, sed quia eis utitur ad hominum tentationem et deceptionem.

<!-- page 160 -->

### Cap. V. *An omnes daemones sint in hoc aëre caliginoso, an aliqui in inferno.*

Solet autem quaeri, utrum omnes in isto aëre caliginoso sint, an aliqui iam sint in inferno. — Quod in infernum quotidie descendant aliqui daemonum, verisimile est, qui animas illuc cruciandas deducunt; et quod illic aliqui semper sint, alternatis forte vicibus, non procul est a vero, qui illic animas detinent atque cruciant. Quod autem animae malorum illuc descendant atque illic puniantur, ex eo constat, quod Christus ad inferos descendit, ut iustos, qui ibi tenebantur, educeret. Si enim iusti illuc descendebant, multo magis iniusti; et sicut tradidit auctoritas[^9], cum iustos eduxit, iniquos ibi reliquit. Momordit enim infernum, non absorbuit.

### Cap. VI. *De potestate luciferi.*

De lucifero autem quidam opinantur, quod ibi religatus sit et ad nos tentandos nunc accessum non habeat, quia in Apocalypsi[^10] legitur: *Cum consummati fuerint mille anni, solvetur satanas de carcere suo, et exiet et seducet gentes*; quod erit novissimo tempore antichristi, quando erit tanta tribulatio, ut etiam, si fieri potest, moveantur electi. Quem ibi religatum dicunt[^11] ab eo tempore, quo tentavit Christum in deserto vel in passione, et victus est ab eo. Ipsum putant primum hominem tentasse et vicisse, et secundo Deum, sed ab eo victum esse, et ideo in inferno religatum. — Alii autem putant, ex quo cecidit pro peccati sui magnitudine, illuc fuisse demersum. — Sed sive in infernum demersus sit, sive non, credibile est, eum non habere facultatem accedendi ad nos, quam habebit in tempore antichristi; in quo fraudulenter ac violenter operabitur, et ideo forte dicitur[^12] tunc solvendus, quia tunc dabitur ei a Deo potestas tentandi homines, quam modo non habet.

### Cap. VII. *An daemones, semel victi a sanctis, ultra accedant ad alios.*

Aliis quoque, qui a sanctis iuste et pudice viventibus vincuntur, potestas alios tentandi videtur adimi. Unde Origenes[^13]: «Puto, inquit, sane, quia sancti, repugnantes adversus istos incentores et vincentes, minuant exercitum daemonum, et velut[^14] quam plurimos eorum interimant; nec ultra fas sit illi spiritui, qui ab aliquo sancto caste et pudice vivendo victus est, impugnare iterum alium hominem». — Hoc autem quidam putant intelligendum tantum de illo vitio, in quo superatus est, ut, si de superbia aliquem virum sanctum tentat et vincitur, ulterius non liceat ei illum vel alium de superbia tentare.

english:
### Distinction VI.

### Cap. I. *That some fell from among both the greater and the lesser, among whom one was loftier, namely Lucifer.*

Moreover it ought to be known that, just as some from among the greater and the lesser stood firm, so from each rank some fell away. Among them one was more excellent than all the others who fell, nor among those who stood was any more worthy than he, as is shown by the testimonies of authorities. For Job[^1] says: *He is the beginning of the ways of God.* And in Ezekiel it is read: *Thou wast the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty; thou wast in the delights of the paradise of God.* Expounding this, Gregory[^2] says: «The more subtle is the nature in him, the more is the like image of God shown stamped upon him». Likewise in Ezekiel it is read: *Every precious stone was his covering*, that is, every Angel was as it were his covering, because, as Gregory says, «in comparison with the others he was brighter than the rest». Hence too he was called Lucifer, as Isaiah[^3] attests: *How*, he says, *art thou fallen, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning* etc.? He is to be taken not as one order, but as one spirit, who, on Isidore's testimony, after he was created, weighing the eminence of his nature and the depth of his knowledge, grew proud against his Creator to such a degree that he willed even to make himself equal to God, as is said in Isaiah: *I will ascend into heaven, above the stars of heaven will I exalt my throne, and I will be like the Most High.* He willed indeed to be like God not by imitation, but by equality of power.

