title: Dist. 31

title_alt: Distinctio XXXI — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XXXI — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 671 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXI.

### Cap. I. *Si caritas semel habita amittatur.*

Illud quoque non est praetereundum, quod quidam asserunt, caritatem semel habitam ab aliquo non posse excidere, nullumque damnandum hanc aliquando habere; qui hanc traditionem subditis muniunt testimoniis. Apostolus[^1] ait: *Caritas nunquam excidit.* Augustinus etiam inquit: «Caritas, quae deseri potest, nunquam vera fuit». Item: «Caritas est fons proprius ac singularis bonorum, cui non communicat alienus.

<!-- page 672 -->

Alieni sunt omnes qui audituri sunt: *Non novi vos.* De hoc fonte Scriptura ait: *Fons aquae vivae sit tibi proprius, et nemo alienus communicet tibi*». Si autem alieni sunt qui audituri sunt illam vocem; non ergo huic fonti communicant damnandi. Item, Augustinus super Epistolam Ioannis[^2]: «Radicata est caritas; securus esto, nihil mali procedere potest». Item, Gregorius in Moralibus: «*Valida est ut mors dilectio.* Virtuti enim mortis dilectio comparatur, quia nimirum mentem, quam semel ceperit, a dilectione mundi funditus occidit». Item, Augustinus super Epistolam Ioannis[^3]: «Unctio invisibilis caritas est, quae, in quocumque fuerit, radix illi erit, quae ardente sole arescere non potest: nutritur calore solis, non arescit». Item, Beda super Ioannem: «Quaerendum est, quomodo speciale Filii Dei agnoscendi signum fuerit, quod super eum descenderit et manserit Spiritus. Quid magni est Filio Dei, quod in ipso manere Spiritus astruatur? Notandum, quod semper in Domino manserit Spiritus, in Sanctis vero, quamdiu mortale corpus gestaverint, partim semper maneat, partim rediturus secedat. Manet autem apud eos, ut bonis insistant actibus; recedit vero ad tempus, ne semper infirmos curandi, mortuos suscitandi, daemones eiiciendi, vel etiam prophetandi habeant facultatem. Manet ergo semper, ut possint habere virtutes et mirabiliter ipsi vivant; venit ad tempus, ut etiam aliis per miraculorum signa, quales sint intus, effulgeant». Item, Gregorius[^4]: «In Sanctorum cordibus secundum quasdam virtutes semper manet Spiritus, secundum quasdam recessurus venit et venturus recedit. In his virtutibus, sine quibus ad vitam non pervenitur, in electorum suorum cordibus permanet; in his vero, per quas sanctitatis virtus ostenditur, ut in exhibitione miraculorum, aliquando adest, aliquando se subtrahit». Item, Ambrosius[^5]: «Ficta caritas est, quae in adversitate deserit».

Haec innuere videntur, quod caritas semel habita non amittatur. Ideo quidam in praetaxatam prosilierunt audaciam, dicentes, caritatem a damnandis non haberi, nec a quoquam habitam posse amitti; quos ratio vincit et auctoritas. Quidam enim ad tempus sunt boni, qui postea fiunt mali, et e converso. Unde quorundam nomina Christus[^6] dicit *scripta in libro vitae,* qui tamen postea *abierunt retro.* Sed *scripta* dicit non secundum praescientiam, sed secundum praesentem iustitiam, cui deserviebant, quia digni erant tunc illo bono, quod habituri sunt praescripti secundum praescientiam. Unde Ambrosius[^7]: «Quibusdam gratia data est in usum, ut Sauli, Iudae et illis discipulis, quibus Dominus dixit: *Ecce, nomina vestra scripta sunt in caelis,* et post *abierunt retro.* Sed hoc dixit propter iustitiam, cui deserviebant, quia boni erant. Frequenter enim ante sunt mali qui futuri sunt boni, et aliquoties prius sunt boni qui futuri sunt et permansuri mali»; secundum quod dicuntur *scribi in libro vitae* et *deleri.*

Quod vero Apostolus ait: *Caritas nunquam excidit,* nullatenus pro illis facit. Dignitatem enim caritatis ostendens, dicit, eam non excidere, quia hic et in futuro erit; sed fides et spes evacuabuntur et scientia. — Item, quod dicitur caritas nunquam fuisse vera, quae deseri potest, non ad *essentiam* caritatis refertur, sed ad *efficientiam,* quia non efficit caritas, quae deseritur, hominem vere beatum nec perducit ad verum bonum. — Huic etiam fonti alieni, id est damnandi, non communicant, scilicet in fine, quia non perseverant. — Potest tamen hoc et cetera, quae de caritate dicta sunt, de *perfecta* intelligi, quam soli perfecti habent, quae semel habita non amittitur; exordia vero caritatis aliquando crescunt, aliquando deficiunt[^8]. Sunt enim virtutis *exordia* et *profectus* et *perfectio,* quos gradus ille discernit, qui parabolam illam intelligit: *Sic est regnum Dei, quemadmodum si iactet homo semen in terra et dormiat, et exurgat semen et germinet et crescat* etc. Si ergo *perfecta* caritas sic radicata est, ut amitti nequeat, *incipiens* tamen et *provecta* amitti potest et saepe amittitur; sed dum habetur, non sinit habentem criminaliter peccare. Quod Augustinus[^9] ostendit inquiens: «Quia radix omnium malorum est *cupiditas,* et radix omnium bonorum est *caritas;* simul ambae esse non possunt: nisi una radicitus evulsa fuerit, alia plantari non potest. Sine causa conatur aliquis ramos incidere, si radicem non contendit evellere».

### Cap. II. *Quare fides, spes, scientia dicuntur evacuari, et non caritas, cum et ipsa sit ex parte.*

Advertendum etiam est, quomodo fides, spes et scientia dicantur *evacuari*[^10], quia ex parte sunt, et non caritas, cum et ipsa *ex parte* sit. *Ex parte* enim, id est imperfecte, diligimus, sicut *ex parte* scimus, ut ait Hesychius super Leviticum[^11]. Cum igitur omne quod *ex parte* est, *evacuetur;* cur caritas excipitur, quae dicitur *nunquam excidere?* Caritas quidem etiam *ex parte* est, ut saepe Sancti docent, quia *ex parte* diligimus nunc; et ideo ipsa evacuabitur, in quantum *ex parte* est, quia tolletur imperfectio, et addetur perfectio; remanebitque ipsa aucta et actus eius et *modus diligendi,* ut diligas Deum propter se ex toto corde et proximum tuum sicut te ipsum, sed imperfectionis modus eliminabitur. *Fides* vero et *spes* penitus evacuabuntur; *scientia* vero secundum *actum* et *modum* suum, qui nunc est, non secundum sui *essentiam* tolletur. Ipsa enim virtus scientiae remanebit, sed alium tenebit usum et modum.

<!-- page 673 -->

### Cap. III. *Si Christus ordinem diligendi servavit, quem nos.*

Nunc iam superest investigare, si Christus, secundum quod homo, ordinem diligendi praescriptum[^12] servaverit. Quod si est, omnem hominem sicut se ipsum dilexit. Omnibus ergo vitam optavit, *omnesque salvos fieri voluit;* sed non omnes salvi sunt: et ita non est factum quod optavit. — Sed non est ignorandum, in eo fuisse caritatem iuxta modum patriae, non viae, eumque ordinem diligendi implesse, qui servatur in patria, non in via. Qui enim in patria sunt, id est iam beatificati sunt, adeo iustitiae Dei addicti sunt, ut nihil eis placeat, nisi quod Deo placet; ac per hoc illorum tantum salutem diligunt et[^13] volunt, quos Deus salvari vult, eosque solos sicut se diligunt. Ita et Christus electos tantum sicut se dilexit eorumque salutem optavit.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXI.

### Chapter I. *Whether charity once had is lost.*

This too is not to be passed over, that some assert that charity once had by anyone cannot fall away, and that no one to be damned ever has it; and they fortify this tradition for their subjects with testimonies. The Apostle[^1] says: *Charity never fails.* Augustine also says: «Charity which can be deserted was never true». Likewise: «Charity is the proper and singular fount of the good, in which no stranger shares.

