title: Dist. 34, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 764 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum, crescente caritate, timor decrescat.*

Secundo quaeritur de timore gratuito quantum ad eius diminutionem, et est quaestio, utrum, crescente caritate, timor decrescat. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo ex auctoritate beati Ioannis in primae canonicae quarto capitulo[^1]: *Perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem;* super quod dicit Augustinus: « Quantum caritas crescit, tantum timor decrescit; et quantum illa fit interior, tantum ille pellitur foras; maior caritas, minor timor »; sed constat, quod hoc non potest intelligi de timore servili, quia ille non stat cum caritate: ergo quantum caritas crescit, tantum timor gratuitus decrescit.

2. Item, quanto quis magis amat, tanto magis sperat; et quanto magis sperat, tanto minus timet: ergo quanto plus crescit in caritate, tanto magis decrescit in timore[^2].

3. Item, quanto magis crescit caritas, tanto strictius et fortius homo alligatur Deo; et quanto strictius se sentit alligatum, tanto minus timet separari: si ergo timor gratuitus est ille, quo quis timet separari a Deo; quanto[^3] caritas magis intenditur, tanto timor magis remittitur.

4. Item, crescente amore, crescit gustus et delectatio; sed quanto plus crescit delectatio, tanto minuitur poena: si ergo timor poenam habet[^4], videtur, quod quantum caritas crescit, tantum necesse sit, timorem decrescere.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augmentata causa, augmentatur effectus[^5]; sed fides et amor causant timorem gratuitum: ergo fide et caritate crescente, necesse est, pariter et timorem crescere.

2. Item, quanto magis aliquis amat aliquid, tanto magis dolet, si illud amiserit[^6]; sed sicut dolor est de bono amisso, sic timor est de futuro, ne amittatur: ergo quanto aliquis magis amat aliquid, tanto magis timet, ne amittat illud: ergo crescente caritate, necesse est, timorem crescere.

3. Item, quanto quis maiorem caritatem habet, tanto humilior est — quia « quanto sumus a tumore superbiae inaniores, tanto sumus dilectione pleniores », sicut dicit Augustinus[^7] — sed crescente humilitate, crescit timor Dei: ergo a primo, crescente caritate, necesse est, timorem Dei crescere.

4. Item, quanto aliquis maioris caritatis est, tanto sollicitior est, ut serviat Deo et ne faciat aliquid, quod Deum offendat, iuxta illud Michaeae sexto[^8]: *Indicabo tibi, homo, quid Deus requirat a te;* et post: *Et sollicitum ambulare cum Domino Deo tuo;* sed quanto maior est sollicitudo vitandi culpam, tanto maior est timoris abundantia: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Timor gratuitus, crescente caritate, decrescit quoad actum, quo cor sollicitatur ex consideratione suae fragilitatis; sed crescit quoad actum, quo humiliatur ex consideratione suae parvitatis et divinae magnitudinis.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic, sicut in praecedentibus[^9], diversi diversa sentiunt.

Quidam enim volunt dicere, quod est loqui de timore quantum ad *habitum* et quantum ad *usum*. Si loquamur de ipso quantum ad *habitum,* verum est, quod crescente caritate, crescit, propter hoc quod habitus gratuiti sunt aequales[^10]. Si vero loquamur quantum ad *usum,* sic dixerunt, quod crescente caritate, decrescit timor; quia quanto magis viget in nobis usus caritatis, tanto minus viget usus timoris. Et illud per *experientiam* est manifestum. Nam homo in principio conversionis multa ex timore facit; sed cum gustavit spiritum devotionis et dulcedinis, quae est in amore, approximans ad statum perfectionis, iam ad bene operandum magis trahitur liberalitate amoris, quam stimuletur[^11] poenalitate timoris. — Sed in hoc modo dicendi videntur duo opposita implicari. Si enim magnitudo *habitus* attenditur et dignoscitur penes magnitudinem *actus* et *usus,* decrescente dono quantum ad *usum,* videtur, quod necesse sit, ipsum *decrescere* quantum ad *habitum;* aut si *crescit* quantum ad *habitum,* videtur, quod necesse sit, ipsum *crescere* quantum ad *usum* et actum.

<!-- page 765 -->

Propterea est et alius modus dicendi, quod, sicut prius[^12] dictum est, timor gratuitus dividi habet in initialem et filialem. Et cum quaeritur: utrum, crescente caritate, decrescat timor; responderi potest, quod verum est de quodam timore, et falsum de alio. De timore, inquam, initiali verum est, quia quodam modo communicat cum servili in hoc, quod formidat poenam; de filiali vero non est verum, quia quanto quis maioris caritatis est, tanto magis refugit divinam offensam et cum Deo sollicitius ambulat, iuxta illud Apostoli[^13]: *Qui se existimat stare videat, ne cadat.* — Sed adhuc illud non videtur omnino satisfacere; quoniam timor filialis, quo quis timet Deum offendere, *poenam habet,* et multum affligitur anima in illa formidine; beatus autem Ioannes dicit, quod *perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem* propter annexam poenalitatem.

Et propterea potest adhuc aliter dici, quod duplex est *usus* ipsius timoris gratuiti: unus, inquam, quo cor hominis sollicitatur[^14] ex consideratione suae fragilitatis; alius, quo humiliatur ex consideratione suae parvitatis et divinae magnitudinis. Et primus *usus* minuitur, cum caritas perficitur, quia confidentia consurgit ex perfectione caritatis, ut iam homo dicat illud Apostoli ad Romanos octavo[^15]: *Quis nos separabit a caritate Christi* etc.? Alius vero *usus* crescit, caritate crescente, sicut et timoris habitus; unde quanto aliquis plus habet de spiritu amoris, tanto plus habet de spiritu timoris, quia tanto magis elongatur a spiritu superbiae sive tumoris, secundum quod dicit Augustinus.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam; patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Rationes enim ad utramque partem inductae verum concludunt, quia quantum ad diversas vias procedunt, sicut patet de rationibus, quae ad primam partem inducuntur, quae ostendunt, timorem minui, caritate crescente. Procedunt enim de timore quantum ad usum, qui habet *poenam,* hoc est quantum ad illum usum, quo quis sollicitatur, ne pro sua fragilitate cadat in culpam et pro sua culpa deiiciatur in poenam, sicut patet in[^16] discurrendo per singulas. — Rationes autem, quae ad oppositum adducuntur, procedunt de timore secundum illum usum, secundum quem perfectae caritati est consonus; et verum est, quod crescit quantum ad illum, sicut patet in primis tribus rationibus.

Ad illud tamen quod ultimo obiicitur, quod crescente caritate, crescit sollicitudo; dicendum, quod non omnis sollicitudo est ex timore. Sollicitudo enim, qua quis suspenditur animo, ut semper placeat Deo et faciat quae sunt Deo accepta[^17], magis procedit ex amore quam ex timore. — Sed si ulterius obiiciat, quia non solum talis est sollicitus, ut placeat, sed etiam est sollicitus, ne offendat; dicendum, quod illa sollicitudo est prudentiae[^18] et diligentiae, quae, etsi habeat affectum timoris annexum, in viris tamen perfectis propter securitatem, quam ex perfectione amoris concipiunt, non ita viget, sicut in imperfectis, loquendo *simpliciter,* nisi forte *dispensative* et *ad tempus.* Aliquando enim viri perfectissimi ex consideratione divinorum iudiciorum ex intimis visceribus concutiuntur.