### Cap. II. *Whence and whither they were cast down.*

And by the merit of so great a pride he was cast down from heaven, that is, from the empyrean, in which he had been with the others, into this murky air with all the partners of his depravity. For, as John says in the Apocalypse[^4]: *The dragon, falling from heaven, drew with him the third part of the stars*, because that Lucifer, greater than the others, did not fall alone, but with him many others, who consented with him in malice, and as they fell the dwelling-place of this murky air received them. And this was done for our testing, that it might be for us an occasion of exercise. Hence the Apostle[^5]: *Our wrestling is against the principalities and powers of this world and against the rulers of these darknesses, against the spiritual wickednesses in the heavenly places*; for the demons, who are spiritual and wicked, dwell in this turbulent air, near to us, which is called heaven. Hence too the devil is called the prince of the air.

### Cap. III. *Why it is not granted them to dwell in heaven, or on earth.*

For it is not granted them to dwell in heaven, because it is a bright and pleasant place; nor on earth with us, lest they should harass men too greatly[^6]; but, according to the teaching of the Apostle Peter handed down in his canonical Epistle, in that murky air, which has been assigned to them as a kind of prison until the time of judgment. But then they will be thrust down into the pit of hell, according to that word: *Go, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels.*

### Cap. IV. *On the preeminences of the demons.*

And just as among the good Angels some are set over others, so too among the evil ones some are set in preeminence over others, and some subjected to others. For as long as the world lasts, Angels are set over Angels, demons over demons, men over men; but in the world to come every preeminence will be done away, as the Apostle teaches[^7]. They have also, according to the measure of greater or lesser knowledge, other preeminences greater or lesser. For some are set over one province, others over one man, some even over one vice. Hence one is called the spirit of pride, the spirit of lust, and the like, because he can tempt men most of all in that vice from which he is named[^8]. Hence too it is that by the name of a demon riches are called, namely mammon. For mammon is the name of a demon, by which name riches are called according to the Syriac tongue. But this is not because the devil has it in his power to give or to take away riches to whomever he wills, but because he uses them for the temptation and deception of men.

### Cap. V. *Whether all the demons are in this murky air, or some in hell.*

But it is wont to be asked whether all are in that murky air, or some are already in hell. — That some of the demons descend daily into hell is likely — those who lead souls down there to be tortured; and that some are always there, perhaps in alternating turns, is not far from the truth — those who there detain and torture souls. But that the souls of the wicked descend there and are punished there is clear from this, that Christ descended to the lower regions, in order to lead out the just, who were held there. For if the just descended there, much more the unjust; and as authority[^9] has handed down, when he led out the just, he left the wicked there. For he bit hell, he did not swallow it.

### Cap. VI. *On the power of Lucifer.*

Concerning Lucifer, however, some are of the opinion that he is bound there and now has no access to tempt us, because in the Apocalypse[^10] it is read: *When the thousand years shall have been completed, Satan will be loosed from his prison, and will go forth and seduce the nations*; which will be in the last time of Antichrist, when there will be so great a tribulation that even the elect, if it be possible, would be moved. They say he has been bound there[^11] from the time when he tempted Christ in the desert or in the passion, and was conquered by him. They think that he tempted and conquered the first man, and secondly God, but was conquered by him, and therefore was bound in hell. — But others think that, from the time he fell, he was sunk down there because of the greatness of his sin. — But whether he has been sunk into hell or not, it is credible that he does not have the faculty of approaching us which he will have in the time of Antichrist; in which he will work fraudulently and violently, and therefore perhaps he is said[^12] to be loosed then, because then there will be given him by God a power of tempting men which he does not now have.

### Cap. VII. *Whether the demons, once conquered by the saints, approach others any further.*

From others too, who are conquered by saints living justly and chastely, the power of tempting others seems to be taken away. Hence Origen[^13]: «I think, indeed, he says, that the saints, fighting back against these instigators and conquering them, diminish the army of the demons, and, as it were[^14], destroy very many of them; nor is it any longer permitted to that spirit, who has been conquered by some saint living chastely and purely, to attack another man again». — But some think this is to be understood only of that vice in which he was overcome, so that, if he tempts some holy man with pride and is conquered, it is no longer permitted him to tempt that man or another with pride.

la: Cap. 40, 14. Locus Ezech. est 28, 12. 13. Vulgata: *perfectus decore*. — Etiam in hac dist. Magist. multa mutuavit ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 2. c. 4, et ex Abaelardo, Sic et non, c. 47.