The strangers are all those who shall hear: *I never knew you.* Of this fount Scripture says: *Let the fount of living water be your own, and let no stranger share it with you*». But if those who shall hear that voice are strangers, then the damned do not share in this fount. Likewise, Augustine on the Epistle of John[^2]: «Charity is rooted; be secure, nothing evil can proceed». Likewise, Gregory in the *Morals:* «*Love is strong as death.* For love is compared to the strength of death, because, namely, the mind which it has once seized it utterly slays as to the love of the world». Likewise, Augustine on the Epistle of John[^3]: «The invisible anointing is charity, which, in whomever it shall be, will be a root for him, which cannot wither under the burning sun: it is nourished by the heat of the sun, it does not wither». Likewise, Bede on John: «It must be asked how it was a special sign for recognizing the Son of God, that the Spirit descended upon him and remained. What great thing is it for the Son of God, that the Spirit be affirmed to remain in him? It is to be noted that the Spirit remained ever in the Lord, but in the Saints, so long as they bear a mortal body, it partly ever remains, and partly withdraws to return. It remains with them, that they may persist in good acts; but it withdraws for a time, lest they should always have the faculty of healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, or even prophesying. It remains ever, therefore, that they may have the virtues and may themselves live wondrously; it comes for a time, that they may shine forth to others also, by the signs of miracles, as to what they are within». Likewise, Gregory[^4]: «In the hearts of the Saints, according to certain virtues the Spirit ever remains, according to certain ones it comes about to withdraw and withdraws about to come. In those virtues, without which life is not attained, it remains permanently in the hearts of his elect; but in those by which the power of sanctity is shown, as in the working of miracles, it is sometimes present, sometimes withdraws itself». Likewise, Ambrose[^5]: «That charity is feigned which deserts in adversity».

These things seem to suggest that charity once had is not lost. Hence some have leapt into the aforementioned audacity, saying that charity is not had by the damned, nor, once had by anyone, can it be lost; whom reason and authority overcome. For some are good for a time, who afterward become evil, and conversely. Hence the names of some Christ[^6] says are *written in the book of life,* who nevertheless afterward *went back.* But he says they are *written* not according to foreknowledge, but according to the present righteousness to which they were devoted, because they were then worthy of that good, which the foreknown shall have according to foreknowledge. Hence Ambrose[^7]: «To some grace was given for use, as to Saul, to Judas, and to those disciples to whom the Lord said: *Behold, your names are written in heaven,* and afterward they *went back.* But he said this on account of the righteousness to which they were devoted, because they were good. For frequently those are evil beforehand who are to be good, and sometimes those are good beforehand who are to be and to remain evil»; according to which they are said to be *written in the book of life* and *blotted out.*

But what the Apostle says — *Charity never fails* — in no way makes for them. For, showing the dignity of charity, he says that it does not fail, because it will be both here and in the future; but faith and hope will be done away, and knowledge. — Likewise, what is said — that the charity which can be deserted was never true — is not referred to the *essence* of charity, but to its *efficacy,* because the charity which is deserted does not make a man truly blessed nor lead him to the true good. — To this fount also strangers, that is, the damned, do not share, namely at the end, because they do not persevere. — Yet this and the rest that have been said of charity can be understood of *perfect* charity, which the perfect alone have, which once had is not lost; but the *beginnings* of charity sometimes grow, sometimes fail[^8]. For there are *beginnings* of virtue, and *progress,* and *perfection,* which degrees he discerns who understands that parable: *The kingdom of God is as if a man should cast seed into the earth, and should sleep, and the seed should spring up and grow* etc. If therefore *perfect* charity is so rooted that it cannot be lost, yet the *beginning* and the *advanced* can be lost and are often lost; but while it is held, it does not allow its possessor to sin criminally. This Augustine[^9] shows, saying: «Because the root of all evils is *cupidity,* and the root of all goods is *charity;* both cannot be together: unless the one be plucked out by the root, the other cannot be planted. In vain does anyone strive to cut the branches, if he does not strive to pluck out the root».

### Chapter II. *Why faith, hope, and knowledge are said to be done away, and not charity, although it too is in part.*

It must also be observed how faith, hope, and knowledge are said to be *done away*[^10], because they are in part, and not charity, although it too is *in part.* For *in part,* that is, imperfectly, we love, just as *in part* we know, as Hesychius on Leviticus[^11] says. Since therefore everything that is *in part* is *done away;* why is charity excepted, which is said *never to fail?* Charity indeed too is *in part,* as the Saints often teach, because we love *in part* now; and therefore it itself will be done away, insofar as it is *in part,* because the imperfection will be removed, and perfection added; and it itself will remain, increased, and its act and the *manner of loving,* so that you love God for his own sake with your whole heart and your neighbor as yourself, but the manner of imperfection will be eliminated. *Faith* indeed and *hope* will be done away utterly; but *knowledge,* according to its *act* and *manner* which now is, not according to its *essence,* will be taken away. For the virtue of knowledge itself will remain, but will hold another use and manner.

### Chapter III. *Whether Christ kept the order of loving which we [must keep].*

Now it remains to investigate whether Christ, as he was man, kept the prescribed[^12] order of loving. And if so, he loved every man as himself. He therefore wished life for all, *and willed all to be saved;* but not all are saved: and so what he wished was not done. — But it must not be ignored that there was in him charity according to the manner of the fatherland, not of the way, and that he fulfilled that order of loving which is kept in the fatherland, not in the way. For those who are in the fatherland, that is, are already beatified, are so devoted to the justice of God that nothing pleases them except what pleases God; and through this they love and[^13] will the salvation of those only whom God wills to be saved, and these alone they love as themselves. So too Christ loved the elect only as himself and wished their salvation.

---

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 13, 8. In quo loco codd. ABDE et ed. 1 *excidet* pro *excidit.* — Locus Augustini (inter opera eius) est de Salutaribus Documentis ad quend. comitem, c. 7. Seq. locus est Enarrat. in Ps. 103. serm. 1. n. 9, in quo citatur Matth. 7, 23, et Prov. 5, 16. 17. — Haec et fere omnia testimonia, quae sequuntur, leguntur etiam in Decreto Gratiani, de Poenit. dist. 2.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:8. In which passage codices ABDE and edition 1 read *excidet* (shall fall) for *excidit* (fails). — The passage of Augustine (among his works) is from *On Salutary Documents to a certain count,* c. 7. The following passage is from the *Commentary on Psalm 103,* sermon 1, n. 9, in which Matthew 7:23 and Proverbs 5:16–17 are cited. — These and almost all the testimonies which follow are read also in the Decree of Gratian, *On Penance,* dist. 2.

la: Tract. 8. n. 9. — Gregorii locus est X. Moral. c. 21. n. 39, et alluditur ibi ad Cant. 8, 6.

en: Tractate 8, n. 9. — The passage of Gregory is *Morals,* book X, c. 21, n. 39, and there allusion is made to Canticles 8:6.

la: Tract. 3. n. 12. Locus Bedae est in Evang. Ioan. 1, 33. — Pro *Notandum, quod* codd. ABDE cum pluribus edd. *Notandumque quod* [alii *quia*], sed originale Bedae: *Notandum ergo quod;* deinde pro *et mirabiliter* codd., excepto C (qui habet *et ut*) et pluribus edd., *ut mirabiliter.*

en: Tractate 3, n. 12. The passage of Bede is in the Gospel of John 1:33. — For *Notandum, quod* (it is to be noted, that) codices ABDE with several editions read *Notandumque quod* [others *quia*], but the original of Bede has: *Notandum ergo quod;* then for *et mirabiliter* (and wondrously) the codices, except C (which has *et ut*) and several editions, read *ut mirabiliter.*

la: Libr. I. in Ezech. hom. 5. n. 11; cfr. II. Moral. c. 56. n. 91.

en: Book I on Ezekiel, homily 5, n. 11; cf. *Morals,* book II, c. 56, n. 91.

la: In II. Epist. ad Cor. 6, 6. (inter eius opera). — Paulo inferius pro *Haec... videntur* edd. 1, 8 *Hoc... videtur.* Cod. Erf. *Hae auctoritates,* annotat vero: Alii: *Haec.*

en: On the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 6:6 (among his works). — A little below, for *Haec... videntur* (these things... seem) editions 1, 8 read *Hoc... videtur* (this... seems). The Erfurt codex reads *Hae auctoritates* (these authorities), but notes: others read *Haec.*

la: Respicitur Luc. 10, 20; Ioan. 6, 67. — Inferius pro *praescripti* codd. CDE et ed. 1 *scripti.*

en: Reference is made to Luke 10:20; John 6:67. — Below, for *praescripti* (foreknown) codices CDE and edition 1 read *scripti* (written).

la: In Rom. 9, 13. 14, sed prima verba leguntur tantum in Glossa. De Saul cfr. I. Reg. 11, 6; de Iuda Luc. 10, 20. — Pro *secundum quod* plures edd. *propter quod.*

en: On Romans 9:13–14, but the first words are read only in the Gloss. On Saul cf. 1 Kings 11:6; on Judas Luke 10:20. — For *secundum quod* (according to which) several editions read *propter quod* (on account of which).