Et ex hoc posset adhuc elici praeter praedictos modos alius modus dicendi, quod usus alicuius habitus potest dici dupliciter crescere, vel decrescere: vel motus *intensione,* vel actuum *numerositate.* Et cum dicitur, quod crescente caritate, timor decrescit quantum ad usum sollicitudinis de casu; hoc non intelligitur de *intensione,* sed magis motuum[^19] *numerositate;* quia non adeo indiget vir perfectus sollicitari, secundum quod imperfectus, quia habet, unde magis timeat, tum ratione culpae praeteritae, ne forte non sit indulta, tum ratione futurae, ne ex fragilitate et defectu amoris cadat. — In hoc igitur stat summa totius responsionis, qualitercumque varietur modus dicendi, quod timor gratuitus, crescente caritate, uno modo crescit, alio modo decrescit etiam quantum ad usum[^20].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether, as charity grows, fear decreases.*

Secondly there is inquiry concerning gratuitous fear as regards its diminution, and the question is: whether, as charity grows, fear decreases. And that it does so, seems [to follow]:

1. First, from the authority of blessed John in the fourth chapter of the first canonical [epistle][^1]: *Perfect charity casts out fear;* on which Augustine says: "As much as charity grows, by so much does fear decrease; and as much as the former becomes interior, by so much is the latter driven outside; the greater the charity, the lesser the fear"; but it is established that this cannot be understood of servile fear, since that does not stand together with charity: therefore as much as charity grows, by so much does gratuitous fear decrease.

2. Likewise, the more one loves, the more one hopes; and the more one hopes, the less one fears: therefore the more one grows in charity, by so much the more does one decrease in fear[^2].

3. Likewise, the more charity grows, the more tightly and strongly is a man bound to God; and the more tightly he feels himself bound, the less does he fear to be separated: if therefore gratuitous fear is that by which one fears to be separated from God; the more[^3] charity is intensified, by so much the more is fear remitted.

4. Likewise, as love grows, taste and delight grow; but the more delight grows, by so much is suffering lessened: if therefore fear has suffering[^4], it seems that as much as charity grows, by so much it is necessary that fear decrease.

**On the contrary:** 1. When the cause is increased, the effect is increased[^5]; but faith and love cause gratuitous fear: therefore, as faith and charity grow, it is necessary that fear too grow equally.

2. Likewise, the more anyone loves something, the more he grieves if he should lose it[^6]; but just as grief is over a good that has been lost, so fear is over the future, lest it be lost: therefore the more anyone loves something, by so much the more does he fear lest he lose it: therefore, as charity grows, it is necessary that fear grow.

3. Likewise, the greater the charity anyone has, the more humble he is — because "the emptier we are of the swelling of pride, by so much the fuller we are of love," as Augustine says[^7] — but as humility grows, the fear of God grows: therefore, from the first [premise], as charity grows, it is necessary that the fear of God grow.

4. Likewise, the greater anyone's charity, the more solicitous he is to serve God and not to do anything that might offend God, according to that [text] of Micah, chapter six[^8]: *I will show thee, O man, what God requires of thee;* and afterwards: *And to walk solicitous with the Lord thy God;* but the greater the solicitude for avoiding fault, by so much the greater is the abundance of fear: therefore, etc.

> **Conclusion.** Gratuitous fear, as charity grows, decreases as regards the act by which the heart is made solicitous from the consideration of its own frailty; but it grows as regards the act by which it is humbled from the consideration of its own littleness and of the divine magnitude.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that here, as in the preceding [questions][^9], different [doctors] hold different views.

For some wish to say that one may speak of fear as regards the *habit* and as regards its *use.* If we speak of it as regards the *habit,* it is true that, as charity grows, it grows, because the gratuitous habits are equal[^10]. But if we speak as regards its *use,* thus they have said that, as charity grows, fear decreases; because the more the use of charity flourishes in us, by so much the less does the use of fear flourish. And this is manifest by *experience.* For a man at the beginning of his conversion does many things out of fear; but when he has tasted the spirit of devotion and of the sweetness that is in love, drawing near to the state of perfection, he is now drawn to act well more by the liberality of love than goaded[^11] by the penal quality of fear. — But in this mode of speaking two opposites seem to be implied. For if the magnitude of the *habit* is attended to and discerned according to the magnitude of the *act* and of the *use,* then, the gift decreasing as regards *use,* it seems that it is necessary that it *decrease* as regards the *habit;* or if it *grows* as regards the *habit,* it seems that it is necessary that it *grow* as regards *use* and act.

Therefore there is also another mode of speaking, namely that, as was said before[^12], gratuitous fear has to be divided into initial and filial. And when it is asked whether, as charity grows, fear decreases; it can be answered that it is true of a certain fear, and false of another. Of fear, I say, of the initial it is true, because it communicates in a certain manner with the servile in this, that it dreads punishment; but of the filial it is not true, because the greater anyone's charity, by so much the more does he shun the divine offense and walk more solicitously with God, according to that [text] of the Apostle[^13]: *Let him who thinks himself to stand take heed lest he fall.* — But this still does not seem to satisfy entirely; since filial fear, by which one fears to offend God, *has suffering,* and the soul is much afflicted in that dread; yet blessed John says that *perfect charity casts out fear* on account of the annexed penal quality.

And therefore it can yet be said otherwise, namely that the *use* of gratuitous fear itself is twofold: one, I say, by which the heart of man is made solicitous[^14] from the consideration of its own frailty; the other, by which it is humbled from the consideration of its own littleness and of the divine magnitude. And the first *use* is lessened when charity is perfected, because confidence arises from the perfection of charity, so that now a man says that [word] of the Apostle to the Romans, chapter eight[^15]: *Who shall separate us from the charity of Christ,* etc.? But the other *use* grows as charity grows, just as does the habit of fear; whence the more anyone has of the spirit of love, by so much the more does he have of the spirit of fear, because by so much the more is he removed from the spirit of pride or swelling, according to what Augustine says.

And by this the response to the proposed question is evident; the response to the objections is also evident. For the reasons adduced for either part conclude truly, because they proceed according to diverse ways, as is evident from the reasons adduced for the first part, which show that fear is lessened as charity grows. For they proceed concerning fear as regards the use that has *suffering,* that is, as regards that use by which one is made solicitous, lest through his own frailty he fall into fault and through his own fault be cast down[^16] into punishment, as is evident in running through them one by one. — But the reasons that are adduced for the opposite proceed concerning fear according to that use according to which it is consonant with perfect charity; and it is true that it grows as regards that [use], as is evident in the first three reasons.

Yet to that which is objected last, namely that, as charity grows, solicitude grows; it must be said that not every solicitude is from fear. For the solicitude by which one is held suspended in mind, so as always to please God and to do the things that are acceptable to God[^17], proceeds more from love than from fear. — But if one should object further, that such a man is not only solicitous to please, but also solicitous not to offend; it must be said that that solicitude is of prudence[^18] and of diligence, which, even though it have the affect of fear annexed, nevertheless in perfect men, on account of the security which they conceive from the perfection of love, does not flourish so [strongly] as in the imperfect, speaking *simply,* unless perhaps *by dispensation* and *for a time.* For sometimes the most perfect men, from the consideration of the divine judgments, are shaken to their inmost depths.