en: [Job] ch. 40, 14. The passage of Ezekiel is 28, 12. 13. The Vulgate: *perfect in beauty*. — Also in this distinction the Master borrowed much from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 2, c. 4, and from Abelard, *Sic et non*, c. 47.

la: Libr. XXXII. Moral. c. 23. n. 47. (verbis modice mutatis), in quo loco Vat. sola *plenius* pro *magis*. Sequens locus Gregorii est in Ezech. 28, 13, n. 48.

en: Book XXXII of the *Morals*, c. 23, n. 47 (with the wording slightly altered), in which place the Vatican edition alone reads *plenius* for *magis*. The following passage of Gregory is on Ezekiel 28, 13, n. 48.

la: Cap. 14, 12. — Locus Isidori est I. Sent. c. 10. n. 8, secundum sensum, et locus Isaiae, qui mox citatur, est c. 14, 13. 14, nonnullis mutatis et omissis. Subinde pro *quidem* codd. B D bene *quippe*.

en: Ch. 14, 12. — The passage of Isidore is *Sentences* I, c. 10, n. 8, according to the sense, and the passage of Isaiah, which is next cited, is c. 14, 13. 14, with some things altered and omitted. Thereupon, for *quidem* codices B D rightly [read] *quippe*.

la: Cap. 12, 3. 4. — Paulo inferius pro *excepit* omnes edd., exc. Vat., *recipit*; et mox pro *ut sit nobis* ed. 1 *ut sint nobis*.

en: Ch. 12, 3. 4. — A little below, for *excepit* all the editions, except the Vatican, [read] *recipit*; and presently for *ut sit nobis* edition 1 [reads] *ut sint nobis*.

la: Ephes. 6, 12. Cfr. et ibid. 2, 2.

en: Ephesians 6, 12. Compare also ibid. 2, 2.

la: Cfr. August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 26. n. 33. Locus ex Petri Epist. mox citatus est II. Epist. c. 1, 19: ...*quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco.* Cfr. ibid. 2, 4. et Iudas v. 6: *Angelos... vinculis aeternis sub caligine reservavit.* Locus deinde Matth. est 25, 41.

en: Compare Augustine, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* XI, c. 26, n. 33. The passage from Peter's Epistle next cited is the Second Epistle, c. 1, 19: ...*as to a lamp shining in a dark place.* Compare ibid. 2, 4, and Jude v. 6: *He hath reserved the Angels... under darkness in everlasting chains.* The passage of Matthew next is 25, 41.

la: Epist. I. ad Cor. 15, 24. Mox respicitur Dan. 10, 13. — Ad initium huius cap. cod. Erf. annotat: *Illud Gandolphi, Sent. l. 2. c. 14.* Gandolphus ante Magistrum scripsit libros Sententiarum adhuc ineditos.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 15, 24. Presently Daniel 10, 13 is referred to. — At the beginning of this chapter the Erfurt codex notes: *That [reading] of Gandulph, Sentences bk. 2, c. 14.* Gandulph, before the Master, wrote books of Sentences still unedited.

la: Vat. *dominatur*, codd. nec non edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 refragantibus. — De mammona cfr. Luc. 16, 9-13; Matth. 6, 24.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *dominatur*, with the codices as well as editions 1, 2, 3, 7 opposing. — On mammon compare Luke 16, 9-13; Matthew 6, 24.

la: Oseae 13, 14. Cfr. Gregor., XII. Moral. c. 11. n. 15, et super Evang. Hom. 2, ubi haec habentur: *Partem abstulit, partem reliquit* (Ita cod. Erf.).

en: Hosea 13, 14. Compare Gregory, *Morals* XII, c. 11, n. 15, and on the Gospel, Homily 2, where these things are found: *He took away a part, he left a part* (Thus the Erfurt codex).

la: Cap. 20, 7. Deinde alluditur ad Matth. 24, 24; et postea ad Matth. 4, 1-11. quoad tentationem Christi.

en: Ch. 20, 7. Then allusion is made to Matthew 24, 24; and afterwards to Matthew 4, 1-11, as regards the temptation of Christ.

la: Cfr. Glossa ad Tob. 6, 5. — Sola Vat. in hoc cap. *relegatus... relegatum* pro *religatus... religatum*.

en: Compare the Gloss on Tobit 6, 5. — The Vatican edition alone in this chapter [reads] *relegatus... relegatum* for *religatus... religatum*.