la: Quae sequuntur contracta sunt ex Gregor. II. in Ezech. hom. 3. n. 1. 3. — Parabola memorata legitur Marc. 4, 26. — Pro *Si ergo* edd. 1, 8 bene *Etsi ergo.*

en: What follows is condensed from Gregory, book II on Ezekiel, homily 3, nn. 1, 3. — The parable mentioned is read in Mark 4:26. — For *Si ergo* (if therefore) editions 1, 8 rightly read *Etsi ergo* (although therefore).

la: Serm. 270. (in appendice; alias 8. inter quinquaginta Homil.) n. 1. — Locus Scripturae est I. Tim. 6, 10.

en: Sermon 270 (in the appendix; otherwise 8 among the fifty Homilies) n. 1. — The scriptural passage is 1 Timothy 6:10.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:8.

la: Cap. 2, 2, apud Lyranum in Glossa. Ipse Hesychius ibi de cognitione Dei in patria ait: «Quae eam quae nunc est, non ut contrariam destruit, sed partem eam minimam esse, per suam plenitudinem monstrat». Deinde citat. I. Cor. 13, 9.

en: Chapter 2:2, in Lyra in the Gloss. Hesychius himself there says of the knowledge of God in the fatherland: «Which does not destroy that which now is as contrary to it, but shows by its own fullness that it is a least part of it». Then he cites 1 Corinthians 13:9.

la: Cfr. supra d. XXIX. — Infra alluditur ad I. Tim. 2, 4. — Pro *salvi sunt* Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 9 *salvi fiunt.*

en: Cf. above, dist. XXIX. — Below, allusion is made to 1 Timothy 2:4. — For *salvi sunt* (are saved) the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6, 9 read *salvi fiunt* (are made saved).

la: Edd. 1, 8 et codd. DE omittunt *diligunt et;* deinde pro *vult* edd. 1, 8 *voluit.*

en: Editions 1, 8 and codices DE omit *diligunt et* (they love and); then for *vult* (wills) editions 1, 8 read *voluit* (willed). ---

translators_notes:
**Chapter subjects.** DISTINCTIO XXXI is Lombard's treatment *de caritate quantum ad durationem* — the duration of charity considered three ways: against the sin opposed to it (Cap. I), against the habits of the other virtues (Cap. II), and against the future state of glory in which Christ had it (Cap. III). **Cap. I** (*Si caritas semel habita amittatur* — whether charity once had is lost) gathers authorities seeming to prove that charity once had is never lost (Apostle, Augustine, Gregory, Bede, Ambrose), then refutes the resulting audacity (that charity cannot be lost by anyone) by distinguishing *perfecta* charity, which the perfect alone have and do not lose, from the *exordia/profectus* which can grow or fail. **Cap. II** (*Quare fides, spes, scientia dicuntur evacuari…*) explains why faith, hope, and knowledge are "done away" while charity is not, though it too is *ex parte:* charity loses only its imperfection, not its essence. **Cap. III** (*Si Christus ordinem diligendi servavit, quem nos*) asks whether Christ as man kept the order of loving — resolved by the *modus patriae* (he loved as the beatified do, willing the salvation of the elect only).

**Provenance (PDF-priority inversion).** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{671,672,673}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (read L column top→bottom, then R column; body bands then footer bands; reflowed column-by-column, not raw-line order). The IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw 46674–46801) was the base only for clean running prose and exact `[^N]` marker spacing; the Respondeo-class cascade-shattered regions and all footers were read eyes-on from the PDF. Offset `pdf = printed + 22`. Running-head **text** trusted over OCR'd digits (p.672 footer `672 … SENTENTIARUM LIB.`; p.673 top running head `DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 673`).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.671 (PDF 693):** d.30's Dub. II–III and Respondeo occupy the L column and the top of the R column. The d.31 header `DISTINCTIO XXXI` and the `Cap. I` caption print at the **bottom of the L column**; Cap. I's opening sentence (`Illud quoque non est praetereundum … ab aliquo non`) finishes there and continues at the **bottom of the R column** (`posse excidere … cui non communicat alienus.`). Only the first sentence of Cap. I falls on p.671.
- **p.672 (PDF 694):** the bulk of Cap. I (the authorities of Augustine/Gregory/Bede/Ambrose, the refutation, the *perfecta*-charity resolution) fills both columns; **Cap. II** caption prints centered in the R column near the foot, with Cap. II's opening (`Advertendum etiam est …`) beginning there.
- **p.673 (PDF 695):** Cap. II's last sentences finish at the top of the L column (`… sed alium tenebit usum et modum.`); **Cap. III** caption and opening print on the L column (`Nunc iam superest investigare … praescriptum ser-`), continuing across to the R column top (`-vaverit. Quod si est … eorumque salutem optavit.`). The littera **ends** there, mid-p.673; the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI** begins below it (full-width), raw line 46802 (OCR garble `COMMENTAMUS`).

**Apparatus (13 entries, NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, per-page restart):**
- p.671 footer: **1 entry** — n.1 (the picked-up hand-off, see below).
- p.672 footer: **10 entries** — nn.1–5 in the left footer block, nn.6–10 in the right footer block → renumbered `[^2]`–`[^11]`.
- p.673 footer: **2 entries** — nn.1–2 in the **left** footer block (`NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`, citing Cap. III's *salvi sunt* and *diligunt et*) → renumbered `[^12]`–`[^13]`.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* the **p.671 NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** footer block (n.1, on *Caritas nunquam excidit* / the Augustine *de Salutaribus Documentis* + *Enarrat. in Ps. 103* chain + the Gratian note) was forwarded to this chunk by `bon-sent-III-d30-dubia`: it prints in p.671's footer but cites Lombard's d.31 Cap. I text. It leads the apparatus here as `[^1]`, read eyes-on from `vol3-p671-R-2.png` (the OCR for it was cascade-shattered).
- *Forwarded:* **NONE to d31-divisio.** The p.673 footer carries TWO distinct blocks: the **left** footer is `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` (nn.1–2, citing Cap. III littera text — captured here as `[^12]`–`[^13]`), while the **right** footer is a separate `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block (nn.1–3, citing the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO body — `amor unit`, the Dionysius *de Div. Nom.* note, etc.). The commentary-family footer belongs wholly to the future `d31-divisio` chunk and is NOT a forward from this littera (it is the divisio's own footer). So this littera forwards no NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM note across the Cap. III / COMMENTARIUS seam.

**Boundary verification.** The auto-chunk skeleton's range (`line_start: 46672, line_end: 46833`) wrongly included the COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM block (raw 46802–46833); that entire block was **CUT** — it belongs to `d31-divisio`. The littera body stops cleanly at Cap. III's `… eorumque salutem optavit.` (p.673 R column, marginalia *Resp.* / *Dubium 3.*), confirmed eyes-on against `vol3-p673-R-0.png`.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All 13 footer entries and all body readings confirmed against the 450 dpi PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 31, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XXXI — divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XXXI — division of the text and treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 673 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI.

#### *De caritate quantum ad durationem.*

*Illud quoque praetermittendum non est etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de caritate quantum ad definitionem et diligibilium distinctionem et diligendi ordinem et meriti perfectionem; in hac vero quinta parte agit de caritatis duratione. Et quoniam contingit tripliciter loqui de duratione caritatis, videlicet per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum, et per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum, et per comparationem ad statum gloriae futurum, in quo statu habuit eam Christus; ideo dividitur pars ista in partes tres. In quarum prima inquirit Magister, utrum caritas possit per peccatum amitti. In secunda determinat, qualiter spes et fides[^1] habeant evacuari, ibi: *Advertendum est, quomodo fides et spes* etc. In tertia parte inquirit, utrum ordo, qui inest caritati in via, in Christo et in aliis Beatis habeat inveniri, ibi: *Nunc iam superest investigare* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima adducit auctoritates ad ostendendum, quod caritas non possit tolli per peccatum. In secunda vero inducit auctoritates ad oppositum, ibi: *Haec innuere videntur, quod caritas* etc. In tertia vero subiungit explanationes illarum auctoritatum, ex quibus concludebatur falsum propter intellectum perversum, ibi: *Quod vero Apostolus ait* etc. Aliarum vero partium subdivisio satis manifesta est in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa tria secundum tria, quae Magister determinat.

Primo enim quaeritur de duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.

Secundo vero quaeritur de eadem per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum.

Tertio quaeritur de ipsa per comparationem ad statum gloriae futurum.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primum est, utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum amittens caritatem possit resurgere in caritate aequali.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum possit resurgere in minori.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXI.

#### *On charity as regards its duration.*

*This too must not be passed over, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of charity as regards its definition and the distinction of the things to be loved and the order of loving and the perfection of merit; but in this fifth part he treats of the duration of charity. And since it happens that one may speak in a threefold way of the duration of charity, namely by comparison to the sin opposed to it, and by comparison to the habits of the other virtues, and by comparison to the state of future glory, in which state Christ had it; therefore this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master inquires whether charity can be lost through sin. In the second he determines in what manner hope and faith[^1] are voided, there: *It must be noted in what manner faith and hope* etc. In the third part he inquires whether the order which is in charity in this life is to be found in Christ and in the other Blessed, there: *Now it yet remains to investigate* etc.