And from this there could yet be elicited, besides the aforesaid modes, another mode of speaking, namely that the use of any habit can be said to grow, or decrease, in two ways: either by the *intensity* of motion, or by the *number* of acts. And when it is said that, as charity grows, fear decreases as regards the use of solicitude about falling; this is not understood of *intensity,* but rather of the *number*[^19] of motions; because the perfect man does not so much need to be made solicitous as the imperfect, since he has whereby he may the more fear, both by reason of past fault, lest perhaps it be not pardoned, and by reason of future [fault], lest through frailty and a defect of love he fall. — In this, then, stands the sum of the whole response, in whatever way the mode of speaking be varied, namely that gratuitous fear, as charity grows, in one way grows, in another way decreases, even as regards use[^20].

la: Vers. 18. — Verba August. videsis hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Verse 18. — The words of Augustine see here in the text of the Master, c. 5.

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

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

la: Permulti codd. et edd. 1, 2 *quantum*.

en: Very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *quantum*.

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 4, 18. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Post *tanto* Vat. repetit *plus*.

en: First Epistle of John 4:18. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6. — After *tanto* the Vatican [edition] repeats *plus*.

la: Codd. G K *Quantum augmentantur causae, tantum augmentantur effectus*.

en: Codices G K [read] *As much as the causes are increased, by so much are the effects increased*.

la: Vide supra pag. 338, nota 3. et 8. — De *minori*, in qua non pauci codd. omittunt *bono*, vide infra pag. 766, nota 5. et supra pag. 569, nota 4.

en: See above p. 338, note 3 and 8. — On the *minor* [premise], in which not a few codices omit *bono*, see below p. 766, note 5, and above p. 569, note 4.

la: Libr. VIII. de Trin. c. 8. n. 12, in quo dicto edd. 1, 2 cum textu origin. pro *inaniores* exhibent *saniores*.

en: Book VIII *On the Trinity*, c. 8, n. 12; in which passage editions 1, 2, with the original text, instead of *inaniores* present *saniores*.

la: Vers. 8. Post *Indicabo tibi, homo,* Vulgata addit *quid sit bonum et*. — Paulo ante pro *quod Deum* cod. U *quo Deum*.

en: Verse 8. After *I will show thee, O man,* the Vulgate adds *what is good and*. — A little before, instead of *quod Deum* codex U [reads] *quo Deum*.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. et a. 1. q. 3.

en: Cf. the preceding question and a. 1, q. 3.

la: Vide infra d. 36. q. 5. — Paulo superius post *crescit* cod. R supplet *timor,* cod. S *habitus timoris,* et infra post *Si vero loquamur* cod. Z subdit *de ipso*.

en: See below d. 36, q. 5. — A little above, after *crescit,* codex R supplies *timor,* codex S *habitus timoris;* and below, after *Si vero loquamur,* codex Z adds *de ipso*.

la: Cod. A *trahatur,* et pro *liberalitate* codd. G I K L V *libertate*.

en: Codex A [reads] *trahatur,* and instead of *liberalitate* codices G I K L V [read] *libertate*.

la: Quaest. praeced. Cfr. infra dub. 2. — Paulo inferius pro *decrescat* multi codd. *decrescit,* omisso *timor*.

en: The preceding question. Cf. below dub. 2. — A little below, instead of *decrescat* many codices [read] *decrescit,* with *timor* omitted.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 10, 12. Inferius respicitur I. Ioan. 4, 18.

en: First [Epistle] to the Corinthians 10:12. Below, First John 4:18 is referred to.

la: Codd. A G H I L N T U V *sollicitat,* et paulo inferius *humiliat* pro *humiliatur*. Subinde pro *suae parvitatis* cod. U *propriae parvitatis*.

en: Codices A G H I L N T U V [read] *sollicitat,* and a little below *humiliat* for *humiliatur*. Thereafter, instead of *suae parvitatis* codex U [reads] *propriae parvitatis*.

la: Vers. 35. — Inferius post *sicut* ex codd. A H P R S U Z bb inseruimus *et,* cod. bb pro *timoris habitus* substituit *timor*. Paulo post pro *timoris* multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 perperam *timoris,* cod. U *timoris imperfecti*.

en: Verse 35. — Below, after *sicut,* from codices A H P R S U Z bb we have inserted *et;* codex bb substitutes *timor* for *timoris habitus*. A little after, instead of *timoris* many codices and editions 1, 2 wrongly [read] *timoris;* codex U [reads] *timoris imperfecti*.

la: Codd. A G H Z bb omittunt *in,* et deinde cod. K pro *singulas* substituit *singula*.

en: Codices A G H Z bb omit *in,* and then codex K substitutes *singula* for *singulas*.

la: Respicitur illud I. Cor. 7, 32: *Sollicitus est quae Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo*.

en: That [text] of First Corinthians 7:32 is referred to: *He is solicitous for the things that are the Lord's, how he may please God*.

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *providentiae,* et mox pro *affectum* Vat. *effectum*. Proxime ante cod. bb verbis *illa sollicitudo* praemittit *etiam,* plures alii codd. praefigunt *et*.

en: The editions, with a few codices, [read] *providentiae;* and soon, instead of *affectum,* the Vatican [edition reads] *effectum*. Just before, codex bb prefixes *etiam* to the words *illa sollicitudo;* several other codices prefix *et*.

la: Cod. Z *de motus intensione, sed magis actuum*. Paulo inferius pro *sit indulta,* quam scripturam invenimus in codd. A H K P S U Z bb, alii codd. exhibent *sit indulgentia indulta,* cod. O *sit ex indulgentia,* edd. *sit indulgentia ei data*.

en: Codex Z [reads] *de motus intensione, sed magis actuum*. A little below, instead of *sit indulta,* which reading we find in codices A H K P S U Z bb, other codices exhibit *sit indulgentia indulta;* codex O *sit ex indulgentia;* the editions *sit indulgentia ei data*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

english_scholion:
**`has_scholion: false` — REDIRECT to a2-q1, §II.** This question's range (raw 53032–53151) carries no own `SCHOLION.` header. Per the q1 hand-off, the d34-p2-a2-q1 article-master scholion **§II** (*Quoad 2. quaestionem… diminuatur actus timoris*) is exactly this question's *diminutio* dossier and forward-covers it. The final footer note 20 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) confirms the redirect in the source itself. → see the scholion to `bon-sent-III-d34-p2-a2-q1`, §II.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands (Vol III two-column, PDF-priority inversion for the cascade-shattered Respondeo / *opinio 1/2/3 + Additur 4. modus* blocks), OCR base for clean running prose and marker spacing. Raw range **53032–53151** (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`), bounded forward by `QUAESTIO III.` at raw 53152. English is a fresh literal translation, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Alignment check — PASS 1:1.** Opener *Secundo quaeritur de timore gratuito quantum ad eius diminutionem, et est quaestio, utrum, crescente caritate, timor decrescat* = TRACTATIO **Secundo** *quantum ad eius diminutionem* (the second of ART. II's three questions: divisio / **diminutio** / evacuatio). No q-swap.