la: Apoc. 20, 3. — Paulo superius pro *facultatem accedendi* Vat. cum aliquibus edd. *potestatem accedendi*.

en: Apocalypse 20, 3. — A little above, for *facultatem accedendi* the Vatican edition with some editions [reads] *potestatem accedendi*.

la: Hom. 15. n. 6. in c. 11. Iosue, abbreviate.

en: Homily 15, n. 6, on ch. 11 of Joshua, in abridged form.

la: Codd. et ed. 4. omittunt *et* ante *velut*; in edd. 1 et 8 pro *et velut* habetur *vel quod*.

en: The codices and edition 4 omit *et* before *velut*; in editions 1 and 8, for *et velut* there is *vel quod*.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is Lombard's text (the *littera*) for Distinction VI: Cap. I–VII on the fall of the evil Angels — that one (Lucifer) was loftiest among both the greater and lesser ranks who fell (Cap. I), whence/whither they were cast down (Cap. II), why they may dwell neither in heaven nor on earth (Cap. III), the preeminences among the demons and the name *mammon* (Cap. IV), whether all demons are in the murky air or some already in hell (Cap. V), the power of Lucifer and whether he is bound until Antichrist (Cap. VI), and whether a demon once conquered by a saint may attack again (Cap. VII). One continuous Lombard text spanning printed pp. 159–160 (= PDF 181–182); the COMMENTARIUS begins lower on p.160 (next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-divisio`).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Lombard's prose is in the IA djvu OCR (raw 11700–11800) but two-column-bled, and the Cap. V–VII right-column tail is cascade-displaced past line 11800; transcribed from the OCR base and fully re-set against the 450 dpi column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 159-160 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 159` / `160`), read L column top→bottom then R column, plus custom high-zoom crops of the p.160 R-column Cap. VI/VII body superscripts and both pages' footers.
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a littera chunk has no scholion. The marginal editorial glosses on the crops (`Gregorius.`, `Isidorus.`, `Dubium 1`, `Dubium 2`, `Dubium 3`, `Dubium 4`, `Opinio 1`, `Opinio 2`, `Origenes.`, `Alii hoc restringunt`) are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Cross-chunk footer — INCOMING (clean cross-distinction, no backfill).** The committed `bon-sent-II-d5-dubia`'s own Notes state it owns all of p.158's footer (¹–⁹) and that `DISTINCTIO VI` (raw 11700) opens fresh on p.159. Verified on the crops: p.159's footer is a single stream of 8 notes (L-column ¹–⁴, R-column ⁵–⁸), every one anchoring this littera's Cap. I–IV body. So this littera owns **all** of p.159's footer; `d5-dubia` not modified. Continuous renumber p.159: ¹ (Iob/Ezech., *Iob*¹, Cap. I) → [^1]; ² (Gregor. *Moral.* XXXII, *Gregorius*², Cap. I) → [^2]; ³ (Isaias/Isidor., *Isaias*³, Cap. I) → [^3]; ⁴ (Apoc. 12, *Apocalypsi*⁴, Cap. II) → [^4]; ⁵ (Ephes. 6, *Apostolus*⁵, Cap. II) → [^5]; ⁶ (August. + 2 Petr., *infestarent*⁶, Cap. III) → [^6]; ⁷ (1 Cor. 15 + Gandulph note, *Apostolus*⁷, Cap. IV) → [^7]; ⁸ (Vat. *dominatur* + mammon, *nominatur*⁸, Cap. IV) → [^8].
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.160 — OUTGOING (note for the d6-divisio build).** p.160 footnote numbering restarts. The page is two-stream. The **main stream** (L-column ¹–⁴, R-column ⁵–⁶) all anchors THIS littera's Cap. V–VII body: ¹ Oseae 13,14 (*auctoritas*¹, Cap. V) → [^9]; ² Apoc. 20,7 (*Apocalypsi*², Cap. VI) → [^10]; ³ Glossa ad Tob. + Vat. *relegatum* variant (*dicunt*³ at *Quem ibi religatum dicunt*, Cap. VI) → [^11]; ⁴ Apoc. 20,3 + *facultatem/potestatem accedendi* variant (*dicitur*⁴ tunc solvendus, Cap. VI) → [^12]; ⁵ Origen *Hom.* 15 in Iosue (*Origenes*⁵, Cap. VII) → [^13]; ⁶ codd. omit *et* ante *velut* (*velut*⁶, Cap. VII) → [^14]. The separately-headed **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** block on p.160 (its own ¹ `Vat. qui et quales ceciderint, omissis insuper verbis secundo vero, in quem locum.`) anchors the COMMENTARIUS *Divisio textus* body (*unde ceciderunt¹*) and is the following `bon-sent-II-d6-divisio`'s apparatus. **d6-divisio is still a decade-rechunked skeleton — when it is promoted it must take the p.160 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block (and any p.160 COMMENTARIUS main-stream notes that fall in its raw range), NOT this littera's main-stream ¹–⁶ (which are [^9]–[^14] here).** No backfill issue now; just do not double-count at the d6-divisio build.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–14):** p.159 single-stream ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ → [^1]–[^8]; p.160 main-stream ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ → [^9] [^10] [^11] [^12] [^13] [^14]. p.160 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` ¹ deferred to `bon-sent-II-d6-divisio`.
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 14 superscripts and both page-footers were verified on the 450 dpi crops (plus high-zoom crops of the p.160 R-column Cap. VI/VII markers and the p.159 footer). The Iob locus is rendered *Cap. 40, 14* (the IA OCR and the 450 dpi crop both render the chapter digit as `10`; ch. 40 is unambiguous from the lemma *Ipse principium viarum Dei* = Iob 40,19 Vulg., so corrected silently per CLAUDE.md, not flagged).