The first part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he adduces authorities to show that charity cannot be taken away through sin. But in the second he brings forward authorities to the opposite, there: *These seem to suggest that charity* etc. And in the third he adds explanations of those authorities, from which a falsehood was being concluded on account of a perverse understanding, there: *But as to what the Apostle says* etc. The subdivision of the remaining parts is sufficiently manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part there falls here a question concerning three things according to the three things which the Master determines.

For first it is asked concerning the duration of charity by comparison to the sin opposed to it.

But second it is asked concerning the same by comparison to the habits of the other virtues.

Third it is asked concerning it by comparison to the state of future glory.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

The first is whether charity once had can be lost.

Second it is asked whether one who loses charity can rise again in equal charity.

Third it is asked whether he can rise again in a lesser [charity].

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the duration of charity by comparison to the sin opposed to it.*

---

la: Edd. subiungunt *et scientia.*

en: The editions append *et scientia* (and knowledge).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** **NEW chunk — created this session (2026-06-12).** Like d.29 and d.30, the 2026-06-02 auto-chunker skipped the d.31 divisio entirely: no `d31-divisio` skeleton existed. The COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM block (raw 46802–46833) had been CUT out of the d31-littera promotion (commit `679771e`) precisely so it could be created here. Backup dir `_backup-d31-divisio-pre-promote-20260612/` created for symmetry (no prior file to back up). This chunk holds the full front-matter of the distinction: the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI` head (OCR garble `COMMENTAMUS`; subtitle *De caritate quantum ad durationem*; incipit *Illud quoque praetermittendum non est etc.*) + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` + `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` + the `ARTICULUS I` opener. Re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p673-{L,R}-1,2.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 46802–46836) as the base for clean running prose; the two-column OCR is cascade-garbled here (Vol II/III override, offset pdf = printed + 22; trust running-head TEXT over OCR'd digits), so the column-band PDF read is authoritative. `type: divisio`, **`has_scholion: false`** — a divisio chunk carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*.

**ARTICULUS I opener — folded INTO this divisio.** Per the locked Vol II/III chunking convention, a short ARTICULUS opener with no separate *Primo/Secundo… quaeritur* listing of its own folds into the divisio (not into a1-q1). Here the article-1 sub-divisio (*Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primum est… Secundo… Tertio…*) is itself the natural close of the TRACTATIO block and is folded in; only the `ARTICULUS I.` header + subtitle (*De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum*) are folded. `QUAESTIO I` and its body (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti…*, raw 46837/46840) open the next chunk, d31-a1-q1.

**★ FULL d.31 ARTICLE + QUESTION MAP (from the TRACTATIO + each article opener, eyes-on p.673 + p.680 + p.685 bands / raw verified).** The TRACTATIO declares **three articles "circa tria secundum tria"** (by comparison to sin / to the habits of the other virtues / to the state of future glory). Per-article question counts, verified at each ARTICULUS opener:

- **ARTICULUS I** — *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.* Opener: *Circa primum quaeruntur tria.* → **THREE questions:**
  - a1-q1: *Utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti* (Whether charity once had can be lost). [raw 46837]
  - a1-q2: *Utrum amittens caritatem possit resurgere in caritate aequali* (Whether one who loses charity can rise again in equal charity).
  - a1-q3: *Utrum possit resurgere in minori* (Whether he can rise again in a lesser charity).
- **ARTICULUS II** — *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum.* Opener (raw 47231): *Consequenter quaeritur de caritatis duratione per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum, quae evacuari dicuntur. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur secundum triplicem habitum, quem dicit Magister evacuandum.* → **THREE questions:**
  - a2-q1: *Utrum fides in gloria evacuetur* (Whether faith is voided in glory). [QUAESTIO I raw ~47254]
  - **a2-q2: *Utrum spes in gloria evacuetur* (Whether hope is voided in glory).** *(De evacuatione ipsius spei.)* **⚠ THIS QUESTION IS REAL AND CURRENTLY MISSING** — the skeleton inventory jumps a2 q1→q3, but the article opener explicitly lists THREE (de evacuatione fidei / spei / scientiae). **`d31-a2-q2` MUST BE CREATED** in its own dispatch — it is NOT a q-swap.
  - a2-q3: *De evacuatione ipsius scientiae* (On the voiding of knowledge itself). [present skeleton]
- **ARTICULUS III** — opener (raw 47787): *…circa hoc quaeruntur tria.* → **THREE questions:**
  - a3-q1: *Utrum contingat caritatis habitum in patria evacuari* (Whether the habit of charity comes to be voided in the fatherland). [QUAESTIO I raw 47798]
  - a3-q2: *Utrum per gloriam contingat caritatis [ordinem mutari]* (per the *Primum est, utrum per gloriam contingat…* listing). [present skeleton]
  - a3-q3: *Utrum contingat caritatis ordinem in patria immutari* (Whether the order of charity comes to be changed in the fatherland). [present skeleton]

So the full d.31 slate = **divisio (this chunk) · a1-q1, q2, q3 · a2-q1, q2 [CREATE], q3 · a3-q1, q2, q3 · dubia** = 11 chunks. Nine questions across three articles, each article with exactly three.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed p.673 only** (PDF 695). The d31-littera (Cap. I–III) occupies the upper two-column block of p.673; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI` head + subtitle + incipit span the full page width immediately below it. `DIVISIO TEXTUS` then runs as two columns: L-column (*Supra egit Magister… Advertendum est, quomodo*) continued in R-column (*fides et spes etc.… satis manifesta est in littera.*). `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.` follows, also two columns: the three-article frame + *Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primum est…* in the L-column, *Secundo… Tertio… minori.* in the R-column. Then the `ARTICULUS I.` head + subtitle span both columns at the foot of p.673, immediately followed by `QUAESTIO I.` + its title + body opening (*Circa primum sic proceditur…*, raw 46840) on the lower third of p.673 (L-column) / R-column (*amor unit* opener). The chunk ends at the `ARTICULUS I` subtitle; `QUAESTIO I` onward = d31-a1-q1.

**Apparatus (1 entry owned), NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart — p.673 footer n.1.** p.673 has a single *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footer sequence nn.1–3 (printed in the R-column foot). **Footer n.1 is MINE** — its marker (`spes et fides¹`) falls in the DIVISIO TEXTUS: **n.1** = *Edd. subiungunt et scientia.* **Footers nn.2–3 are NOT mine** — their markers fall in the QUAESTIO I body, which is d31-a1-q1 (see hand-off): **n.2** marker on *auctoritates in littera²* = *Hic c. 1.*; **n.3** marker on *amor unit³* (the *Ad oppositum* opener of q1) = *Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4 § 13. — Inferius pro excellentior amor edd. excellentior multum.* (This is the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block the d31-littera hand-off flagged as belonging to the commentary body, not to the littera.)

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED.** NONE forwarded from d31-littera — the littera's 13 footers were all *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* (p.671 n.1, p.672 nn.1–10, p.673-LEFT nn.1–2). The p.673 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block starts fresh here; my n.1 (*Edd. subiungunt et scientia*) is its first entry.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED to d31-a1-q1 = p.673 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–3** (markers on the QUAESTIO I body): **n.2** = *Hic c. 1.* (on *auctoritates in littera²*); **n.3** = *Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4 § 13. — Inferius pro excellentior amor edd. excellentior multum.* (on *amor unit³*, the first *Ad oppositum* argument). a1-q1 claims p.673 nn.2–3 first, then a fresh p.674 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* sequence (running head `674 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`, signature `85`). **Do NOT re-claim n.1 in a1-q1 (it is the divisio's).**

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends.
- **Open seam (d31-littera → this chunk):** the littera (Cap. III) closes mid-p.673 at *…eorumque salutem optavit.*; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXI` head opens fresh full-width below it — seam clean, no leakage (the COMMENTARIUS block was deliberately cut from the littera).
- **Close seam (this chunk → d31-a1-q1):** the `ARTICULUS I` subtitle is the last line of this chunk; `QUAESTIO I. / Utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti. / Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur…* (raw 46837/46840) is the next chunk — the QUAESTIO header is a fresh question head, not a continuation of the TRACTATIO list — seam clean.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The COMMENTARIUS head, subtitle, incipit, all DIVISIO TEXTUS paragraphs, the full TRACTATIO (three-article frame + article-1 sub-divisio), the ARTICULUS I opener, and the owned p.673 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footer were read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p673-{L,R}-1,2.png`). No ambiguity survives.