**Page-split map (page span pp.764–765, PDF 786–787).** The resume note's "opens p.763 onto p.764" was an OCR digit-mangle; the running heads are authoritative: `764 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (verso) carries the QUAESTIO II header + args 1–4 + Sed contra 1–3 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opinio 1; `DIST. XXXIV. P. II. ART. II.` (recto, OCR-garbled as `763`/`765`) carries opinio 2/3 + Conclusiones + replies + *Additur 4. modus* + Epilogus, then QUAESTIO III begins at the foot of p.765-L.
- **p.764** = QUAESTIO II header, args 1–4, Sed contra 1–3, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (opinio 1 *Improbatur*). Footer band nn.1–11 → [^1]–[^11].
- **p.765** = Respondeo cont. (opinio 2, opinio 3, Conclusio 1/2, Ad argg., Ad 4. arg. pro negat. / Duplex sollicitudo / Notandum, *Additur 4. modus dicendi cum 4. distinctione*, Epilogus). Footer band nn.1–9 → [^12]–[^20]; **nn.10–11 anchor QUAESTIO III** and are forwarded to a2-q3.

**Apparatus = 20 entries**, NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart, renumbered continuous. Marker pairing 20/20 (each `[^N]:` def has matching anchors in both Latin and English bodies).

**Footer hand-off — picked up:** NOTHING (q2 opened its own fresh band on p.764; a2-q1 closed clean on p.763). **Forwarded to a2-q3:** p.765 footer **nn.10–11** — n.10 (*Psalm. 18, 10; Vulgata permanens pro permanet*) and n.11 (*Vers. 2. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 8.*) anchor QUAESTIO III's args 1–2 (*Timor Domini sanctus permanet in saeculum saeculi* / *Isaiae undecimo … de Christo*). q2's own band stops at n.9 (=[^20], the scholion-redirect).

**Scholion disposition — `has_scholion: false`, REDIRECT to a2-q1 §II.** q2's range has no own `SCHOLION.` header; the redirect marker [^20] (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, p.765 n.9) points to the a2-q1 article-master scholion §II (the *diminutio* dossier — *Quoad 2. quaestionem… diminuatur actus timoris*).

**No `[?]` flags** — both pages (764, 765) fully legible at 450 dpi.

**J2 marker fix (2026-07-13).** The `## English` section (which includes the `### Scholion` REDIRECT note as a subsection) carried `[^20]` twice: once as the genuine translation anchor at "...even as regards use[^20]" (mirroring the Latin's sole `[^20]` at "...quantum ad usum[^20]"), and once inside the editorial REDIRECT note's prose ("The final footer note [^20] ... confirms the redirect"), which is commentary referencing the apparatus entry by number, not a translated anchor. Cause (a), stray duplicate: de-linked the prose mention to plain "footer note 20" so only the true translation anchor remains.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 34, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 765 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum timor gratuitus in patria maneat, an evacuetur.*

Tertio quaeritur de timore gratuito quantum ad evacuationem, et quaeritur, utrum in patria maneat, an evacuetur. Et quod maneat, videtur:

1. Per illud Psalmi[^1]: *Timor Domini sanctus permanet in saeculum saeculi:* si ergo in saeculum saeculi permanet, non ergo evacuatur, adveniente beatitudine.

2. Item, Isaiae undecimo[^2] dicitur de Christo:

<!-- page 766 -->

*Requiescet super eum spiritus timoris Domini:* si ergo Christus fuit perfectissimus comprehensor, et in eo fuit timor; videtur, quod donum timoris non evacuetur.

3. Item, Ecclesiasticus[^3]: *Nihil melius quam timere Deum;* et primo eiusdem: *Plenitudo sapientiae timor Domini:* si ergo omne bonum perfectum, et maxime plenitudo sapientiae, erit in summa beatitudine; videtur, quod donum timoris nullo modo habeat evacuari.

4. Item, sicut summae Bonitati debetur summus amor, sic summae Maiestati debetur summus timor, secundum illud Malachiae primo[^4]: *Si ego Dominus, ubi est timor meus?* sed in patria exsolvemus Deo omnia quae debemus: si ergo ibi erit amor summae Bonitatis, videtur etiam, quod ibi sit timor summae Maiestatis.

**Sed contra:** 1. Tanta, vel maior est perfectio in spe, quanta est in timore; sed spes evacuabitur in patria, sicut dictum est supra[^5]: ergo et timor.

2. Item, sicut spes est respectu futuri boni, sic timor est respectu futuri mali[^6]; sed in patria nec erit aliquod malum futurum nec poterit esse: ergo ibi nullus erit timor.

3. Item, sicut dicit Augustinus super illud Ioannis decimo[^7]: *Mercenarius fugit* etc.: « Timor est fuga animi, ne amittat quod amat »; sed in patria nullo modo erit huiusmodi fuga nec possibilitas ad amissionem boni: ergo nullus erit ibi timor.

4. Item, sicut paci opponitur inquietudo, sic securitati opponitur timor: ergo sicut ubi est summa pax, ibi[^8] nulla est inquietudo, sic ubi erit summa securitas, ibi nullus timor; sed hoc erit in patria: ergo etc.

5. Item, cum triplex sit differentia timoris-doni, videlicet servilis, initialis et filialis; servilis non manet, quia expellitur a gratia; initialis non, quia expellitur a caritate perfecta; filialis non, quia timet, ne oculos Patris offendat: ergo non videtur, quod timor secundum aliquam sui differentiam maneat in patria.

6. Item, plus excedit perfectio gloriae ipsum timorem filialem, quam excedat perfectio caritatis ipsum timorem initialem; sed timor initialis non stat cum caritate perfecta, ut ostensum fuit supra[^9]: ergo nec timor filialis cum gloria. Nec est alia differentia timoris, quae ibi remaneat: ergo donum timoris simpliciter evacuabitur in patria.

> **Conclusio.** Donum timoris in patria quoad unum tantum actum non evacuatur, sed salvatur et perficitur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum fuit in praecedentibus[^10], timoris est intueri tria, videlicet poenam, ut fugiat; offensam, ut illam caveat; Maiestatem summam, ut illi subiaceat exhibendo reverentiam. Et secundum hoc triplex est doni timoris differentia: unus, qui principaliter aspicit poenam, et iste est servilis; alius vero, qui unum oculum habet ad poenam, sed tamen principaliorem habet ad offensam vitandam, et hic est initialis; tertius autem, qui unum oculum habet respectu offensae vitandae, alium vero respectu reverentiae exhibendae, et hic est filialis; cuius etsi unus usus sit in refugiendo, ne separetur a Deo, alter excellentior et magis praecipuus est in reverendo Deum, resiliendo a summa Maiestate in propriam parvitatem. Et hic quidem usus fuit in Christo et est in sanctis Angelis et erit in omnibus Beatis[^11]. — Et quantum ad istum oculum et usum manet donum timoris in patria; quantum vero ad alios inferiores tollitur, quia isti competunt ei secundum statum imperfectionis. Quia vero remanet ei usus principalis, hinc est, quod non dicitur evacuari, sed magis perfici et salvari. — Unde et rationes, quae hoc probant, possunt concedi.