title: Dist. 6, Divisio Textus

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

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 6 — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 160 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI.

*De ruina malorum angelorum.*

**Praeterea sciri oportet etc.**

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de aversione et conversione Angelorum. In hac parte agit de lapsu sive ruina malorum. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda removet dubitationem, ibi: *Solet autem quaeri* etc. Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat, *unde ceciderunt*[^1]; secundo vero, *in quem locum*, ibi: *Et tantae superbiae;* tertio vero, qualiter ibi habent ordinem praelationum, ibi: *Et sicut inter bonos* etc. Similiter secunda pars habet tres. In prima movet quaestionem de unitate loci quantum ad Angelos minores; secundo quantum ad luciferum; tertio occasionaliter ostendit confligendi modum inter nos et nostrum adversarium. Primum facit ibi: *Solet autem quaeri* etc.; secundum ibi: *De lucifero;* tertium, ibi: *Aliis quoque, qui a sanctis* etc. — Principaliter igitur in hac distinctione determinatur, unde Angeli corruerunt; et deinde, quis locus post ruinam, et quis ordo in loco et officio.

<!-- page 161 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum, quae in hac parte dicuntur de lapsu Angelorum, tria incidunt quaerenda. Primum est, de quo ordine vel dignitate ceciderunt. Secundum est, in quid ceciderunt. Tertium est de ordine sive praelatione eorum post casum. Circa primum duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, de quo ordine fuit lucifer. Secundo, de quo ordine lapsi sunt minores Angeli.

---

english:
<!-- page 160 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI.

*Of the ruin of the evil Angels.*

**"Moreover it must be known" etc.**

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the aversion and conversion of the Angels. In this part he treats of the fall or ruin of the wicked. And this part is divided into two. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he removes a doubt, there: *But it is wont to be asked* etc. The first part has three parts. In the first he determines *whence they fell*[^1]; secondly, *into what place*, there: *And of so great pride;* thirdly, in what manner they have there an order of precedences, there: *And just as among the good* etc. Likewise the second part has three [sections]. In the first he raises a question about the unity of place as regards the lesser Angels; secondly as regards Lucifer; thirdly he incidentally shows the manner of contending between us and our adversary. The first he does there: *But it is wont to be asked* etc.; the second there: *Of Lucifer;* the third, there: *To others also, who by holy [men]* etc. — Principally, therefore, in this distinction it is determined whence the Angels fell; and then, what place [they have] after the ruin, and what order in place and office.