**HAND-OFF TO d31-a1-q1 (forwarded):** the next chunk is **bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q1** — `ARTICULUS I. / De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum. / QUAESTIO I. / Utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti`. `type: quaestio`, `articulus: 1`, `quaestio: 1`. **Raw anchors:** QUAESTIO I header at raw **46837**; body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti. Et quod non, adducit Magister multas auctoritates in littera²; et hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione.* on the lower L-column of **p.673** (PDF 695), with the *Ad oppositum* arguments (*I. Haec enim est per se vera: amor unit³…*) opening in the R-column. **Page span:** opens at the foot of p.673 and runs onto p.674+ (PDF 696; running head `674 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`, signature `85`). **Footer split (p.673):** **p.673 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–3 belong to a1-q1** — n.2 = *Hic c. 1.* (marker *in littera²*); n.3 = *Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4 § 13. — Inferius pro excellentior amor edd. excellentior multum.* (marker *amor unit³*). **a1-q1's first two body footers are p.673 nn.2–3; do NOT re-claim n.1 (that is the divisio's).** Then a fresh p.674 footer sequence. **quaeritur alignment:** TRACTATIO/ARTICULUS-I Primum (*utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti*) = QUAESTIO I body 1:1 — alignment passes, no q-swap.

**★ DOWNSTREAM FLAG — d31-a2-q2 MUST BE CREATED.** ARTICULUS II's opener (*Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur secundum triplicem habitum*) lists THREE questions: a2-q1 *de evacuatione fidei*, **a2-q2 *de evacuatione ipsius spei***, a2-q3 *de evacuatione ipsius scientiae*. The present skeleton inventory has a2-q1 and a2-q3 but **NO a2-q2** — this is a genuinely missing question (NOT a q-swap), so `d31-a2-q2` (*Utrum spes in gloria evacuetur*) must be scaffolded + promoted in its own later dispatch. ART III likewise = three questions (a3-q1 *…in patria evacuari*; a3-q2 *…per gloriam…*; a3-q3 *…ordinem in patria immutari*). Full slate = 11 chunks.

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. 31, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 673 -->

### Articulus I. *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti. Et quod non, adducit Magister multas *auctoritates* in littera[^1]; et hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione*.

1. Haec enim est per se vera: amor unit[^2], ergo maior amor magis unit: sed amor caritatis est excellentior amor, quam sit amor naturalis: ergo excellentius unit. Sed naturalis amor unit indissolubi-

<!-- page 674 -->

liter, quia nullus unquam odit quod naturaliter amat: ergo multo fortius amor caritatis indissolubiliter unit: ergo qui caritatem habet non potest vinculo caritatis privari.

2. Item, fortior est caritas in bono, quam sit aliquod peccatum in malo[^3]: sed magis forte non potest destrui per minus forte: ergo caritas non potest expelli per peccatum; nec per aliud habet expelli: ergo semel habita non potest amitti.

3. Item, omne peccatum ortum habet vel ex *timore* male humiliante, vel ex *amore* male incendente; sed in eo, in quo est caritas, nec est timor male humilians nec amor male incendens, quia dicit Bernardus[^4]: « Nunquam est caritas sine *timore*, sed casto; nunquam sine *cupiditate*, sed ordinata »: ergo videtur, quod in eo, in quo est caritas, nulla possit esse culpa: videtur ergo, quod caritas, ex quo semel habetur, nunquam amittatur.

4. Item, liberum arbitrium in eligendo semper sequitur affectionem praedominantem[^5]; sed in omni homine habente caritatem affectio caritatis praedominatur, cum faciat eum diligere Deum propter se et super omnia: ergo liberum arbitrium, ex quo semel habet caritatem, nunquam movetur contra caritatem. Sed nunquam amittit caritatem, nisi moveatur contra ipsam: ergo ex quo caritas semel inest homini, videtur, quod non possit ab eo perdi nec separari.

5. Item, omnis qui habet caritatem, habet Christum pro fundamento et Spiritum sanctum pro adiutorio; sed nihil potest firmitatem fundamenti infringere nec virtutem divini adiutorii superare: ergo videtur, quod nihil possit caritatem ab homine expellere[^6].

Sed contra hoc ostenditur: 1. Primo per *exempla veteris Testamenti*. Constat enim, quod Saul caritatem habuit, cum de eo scribatur[^7], quod *non erat vir in Israel melior eo*; similiter et David caritatem habuit, cum de eo dicat Dominus: *Inveni virum secundum cor meum*; et constans est, quod uterque caritatem perdidit, quia uterque mortaliter peccavit: Saul in persequendo David, David vero in committendo adulterium et homicidium: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *exempla novi Testamenti*: quia discipuli Domini caritatem habuerunt, tam Apostoli quam alii discipuli electi; sed *multi de discipulis abierunt retro*, secundum quod dicitur Ioannis sexto[^8]; multi etiam de Apostolis dubitaverunt in fide, secundum quod habetur Matthaei ultimo, et similiter ultimo Marci, et similiter ultimo Lucae: ergo caritatem habitam perdiderunt: ergo caritas semel habita potest perdi.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *auctoritates*: quia scribitur primae ad Corinthios decimo[^9]: *Qui stat videat, ne cadat*; et Apocalypsis secundo: *Habeo adversum te pauca, quod caritatem primam reliquisti*: ergo caritas semel habita potest perdi et deleri.

4. Item, hoc ipsum probatur manifesto *experimento*: quia parvuli, qui baptizantur, habent gratiam, et ita caritatem et virtutes ceteras[^10]; et tamen, quando veniunt ad adultam aetatem, caritatem perdunt peccando, sicut planum est: ergo caritas, postquam habetur, amittitur.

5. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *rationali argumento*. Facilius est deficere quam proficere, et cadere quam resurgere; facilius est etiam perdere caritatem quam fidem, quia, perdita fide, perditur caritas, sed non convertitur[^11]; sed possibile est, hominem, qui non habet caritatem, caritatem acquirere, possibile etiam est, hominem habentem fidem a fide recedere: ergo multo fortius possibile est, hominem habentem caritatem a caritate cadere.

### Conclusio.

> Error est et insania dicere, quod caritas semel habita non possit amitti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^12], quorundam opinio et sententia fuit, quod caritas semel habita nunquam amittatur; et hoc posuerunt propter perfectionem illius vin-

<!-- page 675 -->

culi et ardorem sive fervorem illius *amoris*. Crediderunt enim, illud *vinculum* esse tantae perfectionis, quod nullo agente posset dissolvi; et illum *amorem* esse tanti fervoris, quod nullo modo posset exstingui propter dignitatem et excellentiam ipsius caritatis. Et hoc affirmare nixi sunt auctoritate multiplici, sicut in ipso textu Magister satis aperte dicit. — Sed haec positio non[^13] opinio nec rationalis sententia, immo *error* et *insania* potius est dicenda, quia repugnat *sacrae Scripturae*, repugnat *experimento* nostrae fidei, repugnat nihilominus *rationi rectae*. Sacrae Scripturae et etiam experientiae repugnat, sicut in opponendo[^14] monstratum est. A *ratione* autem *recta* dissonat, si quis attendat, pro eo quod recta ratio dictat, quod caritas viae non tollit a libero arbitrio vertibilitatem ad malum, sicut nec cupiditas tollit habilitatem ad bonum. Simul ergo stat vertibilitas et caritas; sed ubi est vertibilitas, ibi potest esse culpa; et ubi potest esse culpa, ibi tam caritas quam gratia potest abesse: restat igitur, quod secundum dictamen rationis rectae caritas perdi potest in statu viae. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod excellentius unit amor caritatis quam amor naturalis: dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod indissolubilius uniat, quia *excellentia unionis* non tantum attenditur secundum *unionis inseparabilitatem*, quantum attenditur secundum *habitus unientis*[^15] et obiecti sive termini *dignitatem*. Unde ratio illa non valet. Sed *si tu quaeras*, unde hoc est, quod amor naturalis unit inseparabiliter, et amor caritatis non; dicendum, quod hoc est, quia *caritas* est habitus regulativus et directivus voluntatis deliberativae, quae est ad opposita secundum statum viae. Amor vero *naturalis* respicit ipsam *inclinationem naturae*, quae est ad unum determinata[^16]. Ideo dilectum ex caritate potest esse odiosum propter voluntatis vertibilitatem, quamvis quod naturaliter diligitur semper sit amabile propter ipsius naturae determinationem. Unde non est simile hinc inde.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caritas est fortior peccato; dicendum, quod amissio caritatis non est propter hoc, quod peccatum agat in ipsam, eam expellendo, sicut una forma naturalis expellit aliam: sed hoc est, quia, cum *esse* caritatis dependeat a duobus, videlicet a Deo influente et a libero arbitrio suscipiente; cum liberum arbitrium se a Deo avertit, caritas in semetipsa deficit. Et quia liberum arbitrium non se avertit nisi peccando, hinc est, quod caritas dicitur per peccatum expelli, non propter fortitudinem ipsius peccati agentis, sed propter defectionem ipsius liberi arbitrii suscipientis[^17].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne peccatum est ex *amore* male inflammante, vel *timore* male humiliante; dicendum, quod illud dupliciter potest intelligi: aut quod illae duae radices praecedant omne peccatum perpetratum exterius *tempore*, aut quia praecedant *origine*[^18]. Si quia praecedant *tempore*, sic non oportet esse generaliter verum, quia ante primum peccatum nullum istorum fuit in primo homine. Si quia praecedant *origine* ipsam perpetrationem peccati, sic habet veritatem, quia nemo peccatum perpetrat nisi malo affectu amoris, vel malo affectu *timoris*. Quamvis autem huiusmodi affectus non sint in homine habente caritatem in *actu, possunt* tamen inesse, quia liberum arbitrium, quod est rectum per caritatem, incurvari potest per cupiditatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod liberum arbitrium in eligendo sequitur affectionem praedominantem; dicendum, quod est affectio praedominans *in habitu*, et est affectio praedominans *in actu*. Cum ergo dicitur, quod liberum arbitrium sequitur affectionem praedominantem; hoc non intelligitur de affectione praedominante *in habitu*, sed de praedominante *in actu*. Quamvis autem in homine habente caritatem affectio caritatis praedominetur *in habitu*; contingit tamen, affectionem carnalem praedominari *actu*; quia frequenter homo, qui est in gratia, eorum quae Dei sunt, oblitus, omnino *cogitat quae sunt mundi*[^19]; et sic afficitur, quasi non esset civis illius supernae Ierusalem; et dum istam affectionem sequitur, cadit in praecipitium perditque gratiae donum et caritatis habitum.

5. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod habenti caritatem Christus est fundamentum, et Spiritus sanctus est in adiutorium; dicendum, quod verum est; sed sic Christus est *fundamentum*, quod non sustentat nisi volentem sibi *inniti*, et Spiritus sanctus non *gubernat* in *esse* gratuito nisi volentem sibi *cooperari*. Et ideo, quamvis illud *fundamentum* sit immobile, et *adiutorium* illud sit invincibile, tamen, quia liberum arbitrium ex sua defectibilitate recusat *inniti illi fundamento* et *cooperari illi adiutorio*, peccando deficit in se ipso, ac per hoc privatur caritatis dono propter defectum a parte sui, non propter defectum a parte fundamenti, vel adiutorii.

<!-- page 676 -->

english:
### Article I. *On the duration of charity in relation to the sin opposed to it.*
### Question I. *Whether charity once had can be lost.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether charity once had can be lost. And that it cannot, the Master adduces many *authorities* in the text[^1]; and this same thing is shown by *reason*.

1. For this is true of itself: love unites[^2], therefore the greater love unites the more: but the love of charity is a more excellent love than natural love is: therefore it unites more excellently. But natural love unites indissolu-

bly, because no one ever hates what he naturally loves: therefore much more strongly does the love of charity unite indissolubly: therefore he who has charity cannot be deprived of the bond of charity.

2. Likewise, charity in the good is stronger than any sin is in evil[^3]: but the more strong cannot be destroyed by the less strong: therefore charity cannot be expelled by sin; nor has it anything else by which to be expelled: therefore once had it cannot be lost.

3. Likewise, every sin has its origin either from *fear* wrongly abasing, or from *love* wrongly inflaming; but in him in whom charity is, there is neither fear wrongly abasing nor love wrongly inflaming, because Bernard says[^4]: « Charity is never without *fear*, but a chaste one; never without *desire*, but an ordered one »: therefore it seems that in him in whom charity is, there can be no fault: it seems therefore that charity, once it is had, is never lost.

4. Likewise, free choice in choosing always follows the predominant affection[^5]; but in every man having charity the affection of charity predominates, since it makes him love God for his own sake and above all things: therefore free choice, once it has charity, is never moved against charity. But it never loses charity unless it be moved against it: therefore once charity is in a man, it seems that it cannot be lost or separated from him.

5. Likewise, everyone who has charity has Christ for a foundation and the Holy Spirit for a help; but nothing can shatter the firmness of the foundation nor overcome the power of the divine help: therefore it seems that nothing can expel charity from a man[^6].

But against this it is shown: 1. First, by *examples of the Old Testament*. For it is established that Saul had charity, since it is written of him[^7] that *there was not a better man in Israel than he*; likewise David too had charity, since the Lord says of him: *I have found a man according to my own heart*; and it is constant that each lost charity, because each sinned mortally: Saul in persecuting David, but David in committing adultery and homicide: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *examples of the New Testament*: because the disciples of the Lord had charity, both the Apostles and the other chosen disciples; but *many of the disciples went back*, according to what is said in John the sixth[^8]; many also of the Apostles doubted in the faith, according to what is held in the last chapter of Matthew, and likewise in the last of Mark, and likewise in the last of Luke: therefore they lost the charity they had had: therefore charity once had can be lost.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *authorities*: because it is written in the first to the Corinthians, the tenth chapter[^9]: *Let him who stands see that he fall not*; and Apocalypse the second: *I have a few things against thee, that thou hast left thy first charity*: therefore charity once had can be lost and destroyed.

4. Likewise, this same thing is proved by manifest *experience*: because little ones who are baptized have grace, and so charity and the other virtues[^10]; and yet, when they come to adult age, they lose charity by sinning, as is plain: therefore charity, after it is had, is lost.

5. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a *rational argument*. It is easier to fail than to advance, and to fall than to rise again; it is also easier to lose charity than faith, because, when faith is lost, charity is lost, but not conversely[^11]; but it is possible that a man who does not have charity acquire charity, it is also possible that a man having faith withdraw from faith: therefore much more strongly is it possible that a man having charity fall from charity.

### Conclusion.

> It is error and madness to say that charity once had cannot be lost.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, as the Master says in the text[^12], the opinion and judgment of certain men was that charity once had is never lost; and this they held on account of the perfection of that bond and the ardor or fervor of that *love*. For they believed that that *bond* was of such perfection that by no agent could it be dissolved; and that that *love* was of such fervor that in no way could it be extinguished, on account of the dignity and excellence of charity itself. And this they strove to affirm by manifold authority, as the Master says clearly enough in the text itself. — But this position is not[^13] an opinion nor a rational judgment, but rather is to be called *error* and *madness*, because it is repugnant to *sacred Scripture*, repugnant to the *experience* of our faith, repugnant nonetheless to *right reason*. It is repugnant to sacred Scripture and also to experience, as has been shown in the objecting[^14]. And it is dissonant from *right reason*, if one attends, for the reason that right reason dictates that the charity of the wayfarer does not take away from free choice the changeableness toward evil, just as desire does not take away the aptitude for good. Therefore changeableness and charity stand together; but where there is changeableness, there can be fault; and where there can be fault, there both charity and grace can be absent: it remains, therefore, that according to the dictate of right reason charity can be lost in the state of the wayfarer. — Hence the reasons adduced for this side are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that the love of charity unites more excellently than natural love: it must be said that it is true; but yet from this it does not follow that it unites more indissolubly, because the *excellence of union* is not weighed so much according to the *inseparability of union* as it is weighed according to the *dignity of the uniting habit*[^15] and of the object or term. Hence that reason is not valid. But *if you ask* whence this is, that natural love unites inseparably, and the love of charity does not; it must be said that this is because *charity* is a habit regulative and directive of the deliberative will, which is toward opposites according to the state of the wayfarer. But *natural* love regards the very *inclination of nature*, which is determined toward one thing[^16]. Therefore what is loved out of charity can become hateful on account of the changeableness of the will, although what is naturally loved is always lovable on account of the determination of nature itself. Hence the case is not the same on the one side and the other.

2. To that which is objected, that charity is stronger than sin; it must be said that the loss of charity is not because sin acts upon it, expelling it, as one natural form expels another: but this is because, since the *being* of charity depends on two things, namely on God infusing it and on free choice receiving it; when free choice turns itself away from God, charity fails in itself. And because free choice does not turn itself away except by sinning, hence it is that charity is said to be expelled by sin, not on account of the strength of the sin itself acting, but on account of the failing of free choice itself receiving[^17].

3. To that which is objected, that every sin is from *love* wrongly inflaming, or *fear* wrongly abasing; it must be said that this can be understood in two ways: either that those two roots precede in *time* every sin perpetrated outwardly, or that they precede in *origin*[^18]. If they precede in *time*, so it need not be generally true, because before the first sin none of these was in the first man. If they precede in *origin* the very perpetration of sin, so it has truth, because no one perpetrates sin except by the evil affection of love, or by the evil affection of *fear*. But although affections of this kind are not in a man having charity in *act, they can* nevertheless be present, because free choice, which is right through charity, can be bent through desire.