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa (Solutio oppositorum):**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod aeque nobilis est spes sicut timor; dicendum, quod verum est de timore quantum ad aliquem eius usum, qui quidem consistit in fuga mali, secundum quem modum timor et spes habent ad invicem dividi[^12]; et quantum ad hunc usum verum

<!-- page 767 -->

est, quod in patria non manebit, sicut nec spes. Est et alius eius usus, qui est revereri summam Maiestatem resiliendo in propriam parvitatem; et quantum ad hunc timor non ita opponitur statui gloriae, sicut spes; et ideo non oportet, quod evacuetur in patria. Quantum enim ad hunc usum maior reperitur excellentia in timore quam in spe, quia minus dissonat statui gloriae[^13].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut spes est respectu futuri boni, sic timor respectu futuri mali; iam patet responsio: quia ratio ista non procedit de timore generaliter, qui est respectu summi ardui[^14], sed quantum ad illum usum, quem habet in praesenti respectu mali.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Augustini, dicendum similiter, quod illa non est generalis definitio timoris, sed solum datur de timore secundum usum et statum viae, et hoc non secundum omnem, sicut praetactum est.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut paci opponitur inquietudo, sic securitati timor; dicendum, quod si hoc intelligatur de timore separationis, veritatem habet; sed si intelligatur de timore reverentiae, non habet veritatem, quia reverentia et securitas nullatenus opponuntur.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nulla differentia timoris manebit in patria; breviter respondeo, quod immo timor filialis remanebit. Nec valet quod obiicit, quod ibi non erit timor separationis, vel offensae. Nam etsi filialis timor hoc intueatur aliquo modo, aliud tamen intuetur magis principaliter.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod perfectio gloriae plus excedit timorem filialem, quam caritas perfecta initialem; dicendum, quod maior excessus et minor non facit habitum evacuari, sed potius perfici et consummari, sed oppositio aliqua, quae est reperta inter illud quod evacuat et expellit, et illud quod evacuatur et expellitur[^15]. Ideo ratio illa non valet, quoniam, etsi perfectio gloriae plus excedat timorem filialem, quam caritas viae initialem: tamen timor initialis ratione eius quod oculum habet ad poenam, plus opponitur perfectioni caritatis, quam timor reverentiae opponatur perfectioni beatitudinis[^16].

---

english:
<!-- page 765 -->

### Question III. *Whether gratuitous fear remains in the fatherland, or is done away.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning gratuitous fear as to its being done away, and it is asked whether it remains in the fatherland or is done away. And that it remains is shown thus:

1. By that of the Psalm[^1]: *The holy fear of the Lord remains for ever and ever:* if therefore it remains for ever and ever, it is not then done away when blessedness comes.

2. Likewise, in Isaiah eleven[^2] it is said of Christ:

<!-- page 766 -->

*The spirit of the fear of the Lord shall rest upon him:* if therefore Christ was the most perfect comprehender, and in him there was fear; it seems that the gift of fear is not done away.

3. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus[^3]: *There is nothing better than to fear God;* and in the first [chapter] of the same: *The fullness of wisdom is to fear the Lord:* if therefore every perfect good, and most of all the fullness of wisdom, will be in supreme blessedness; it seems that the gift of fear is in no way to be done away.

4. Likewise, just as to the supreme Goodness supreme love is owed, so to the supreme Majesty supreme fear is owed, according to that of Malachi one[^4]: *If I am Lord, where is my fear?* but in the fatherland we shall render to God all that we owe: if therefore there will be love of the supreme Goodness there, it seems also that there is fear of the supreme Majesty there.

**On the contrary:** 1. As great, or greater, is the perfection in hope as is in fear; but hope will be done away in the fatherland, as was said above[^5]: therefore fear also.

2. Likewise, just as hope is in respect of a future good, so fear is in respect of a future evil[^6]; but in the fatherland there neither will be any future evil nor can there be: therefore there will be no fear there.

3. Likewise, as Augustine says upon that of John ten[^7]: *The hireling flees* etc.: « Fear is a flight of the soul, lest it lose what it loves »; but in the fatherland there will in no way be such a flight nor a possibility of the loss of the good: therefore there will be no fear there.

4. Likewise, just as disquiet is opposed to peace, so fear is opposed to security: therefore just as where there is supreme peace, there[^8] is no disquiet, so where there will be supreme security, there is no fear; but this will be in the fatherland: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, since there is a threefold distinction of the fear that is a gift, namely servile, initial, and filial; the servile does not remain, because it is driven out by grace; the initial does not, because it is driven out by perfect charity; the filial does not, because it fears lest it offend the eyes of the Father: therefore it does not seem that fear remains in the fatherland according to any of its distinctions.

6. Likewise, the perfection of glory exceeds filial fear itself more than the perfection of charity exceeds initial fear itself; but initial fear does not stand with perfect charity, as was shown above[^9]: therefore neither does filial fear with glory. Nor is there any other distinction of fear that remains there: therefore the gift of fear will simply be done away in the fatherland.

> **Conclusion.** The gift of fear, as to one act alone, is not done away in the fatherland, but is preserved and perfected.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched on in what precedes[^10], it belongs to fear to regard three things, namely punishment, that it may flee it; the offense, that it may guard against it; the supreme Majesty, that it may submit itself to it by showing reverence. And accordingly there is a threefold distinction of the gift of fear: one, which principally looks to punishment, and this is servile; another, which has one eye to punishment, but yet holds the more principal one to the avoiding of the offense, and this is initial; the third, which has one eye to the avoiding of the offense, but the other to the showing of reverence, and this is filial; of which, although one use is in fleeing, lest one be separated from God, the other, more excellent and more principal, is in revering God, recoiling from the supreme Majesty into one's own littleness. And this use indeed was in Christ and is in the holy Angels and will be in all the Blessed[^11]. — And as to that eye and use the gift of fear remains in the fatherland; but as to the other, lower ones it is taken away, because these belong to it according to the state of imperfection. But because the principal use remains to it, hence it is that it is not said to be done away, but rather perfected and preserved. — Whence also the reasons that prove this can be conceded.

**To the arguments for the negative side (Solution of the contraries):**
*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that hope is as noble as fear; it must be said that this is true of fear as to a certain use of it, which indeed consists in the flight from evil, according to which mode fear and hope have to be divided from one another[^12]; and as to this use it is

<!-- page 767 -->

true that it will not remain in the fatherland, just as neither will hope. There is also another use of it, which is to revere the supreme Majesty by recoiling into one's own littleness; and as to this fear is not so opposed to the state of glory as hope is; and therefore it is not necessary that it be done away in the fatherland. For as to this use a greater excellence is found in fear than in hope, because it is less dissonant from the state of glory[^13].

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that just as hope is in respect of a future good, so fear is in respect of a future evil; the response is already plain: because that argument does not proceed concerning fear generally, which is in respect of the supreme arduous thing[^14], but as to that use which it has in the present in respect of evil.