<!-- page 161 -->

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the things which are said in this part concerning the fall of the Angels, three [things] arise to be asked. The first is, from what order or dignity they fell. The second is, into what they fell. The third is, of the order or precedence of them after the fall. Concerning the first, two [things] are asked. First it is asked, of what order Lucifer was. Secondly, of what order the lesser Angels fell.

la: Vat. *qui et quales ceciderint*, omissis insuper verbis *secundo vero, in quem locum.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *qui et quales ceciderint* (who and of what sort fell), with the words *secundo vero, in quem locum* (secondly, into what place) moreover omitted.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is the COMMENTARIUS opening for Distinction VI: the *Divisio textus* (Bonaventure's division of Lombard's d.6 text — the first part determining the truth [whence the wicked fell, into what place, and the order of precedence among them], the second part removing a doubt; with the parallel three-part division of the second part: the unity of place for the lesser Angels, for Lucifer, and the incidental manner of contending between us and our adversary) and the *Tractatio quaestionum* (the question-plan: three heads — from what order/dignity they fell, into what they fell, and the order/precedence after the fall — with the first head's two questions: of what order Lucifer was / of what order the lesser Angels fell). Spans printed pp. 160–161 (= PDF 182–183); the COMMENTARIUS begins mid-p.160, below the end of Lombard's Cap. VII (preceding chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-littera`); the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM is wholly on p.161.
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Clean structured prose in the IA djvu OCR (raw 11801–11846), two-column-bled; transcribed from the OCR base and re-set against the 450 dpi p.160–161 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 160-161 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 160` / `161`), read L column top→bottom then R column for both the DIVISIO TEXTUS (p.160) and the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.161), plus the p.160 R-column footer (to read the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block). The OCR garbles `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM YI` / `Praetcrm sciri oportel` / `Aliis quoquc, quia sanctls` were corrected against the crops to `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI` / `Praeterea sciri oportet` / `Aliis quoque, qui a sanctis` (the last verified italic on p160-R-1).
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) — a divisio chunk has no scholion. The marginal editorial glosses on the crops (`Origenes.`, `Dubium 1`, `Alii hoc restringunt`, beside the preceding littera's Cap. VI/VII) belong to the littera page and are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Cross-chunk footer at p.160 (RECEIVED — no backfill).** p.160's footer is two-stream. The **main-stream** notes (L-column ¹–⁴: Oseae 13,14+Gregor.; Apoc. 20,7+Matth.; Glossa ad Tob.+Vat. *relegatum*; Apoc. 20,3+*facultatem/potestatem*; R-column ⁵–⁶: Origen *Hom.* 15 in Iosue; codd. omit *et* ante *velut*) anchor the *preceding* committed chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-littera`'s Cap. V–VII body and are already its `[^9]`–`[^14]` (the outgoing split documented in that chunk's Notes). **Not taken here; `d6-littera` not modified.** This divisio's apparatus is solely the separately-headed **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** block (p.160 R-column footer, one note): ¹ `Vat. qui et quales ceciderint, omissis insuper verbis secundo vero, in quem locum.` → [^1], anchored at the DIVISIO's *unde ceciderunt*¹ (the Vatican edition reads *qui et quales ceciderint* and omits the words *secundo vero, in quem locum*). Single body superscript in the chunk (raw ~11808, DIVISIO L-column); the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.161) carries no superscripts and the p.161 footer is empty for this chunk's range — confirmed on the p.161 crops.
- **Boundary to d6-a1-q1 — CLEAN.** The short `ARTICULUS I.` opener + title *De quo ordine mali angeli ceciderunt.* + `QUAESTIO I. Utrum lucifer fuerit de supremo ordine Angelorum` (raw 11847+, lower on p.161 = PDF 183) folds into the following `bon-sent-II-d6-a1-q1` (Vol II convention — no standalone article-divisio chunk). This divisio's footer is wholly the p.160 R-column `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block; a1-q1's apparatus begins on p.161. No split, no backfill.
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** p.160 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` ¹ → [^1]. (p.160 main-stream ¹–⁶ = committed `bon-sent-II-d6-littera` [^9]–[^14]; not in this chunk's range. p.161 carries no footer notes for the DIVISIO/TRACTATIO.)
- **No `[?]` flags.** Prose clean in OCR, the body superscript and the R-column `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` note verified on the p.160 crops; the p.161 TRACTATIO + the divisio→a1-q1 boundary verified on the p.161 crops. The COMMENTARIUS lemma rendered as the bold incipit (`Praeterea sciri oportet etc.`) and the divisio's *ibi:* lemma-cues kept in italic per the divisio convention (the d5-divisio pattern). A pars-divisio whose p.160 page was already read while building the prior `d6-littera` chunk — only the p.161 TRACTATIO needed a fresh extract; a true half-session per the s15/s23/s36 d2/d5-divisio pattern.