4. To that which is objected, that free choice in choosing follows the predominant affection; it must be said that there is an affection predominant *in habit*, and there is an affection predominant *in act*. When, therefore, it is said that free choice follows the predominant affection; this is not understood of the affection predominant *in habit*, but of the one predominant *in act*. But although in a man having charity the affection of charity predominates *in habit*; it nevertheless happens that a carnal affection predominates *in act*; because frequently a man who is in grace, forgetful of the things that are God's, *thinks wholly the things that are of the world*[^19]; and so is affected as though he were not a citizen of that supernal Jerusalem; and while he follows that affection, he falls into the precipice and loses the gift of grace and the habit of charity.

5. To that which is objected last, that to him who has charity Christ is a foundation, and the Holy Spirit is for a help; it must be said that it is true; but Christ is a *foundation* in such a way that he sustains only one willing to *lean* upon him, and the Holy Spirit does not *govern* in gratuitous *being* except one willing to *cooperate* with him. And therefore, although that *foundation* be immovable, and that *help* be invincible, nevertheless, because free choice out of its own defectibility refuses to *lean upon that foundation* and to *cooperate with that help*, by sinning it fails in itself, and through this is deprived of the gift of charity on account of a defect on its own part, not on account of a defect on the part of the foundation, or of the help.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here c. 1.

la: Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 13. — Inferius pro *excellentior amor* edd. *excellentior multum*.

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 4, § 13. — Below, in place of *excellentior amor* ("a more excellent love") the editions read *excellentior multum* ("much more excellent").

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 920, nota 4.

en: Cf. tome II, p. 920, note 4.

la: De Diligendo Deo, c. 14. n. 38. — *Maior* est secundum August., de quo vide tom. II. pag. 146, nota 7. — Post *quia* cod. U addit *ut*.

en: *On Loving God*, c. 14, n. 38. — *Maior* ("greater") is according to Augustine, on which see tome II, p. 146, note 7. — After *quia* codex U adds *ut*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 10 (VIII. c. 5.). — Inferius pro *movetur* edd. habet *moveri*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IX, text 10 (VIII, c. 5). — Below, in place of *movetur* the editions have *moveri*.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 26. enarrat. 2. n. 5: *Potest [aliquid] mihi auferre quod dat Omnipotens? Sicut non vincitur qui dat, sic non aufertur quod dat. Si auferri potest datum, vincitur dator.* — Vat. voci *fundamenti* praefigit *talis*.

en: Augustine, *Expositions on the Psalms*, on Ps. 26, exposition 2, n. 5: *Can the Almighty take from me what he gives? As he who gives is not conquered, so what he gives is not taken away. If the gift can be taken away, the giver is conquered.* — The Vatican edition prefixes *talis* to the word *fundamenti*.

la: Libr. 1. Reg. 9, 2. — Seq. testimonium habetur Act. 13, 22; cfr. I. Reg. 13, 14; — Superius pro *ostenditur* cod. K *opponitur*, codd. V Z bb et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 73. a. I. *obiicitur*.

en: Book 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 9:2. — The following testimony is found in Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 13:14; — Above, in place of *ostenditur* codex K reads *opponitur*, while codices V Z bb and the *Supplement to the Summa* of Alexander of Hales, collation 73, a. I, read *obiicitur*.

en: Verse 67; Matthew 28:17; Mark 16:11 ff.; Luke 24:11 and 41.

la: Vers. 12. — In seq. testimonio, quod est Apoc. 2, 4, Vulgata omittit *pauca* (exhibet hanc voculam ibid. v. 14.). — Paulo inferius pro *deleri* cod. K *amitti*.

en: Verse 12. — In the following testimony, which is Apocalypse 2:4, the Vulgate omits *pauca* ("a few things") (it displays this little word in the same place, v. 14). — A little below, in place of *deleri* codex K reads *amitti*.

la: Vide IV. Sent. d. 4. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See IV *Sentences* d. 4, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 8, et d. 27. a. I. q. I. — De *maiori* vide supra pag. 499, nota 2. — Quantum ad arg. ipsum, Bernardus idem dicit in Tract. de moribus et offic. episc. c. 4. n. 14, commentans illud Luc. 8, 13: *Et hi radices non habent, qui ad tempus credunt, et in tempore tentationis recedunt.* Recedunt ergo, ait, quidam a fide, quia Veritas asserit; consequenter et a salute, quia Salvator redarguit; inde nos colligimus, quod et a caritate, sine qua salus esse non potuit. — In *minori* ex codd. A bb posuimus *caritatem* ante *acquirere*, quod alii codd. et edd. I, 2 omittunt. Vat. pro *caritatem* substituit *eam*. In fine arg. *procedere* cod. W exhibet *recedere*.

en: Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XXIII, c. 8, and d. 27, a. I, q. I. — On *maiori* see above p. 499, note 2. — As regards the argument itself, Bernard says the same in his *Tract on the Morals and Office of Bishops*, c. 4, n. 14, commenting on that text of Luke 8:13: *And these have no roots, who believe for a time, and in the time of temptation fall away.* Some, he says, fall away from faith, because Truth affirms it; consequently also from salvation, because the Savior reproves it; whence we gather that they fall away also from charity, without which salvation could not be. — In the *minor* we have placed *caritatem* before *acquirere* from codices A bb, which the other codices and editions 1, 2 omit. The Vatican edition substitutes *eam* for *caritatem*. At the end of the argument codex W displays *recedere* for *procedere*.

la: Hic c. 1. — Mox pro *amittatur* non pauci codd. *amittitur*.

en: Here c. 1. — Soon, in place of *amittatur* not a few codices read *amittitur*.

la: Edd. *auctoritate aliquorum*; codd. hic male inseruerunt *est*.

en: The editions read *auctoritate aliquorum* ("by the authority of certain men"); the codices here wrongly inserted *est*.

la: In *fundamentis*. — Subinde pro *A ratione autem* codd. A f. hh habent *ratione etiam*.

en: In *fundamentis* ("on the foundations"). — Thereafter, in place of *A ratione autem* codices A f. hh have *ratione etiam*.

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. perperam *unitatem*.

en: The editions, with several codices, wrongly read *unitatem* ("unity").

la: Cfr. Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 3. seq. et text. 10. (VIII. c. 2. et 5.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IX, text 3 ff. and text 10 (VIII, c. 2 and 5).

la: Vide supra d. 30. q. I. ad 3. pro parte affirm., et II. Sent. d. 26. q. I. ad 4. — Pro *defectionem* edd. et nonnulli codd. *defectum*.

en: See above d. 30, q. I, ad 3, for the affirmative side, and II *Sentences* d. 26, q. I, ad 4. — In place of *defectionem* the editions and some codices read *defectum*.

la: De prioritate temporis et originis vide Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Priori (cfr. pag. 575, nota 1.), et V. Metaph. text. 13. (IV. c. 11.).

en: On the priority of time and of origin see Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter on the Prior (cf. p. 575, note 1), and *Metaphysics* V, text 13 (IV, c. 11).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 7, 34.

en: Epistle 1 Corinthians 7:34.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quod gratia habitualis cum caritate in statu viae perdi possit et reapse quolibet peccato mortali perdatur, definitum est ab ipsa Ecclesia pluribus decretis, praesertim can. 23. sess. VI. Concilii Tridentini: « Si quis hominem semel iustificatum dixerit amplius peccare non posse neque gratiam amittere, atque ideo eum qui labitur et peccat, nunquam vere fuisse iustificatum... a. s. ». — Egregia est doctrina, quam auctor in omnibus solutionibus oppositorum profitetur; praesertim est notandum (ad 5.), quod licet adiutorium Spiritus S., voluntati oblatum, sit efficacissimum, immo *invincibile* in se, nihilominus liberum arbitrium potest in actibus suis deficere, scilicet propter defectum a parte ipsius voluntatis. De eadem quaestione: Scoti loci collecti apud Hieron. de Montefortino, Sum. t. II., q. 24. a. 11. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 1; S. II. II. q. 24. a. 11; Qq. disp. de caritate, a. 12. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. I. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., 1. Sent. d. 17.