*To 3.* To that which is objected from the authority of Augustine, it must be said similarly that that is not a general definition of fear, but is given only of fear according to the use and state of the wayfarer, and this not according to every [fear], as was touched on before.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that just as disquiet is opposed to peace, so fear to security; it must be said that, if this be understood of the fear of separation, it has truth; but if it be understood of the fear of reverence, it does not have truth, because reverence and security are in no way opposed.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that no distinction of fear will remain in the fatherland; I respond briefly that on the contrary filial fear will remain. Nor is it valid what it objects, that there will not be there the fear of separation or of offense. For even though filial fear regards this in some way, yet it regards something else more principally.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that the perfection of glory exceeds filial fear more than perfect charity [exceeds] the initial; it must be said that a greater and a lesser excess does not make a habit to be done away, but rather to be perfected and consummated, but rather some opposition, which is found between that which does away and drives out, and that which is done away and driven out[^15]. Therefore that argument is not valid, since, even though the perfection of glory exceeds filial fear more than the charity of the way [exceeds] the initial: nevertheless initial fear, by reason of that which has an eye to punishment, is more opposed to the perfection of charity, than the fear of reverence is opposed to the perfection of blessedness[^16].

la: Psalm. 18, 10; Vulgata *permanens* pro *permanet.*

en: Psalm 18:10; the Vulgate [reads] *permanens* (remaining) for *permanet* (remains).

la: Vers. 2. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 8.

en: Verse 2. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3 and 8.

la: Cap. 23, 37: *Nihil melius est quam timor Dei.* — Alterum testimon. est ibid. I, 20: *Plenitudo sapientiae est timere Deum.* — Pro *et primo* plurimi codd. cum edd. *et post.* Mox pro *et maxime plenitudo sapientiae* codd. K G I K L N T V *et maior plenitudo.*

en: Chapter 23:37: *There is nothing better than the fear of God.* — The other testimony is in the same place, I, 20: *The fullness of wisdom is to fear God.* — For *and in the first* very many codices with the editions [read] *and afterward.* Next, for *and most of all the fullness of wisdom* codices K G I K L N T V [read] *and a greater fullness.*

la: Vers. 6. — Post pauca pro *ibi sit* cod. V *ibi erit.*

en: Verse 6. — A little after, for *there is* codex V [reads] *there will be.*

en: Distinction 31, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 569, nota 4. — In fine arg. pro *nullus erit timor* cod. A *nec est timor.*

en: Cf. above p. 569, note 4. — At the end of the argument, for *there will be no fear* codex A [reads] *nor is there fear.*

la: Vers. 13. — August., tr. 46. n. 8. sic ait: « Affectiones nostrae motus animorum sunt: laetitia, animi diffusio; tristitia, animi contractio; cupiditas, animi progressio; timor animi fuga est ». Et in lib. de Beata Vita, n. 11. idem ait: « Ergo quod amat quisque, si amittere potest, potestne non timere? Non potest ». Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum in hunc loc. dicit: *Timor est fuga animi, fugit, ne perdat quod diligit.* — Subinde pro *nullo modo* cod. A *non,* et in fine arg. pro *nullus* idem cod. A *nec.*

en: Verse 13. — Augustine, tr. 46, n. 8, says thus: « Our affections are movements of the souls: gladness, a diffusion of the soul; sadness, a contraction of the soul; desire, a progression of the soul; fear is a flight of the soul ». And in the book *On the Happy Life*, n. 11, the same says: « Therefore what each one loves, if he can lose it, can he not fear? He cannot ». The Ordinary Gloss in Strabus on this passage says: *Fear is a flight of the soul, it flees, lest it lose what it loves.* — Thereafter for *in no way* codex A [reads] *not,* and at the end of the argument, for *no* the same codex A [reads] *nor.*

la: Ita codd. K U Z bb, in aliis et edd. incongrue *sicut summa est pax, ubi nulla* etc.

en: Thus codices K U Z bb; in others and the editions, incongruously, *just as there is supreme peace, where no* etc.

la: Supple: *quod repugnat statui gloriae.* Cfr. quaest. praeced. et a. 1. q. 3. — In fine arg. pro *in patria* cod. A *in ipsa patria.*

en: Supply: *which is repugnant to the state of glory.* Cf. the preceding question and a. 1, q. 3. — At the end of the argument, for *in the fatherland* codex A [reads] *in the fatherland itself.*

la: Quaest. praeced. — Codd. A K U omittunt superius *ipsum* ante *timorem initialem.*

en: The preceding question. — Codices A K U omit above *ipsum* before *initial fear.*

la: Quaest. I. — Mox pro *ut fugiat* cod. Z *ut illam fugiat,* et pro *offensam,* quam lectionem ex codd. A U Jf (K a secunda manu) restituimus, alii codd. nec non edd. *offensionem.*

en: Question I. — Next, for *that it may flee* codex Z [reads] *that it may flee it,* and for *offensam,* which reading we have restored from codices A U Jf (K from a second hand), other codices as well as the editions [read] *offensionem.*

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 8. — Superius pro *in reverendo Deum* cod. K et edd. substituunt *in reverendo summam Maiestatem* (edd. 1, 2 subdunt *Domini,* Vat. *Domini et*) et dein, exc. Vat., omittunt *a summa Maiestate.* Pro *propriam parvitatem* codd. A U *propriam paupertatem,* et in fine corp. pro *possunt concedi* cod. A *concedendae sunt.*

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3 and 8. — Above, for *in revering God* codex K and the editions substitute *in revering the supreme Majesty* (editions 1, 2 add *of the Lord,* the Vatican *of the Lord and*) and then, except the Vatican, omit *from the supreme Majesty.* For *one's own littleness* codices A U [read] *one's own poverty,* and at the end of the body, for *can be conceded* codex A [reads] *are to be conceded.*

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro *ad invicem* edd. et nonnulli codd. *ab invicem.* Mox pro *sicut nec spes* multi codd. *sicut et spes,* cod. A *sicut spes.*

en: See above d. 26, a. 2, q. 1. — For *from one another* the editions and several codices [read] *ab invicem.* Next, for *just as neither hope* many codices [read] *just as hope also,* codex A *just as hope.*

la: Vide infra dub. 1. — Edd. *summi boni ardui.*

en: See below, dubium 1. — The editions [read] *of the arduous supreme good.*

la: Vide supra d. 31. a. 3. q. 1. in corp.

en: See above d. 31, a. 3, q. 1, in the body.

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article.

english_scholion:
*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem* (`bon-sent-III-d34-p2-a2-q1`, §III). — The article-master scholion appended to the first question of this Articulus II carries, in its §III, the dossier proper to this question (the *evacuatio* / *resilitio* matter — whether and how the gift of fear remains in the fatherland, with Richard a Mediavilla's *resilitio* / *aequivoce* discussion). The question's own range prints no `SCHOLION.` header; its closing footer marker (p.767 n.4) reads *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p76{5,6,7}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) per the Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion; clean running prose cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (raw 53152–53265, bounded forward by `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` at raw 53266). Offset pdf = printed + 22.
- **Alignment check PASS.** Opener *Tertio quaeritur de timore gratuito quantum ad evacuationem… utrum in patria maneat, an evacuetur* = TRACTATIO **Tertio et ultimo** *quantum ad eius evacuationem* 1:1. This CLOSES Pars II Articulus II (and Articulus II of d.34); only `p2-dubia` remains in d.34.
- **Page span pp.765–767.** Q3 opens at the foot of p.765 L-col (beneath q2's Epilogus), continues through p.766 (args 2–6, Sed contra, Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutio 1), and closes on p.767 (Solutio 1-tail through 6). Page-split map:
  - **p.765** (PDF 787): opener + arg 1 + arg 2-opener. Footer nn.10–11 = [^1]–[^2] (picked up from a2-q2 per hand-off; nn.1–9 were q2's diminutio band).
  - **p.766** (PDF 788): arg 2-tail + args 3–4 + Sed contra 1–6 + Conclusio + Respondeo + Solutio 1-opener. Footer L nn.1–5 + R nn.6–11 = [^3]–[^13].
  - **p.767** (PDF 789): Solutio 1-tail + replies 2–6. Footer nn.1–4 = [^14]–[^16] (n.4 = the scholion-redirect marker); nn.5 ff. are the Dubia's, NOT claimed (forwarded to `p2-dubia`).
- **Footer hand-off PICKED UP:** p.765 nn.10–11 (Psalm 18:10 / Isai. 11 *de Christo*) claimed as [^1]–[^2], anchoring args 1–2.
- **Footer hand-off FORWARDED → `bon-sent-III-d34-p2-dubia`:** NOTHING of q3's NOTAE family. The Dubia opens a fresh footer band on p.767 itself — **p.767 nn.5 ff.** ([^5] = Cicero *de Offic.*; n.6 = *De Div. Nom.*; n.7 …) anchor the Dubia's opening text and are q3-unclaimed. The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header for Pars II is at raw 53266 (printed p.767, L-col, immediately below q3's Solutio reply 4).
- **`has_scholion: false` — REDIRECT to a2-q1 article-master scholion §III** (the *evacuatio* dossier + Richard a Mediavilla *resilitio*/*aequivoce* discussion). Q3's raw range prints no `SCHOLION.` header; the closing marker p.767 n.4 = *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* confirms the redirect.
- **`[?]` flags:** NONE — all three pages legible at 450 dpi.
- 16-marker apparatus, pairing 16/16 (markers [^1]–[^16] present in both Latin and English bodies).
</content>

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. 34, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Doubts on the Letter of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 751 -->

# DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit in verbo Isaiae: *Replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini.* Cum enim ita bene fuerit plenus aliis donis, sicut dono timoris; quare[^1] magis illo dono dicit fuisse repletum? — Item, cum Spiritus Domini requiescat in humili, sicut alibi idem dicit *sexagesimo sexto*[^2]; videtur, quod potius debuisset attribuere dono timoris verbum requiescendi; fecit autem e converso: quaeritur, unde hoc?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia donum timoris videtur esse cuiusdam imperfectionis[^3], ne quis crederet, in ipso donum illud non fuisse perfecte; ideo ad excludendum errorem magis posuit ibi verbum *replendi* quam circa aliud donum. — Alia est etiam ratio, quia dona dabantur Christo, ut perfecte disponeretur ad patiendum et sustinendum humilitatem passionis, quam ipse principaliter in hoc mundo

<!-- page 752 -->

venit ostendere et docere. Ut ergo manifestaretur veritas, dicit, eum spiritu timoris repletum fuisse, quia timor inter omnia dona maxime expedit ad humilitatem[^4]. Duplici ergo ex causa verbum illud dono timoris *appropriat*, quamvis omnibus conveniat, videlicet propter *erroris exclusionem* et propter *veritatis manifestationem*, quae sunt duae causae faciendi appropriationem[^5].

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis deberet isti appropriari verbum *requiescendi*; dicendum, quod donum timendi praeparat locum alii[^6]; et quia *locus* non dicitur proprie *quiescere*, sed magis *locatum* in loco: hinc est, quod verbum *quiescendi* magis attribuit Spiritui in aliis donis quam in dono timoris.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Servilis timor principium est sapientiae.* Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia *sapientia* non est in peccatore, *servilis* autem *timor* in peccatoribus reperitur[^7]: ergo male dicitur, quod *timor servilis* sit principium sapientiae. — Item, nobilius est principium quam principiatum, vel saltem aeque nobile[^8]; sed *timor servilis* non est magis nobilis nec tantum, quantum *sapientia*: ergo male dicitur, quod sit principium sapientiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod timor dicitur esse principium sapientiae, pro eo quod *disponit* ad suscipiendam sapientiam et recedendum a culpa. Unde sicut dispositio potest quodam modo dici principium respectu eius, ad quod disponit; sic etiam timor dicitur sapientiae esse principium[^9].

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod principium et principiatum possunt se compati in eodem; dicendum, quod est principium *intra* et principium *extra*. De principio *intra* habet veritatem; de eo autem, quod est principium *extra*, solummodo locum praeparans, veritatem non habet. Et hoc modo, non primo dicitur timor principium sapientiae[^10].

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod principium est magis nobile, vel aeque quam principiatum; dicendum, quod est principium *disponens* et principium *efficiens* et *perficiens*; illud autem verum est de principio *perficiente*, non autem verum est de principio *disponente*[^11].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quidam tantum secundum effectum timorem in Christo et in Angelis esse contendunt.* Et videtur, quod dicant veritatem, quia, secundum quod dicitur primae Ioannis quarto[^12], *affectus timoris poenam habet*; sed in Christo iam glorificato et in Angelis beatis nulla est affectio poenalis: ergo non est timor quantum ad affectum, sed solum quantum ad effectum, ut dicunt. — Sed in contrarium huius arguitur: quia unumquodque donum nobilius est quantum ad sui essentiam quam quantum ad effectum: si ergo donum timoris est in Christo et in Angelis quantum ad effectum, multo fortius est in illis quantum ad affectum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in timore duplex est affectus et duplex etiam effectus. Est enim affectus unus, qui attenditur in quadam resilitione mentis a malo; alius, qui attenditur in quadam resilitione a summe arduo. Primi timoris effectus est malum respuere; secundi timoris effectus est facere Deo subiacere et eidem obedire. Unus autem solus istorum affectuum convenit patriae, licet uterque affectus conveniat isti statui[^13]. Et sic rationes ad utramque partem possunt dissolvi.

english:
# DOUBTS ON THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the letter, and first it is asked about that which he says in the word of Isaiah: *The spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him.* For since he was just as fully full of the other gifts as of the gift of fear, why[^1] does he say that he was filled rather with that gift? — Likewise, since *the Spirit of the Lord rests upon the lowly*, as the same prophet says elsewhere in the *sixty-sixth*[^2] chapter, it seems that he ought rather to have attributed to the gift of fear the word "resting"; but he did the contrary: it is asked, whence is this?

**I respond:** It must be said that, because the gift of fear seems to be of a certain imperfection[^3], lest anyone should believe that in him that gift was not present perfectly, therefore, in order to exclude the error, he placed there the word "filling" rather than with regard to another gift. — There is also another reason, namely that the gifts were given to Christ that he might be perfectly disposed to suffer and to endure the humility of the passion, which he chiefly came into this world

to show and to teach. Therefore, that the truth might be made manifest, he says that he was filled with the spirit of fear, because fear among all the gifts most of all conduces to humility[^4]. By a twofold cause, therefore, he *appropriates* that word to the gift of fear, although it is fitting to all, namely on account of *the exclusion of error* and on account of *the manifestation of truth*, which are the two causes of making an appropriation[^5].

To that which is objected, that the word "resting" ought rather to be appropriated to this one; it must be said that the gift of fearing prepares a place for another[^6]; and because a *place* is not properly said to *rest*, but rather that which is *placed* in the place: hence it is that he attributes the word "resting" to the Spirit in the other gifts rather than in the gift of fear.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Servile fear is the beginning of wisdom.* For this seems false, because *wisdom* is not in the sinner, but *servile fear* is found in sinners[^7]: therefore it is ill said that *servile fear* is the beginning of wisdom. — Likewise, the beginning is more noble than that which begins from it, or at least equally noble[^8]; but *servile fear* is neither more noble nor as much so as *wisdom*: therefore it is ill said that it is the beginning of wisdom.

**I respond:** It must be said that fear is said to be the beginning of wisdom, in that it *disposes* one to receive wisdom and to withdraw from fault. Hence, just as a disposition can in a certain way be called a beginning with respect to that to which it disposes, so also fear is said to be the beginning of wisdom[^9].

To that, therefore, which is objected, that the beginning and that which begins from it can coexist together in the same thing; it must be said that there is a beginning *within* and a beginning *without*. Of a beginning *within* it holds true; but of that which is a beginning *without*, only preparing the place, it does not hold true. And in this way, fear is not said to be the beginning of wisdom in the primary sense[^10].

To that which is objected, that the beginning is more noble than, or equal to, that which begins from it; it must be said that there is a *disposing* beginning and an *efficient* and *perfecting* beginning; that, however, is true of a *perfecting* beginning, but not true of a *disposing* beginning[^11].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Some contend that fear is in Christ and in the Angels only according to its effect.* And it seems that they speak the truth, because, according to what is said in the first letter of John, chapter four[^12], *the affection of fear has punishment*; but in Christ already glorified and in the blessed Angels there is no penal affection: therefore there is no fear as to affection, but only as to effect, as they say. — But against this it is argued: that every gift is more noble as to its essence than as to its effect: if therefore the gift of fear is in Christ and in the Angels as to its effect, much more strongly is it in them as to its affection.

**I respond:** It must be said that in fear there is a twofold affection and likewise a twofold effect. For there is one affection, which is regarded in a certain recoiling of the mind from evil; another, which is regarded in a certain recoiling from what is supremely arduous. The effect of the first fear is to spurn evil; the effect of the second fear is to make one submit to God and obey him. But only one of these affections belongs to the heavenly fatherland, although both affections belong to this present state[^13]. And thus the reasons on either side can be resolved.

la: Codd. WZ *quaeritur, quare.*

en: Codices WZ read *it is asked, why.*

la: Vers. 2: *Ad quem autem respiciam, nisi ad pauperculum et contritum spiritu* etc. Cfr. ibid. 57, 15.

en: Verse 2: *But to whom shall I look, except to the poor little one and to him contrite in spirit*, etc. Cf. ibid. 57, 15 [Isaiah 66:2; 57:15].

la: Cfr. infra p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Mox pro *in ipso* cod. U *in Christo*, et paulo inferius post *replendi* idem cod. U supplet *circa donum timoris.*

en: Cf. below, part II, art. 1, q. 1 and following. — Shortly after, for *in him* codex U reads *in Christ*, and a little further down, after *filling*, the same codex U supplies *with regard to the gift of fear.*

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. circa finem, et supra a. 2. q. 3. ad 8. nec non p. II. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. the Master's letter here, ch. 3, near the end, and above, art. 2, q. 3, reply to 8, as well as part II, art. 2, q. 2, in the body.

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 34. q. 3.

en: See *Sentences*, Book I, d. 34, q. 3.

la: Ut insinuat August., hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. — De posit. seq. cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 30. seqq. (c. 4.). — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: As Augustine suggests, here in the Master's letter, ch. 5. — On the following proposition cf. Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 30 and following (ch. 4). — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here, art. 5, little-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here, on the letter.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, et 7. nec non infra p. II dub. 5.

en: Cf. the Master's letter here, chs. 5 and 7, as well as below, part II, doubt 5.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 722, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, p. 722, note 8.

la: Eccli. 1, 27: *Timor Domini expellit peccatum.* Vide infra p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Mox verbo *obiicitur* cod. X praefigit *primo.*

en: Ecclesiasticus 1:27: *The fear of the Lord drives out sin.* See below, part II, art. 1, q. 1, reply to 1. — Shortly after, before the word *is objected* codex X prefixes *first.*

la: De hoc dubio cfr. S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: On this doubt cf. St. Thomas, here, on the letter; Peter of Tarentaise, here, on the letter.

la: Vers. 18: *Timor poenam habet.* — In minori pro *affectio poenalis* cod. K *affectio poenae.*

en: Verse 18: *Fear has punishment* [1 John 4:18]. — In the minor premise, for *penal affection* codex K reads *affection of punishment.*

la: Vide infra p. II. a. 2. q. 3. et dub. 1. — Pro *istorum affectuum* edd. *istorum effectuum.* — De hoc dubio cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 3.

en: See below, part II, art. 2, q. 3, and doubt 1. — For *of these affections* the editions read *of these effects.* — On this doubt cf. Blessed Albert, here, art. 3.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.751–752 (PDF 773–774; offset +22), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 52173–52267) as base for clean running prose. Running heads confirm the span: p.751 R `I. DUBIA.` / `751`; p.752 L `752` / `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III`. The `732` digit in the raw OCR mid-stream is a mangled `752` page marker; the `753` marker sits just before the Pars II `COMMENTARIUS`, confirming the dubia close on p.752.
- **Page-split map:** Dub. I lemma + first arguments + Respondeo opening are on p.751 (col. L bottom + col. R). The page break `<!-- page 752 -->` falls inside Dub. I's Respondeo (at *venit ostendere et docere*). Dub. I tail + Dub. II (whole) + Dub. III (whole) are on p.752.
- **Number of dubia = 3.** Dub. I (*Replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini* — why "filled" rather than "rests," with the Isai. 66 sub-question), Dub. II (*Servilis timor principium est sapientiae*), Dub. III (*Quidam tantum secundum effectum timorem in Christo et in Angelis esse contendunt* — affectus vs effectus of fear in Christ/Angels).
- **`has_scholion: false`** — no `SCHOLION.` header in the raw range 52173–52267 (verified). Dubia carry no scholion.
- **Footer hand-off PICKED UP** (from d34-p1-a2-q3, commit bc719c0): p.751 nn.8–10 anchor Dub. I and LEAD this chunk's apparatus → n.8 (*Codd. WZ quaeritur, quare*) = [^1] at `quare`; n.9 (*Vers. 2… contritum spiritu*, the Isai. 66 ref) = [^2] at `sexagesimo sexto`; n.10 (*Cfr. infra p. II… in ipso/in Christo… circa donum timoris*) = [^3] at `imperfectionis` in Dub. I Respondeo. a2-q3 retained p.751 nn.1–7.
- **Footer band p.752:** notes 1–10 → [^4]–[^13], per-page restart renumbered continuous. Map: n.1→[^4] (`humilitatem`), n.2→[^5] (`appropriationem`), n.3→[^6] (`locum alii`), n.4→[^7] (`reperitur`), n.5→[^8] (`aeque nobile`), n.6→[^9] (`principium` / Eccli. 1:27), n.7→[^10] (`sapientiae`), n.8→[^11] (`disponente`), n.9→[^12] (`Ioannis quarto`), n.10→[^13] (`isti statui`).
- **Forwarded:** nothing forwards to d34-p2-divisio — the dubia footer band closes fully on p.752; the next printed page (753) opens the Pars II `COMMENTARIUS` (raw line 52268, *De dono timoris specialiter*), a new Pars with its own footer sequence.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. The column-band PDF reads were clean for all three dubia bodies and both footer bands.
- **This chunk CLOSES Pars I of Distinctio XXXIV.**