**II.** Ad seqq. duas quaestiones (2. 3.) etiam S. Thom. (hic q. I. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1-3; cfr. S. II. q. 89. a. 3.) cum S. Bonav. respondet: « Oportet dicere, sicut et communiter dicitur, quod aliquis potest post peccatum in *maiori* et in *minori* et *aequali* caritate resurgere ». Idem sentiens, de hac re diffuse iam tractavit Guliel. Antissiod. (S. p. III. tr. 6. c. 5.). De his duabus quaestionibus unitis: B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Henr. Gandav., Quodl. 5. q. 24. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That habitual grace together with charity in the state of the wayfarer can be lost, and is in fact lost by any mortal sin whatsoever, has been defined by the Church herself in several decrees, especially canon 23 of session VI of the Council of Trent: « If anyone shall say that a man once justified can no longer sin nor lose grace, and therefore that he who falls and sins was never truly justified... let him be anathema ». — Excellent is the doctrine which the author professes in all the solutions of the objections; especially is it to be noted (on the 5th) that, although the help of the Holy Spirit, offered to the will, is most efficacious, indeed *invincible* in itself, nevertheless free choice can fail in its own acts, namely on account of a defect on the part of the will itself. On the same question: the passages of Scotus collected in Hieron. de Montefortino, *Sum.* t. II, q. 24, a. 11. — S. Thomas, here q. I, a. 1; S. II–II, q. 24, a. 11; *Qq. disp. de caritate*, a. 12, 13. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I, a. 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1, q. I. — Durand., here q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., 1 *Sent.* d. 17.

**II.** To the following two questions (2, 3) S. Thomas also (here q. I, a. 4, little-question 1–3; cf. S. II, q. 89, a. 3) responds with S. Bonaventure: « It must be said, as is also commonly said, that one can rise again after sin in a *greater* and in a *lesser* and in an *equal* charity ». Thinking the same, Wilhelm of Auxerre already treated this matter at length (*S.* p. III, tr. 6, c. 5). On these two questions taken together: B. Albert, here a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I, a. 3. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1, q. 2. — Henr. Gandav., *Quodl.* 5, q. 24. — Durand., here q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 46837–47009 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing, cross-checked against the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{673,674,675,676}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.695–698; offset pdf = printed + 22), which are authoritative for the Respondeo, Solutio, Conclusio, scholion, and every page-footer NOTAE block (the IA OCR cascade-shatters these in the two-column layout). Running heads inside the span: `674 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (raw 46851), `DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 675` (raw 46917), `676 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (raw 46989).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.673** (lower part): the COMMENTARIUS-in-distinctionem header + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM all belong to the d31-divisio chunk; THIS chunk opens lower on p.673 at `ARTICULUS I. / De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum. / QUAESTIO I. / Utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti.` → opening sentence + arg. 1 (begins; runs onto p.674).
- **p.674**: arg. 1 (conclusion) → args. 2–5 of the "Et quod non" (cannot-be-lost) side; "Sed contra hoc ostenditur" / Ad oppositum args. 1–5 (can-be-lost side); CONCLUSIO blockquote; Respondeo opens (runs onto p.675).
- **p.675**: Respondeo (continuation) + the full series of replies Ad 1–Ad 5 (Solutio oppositorum) up through Ad 5 (runs onto p.676).
- **p.676**: SCHOLION §I (Trent can.23 sess.VI) + §II — that closes THIS chunk. QUAESTIO II (`Utrum cadens a caritate possit resurgere in aequali`) then opens on p.676 and is the start of the d31-a1-q2 chunk.

**Subtitle correction.** The Article-I subtitle confirmed against the PDF (p.673 L-1/L-2) is **"De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum"** (matching the divisio's first question), NOT "De caritate quantum ad amissionem." ("De caritate quantum ad durationem" is the separate COMMENTARIUS-in-distinctionem subtitle, which sits in the divisio chunk.)

**Scholion disposition.** This is the **article-master scholion** (printed once for Article I on p.676). §I treats the loss of habitual grace/charity (Trent can.23). §II **explicitly forwards to the following two questions (2, 3)** — "Ad seqq. duas quaestiones (2. 3.) etiam S. Thom. ... respondet" — so the sibling chunks d31-a1-q2 and d31-a1-q3 carry `has_scholion: false` and redirect here. The scholion itself carries **no numbered NOTAE markers** (its references — Trent, S. Thom., B. Albert, etc. — are inline parenthetical citations, not footnote-anchored).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up* (from d31-divisio, p.673 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM): p.673 **n.2** = "Hic c. 1." (→ [^1], on "auctoritates in littera") and p.673 **n.3** = "Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4 § 13. — Inferius pro excellentior amor edd. excellentior multum." (→ [^2], on "amor unit"). p.673 **n.1** ("Cfr. supra d. XXIX...") stays with the divisio chunk — NOT claimed here.
- *Forwarded to d31-a1-q2*: the **entire p.676 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block (p.676 nn.1–7)** belongs to QUAESTIO II's body, not to this chunk. The chunk boundary falls inside p.676 (q1's scholion in the L column top; q2's body opens immediately after, L column / R column). q1 takes **none** of the p.676 footers; q2 takes all seven (nn.1–7: Malachiae/Glossa, Levitici/Lyranum interlinear, Romanos/Lucae Glossa, Bedae Reg., Gregor./Chrysost./Beda, Amos Glossa, Ezech.). The d31-a1-q1 apparatus therefore closes at p.675 n.7.

**Apparatus tally.** 19 entries rendered continuously: p.673 nn.2–3 → [^1]–[^2]; p.674 nn.1–10 → [^3]–[^12]; p.675 nn.1–7 → [^13]–[^19].

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation was fully resolved against the PDF bands; all 19 NOTAE entries and both scholion sections are legible.


title: Dist. 31, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 676 -->

### Articulus I. *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum cadens a caritate possit resurgere in aequali.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum a caritate cadens possit resurgere in aequali. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per *vetus Testamentum*. Malachiae tertio[^1]: *Placebit Deo sacrificium Iuda et Ierusalem, sicut dies saeculi et sicut anni antiqui*; Glossa: «Quomodo in principio placuerunt, ita post peccatum per poenitentiam placere coeperunt»; et hoc ipsum habetur expresse in Glossa super illud Levitici septimo[^2]: *Haec est hostia pro delicto*; Glossa: «Aeque placet Deo virtus iustorum et digna poenitentia peccatorum, quae restituit in gradum pristinum»: ergo potest homo resurgere in aequali caritate.

2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per *novum Testamentum*. Scribitur enim ad Romanos quinto[^3]: *Ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia*; et Lucae decimo quinto: *Cito proferte ei stolam primam*; ibi Glossa: «Pristinae dignitati filium restituit»; sed non restituitur in pristinam dignitatem, nisi habeat aequalem caritatem: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *exemplum*: quia David post peccatum homicidii resurrexit devotior, et Petrus post negationem resurrexit fortior, secundum quod dicunt auctoritates Sanctorum, et Scriptura[^4] innuit: ergo videtur, quod similiter in aliis esse possit.

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione*, quia, cum gratia infunditur homini peccatori, peccatum deletur secundum veritatem et secundum Dei reputationem[^5]: ergo nullum praestat infusioni ipsius gratiae impedimentum; nec est aliud, quod impediat, quare non possit dari tanta gratia homini, quanta prius: ergo videtur, quod homo possit in aequali caritate resurgere.

**Ad oppositum:**

**Sed contra:** 1. Amos quinto[^6]: *Non adiiciet, ut resurgat virgo Israel*; Glossa: «Non negat, quin possit resurgere, sed ne possit resurgere virgo; quia semel aberrans, et si reportetur humeris pii pastoris, non habet tantam gloriam cum eo qui nunquam erravit».

2. Item, Ezechielis quadragesimo quarto[^7]: *Levitae, qui longe recesserunt a me, non approximabunt ad me, ut sacerdotio fungantur mihi*: si ergo Deus peccatores et poenitentes non recipit ad dignitatem sacerdotalem, videtur, quod resurgentes non possint habere caritatem aequalem.

3. Item, gratia gratis data nunquam tantum potest disponere ad susceptionem divinae influentiae et capacitatem divinae bonitatis, sicut gratia gratum faciens; sed iustus, antequam cadat, habet gratiam gratum facientem; peccator, antequam resurgat, non habet nisi gratiam gratis datam: ergo amplius dispositus est homo ad susceptionem divinae gratiae, antequam cadat, quam postquam cecidit. Si ergo Deus

<!-- page 677 -->

communicat homini gratiam et caritatem, secundum quod homo est dispositus[^8]: videtur, quod maiorem habeat homo caritatem, quando stat, quam quando resurgit: ergo videtur, quod non possit resurgere in caritate aequali.

4. Item, cum sit triplex status continentiae, scilicet virginalis, vidualis et coniugalis, cadens a primo statu nunquam potest ad primum statum resurgere[^9]: ergo si innocentia baptismalis est sicut continentia virginalis, videtur, quod cadens ab illo statu nunquam poterit in aequali resurgere: ergo non potest homo resurgere in aequali caritate.

### Conclusio.

> Possibile est, quod homo post amissionem caritatis resurgat in aequali caritate.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod possibile est, hominem in aequali caritate resurgere, sicut monstrari potest auctoritatibus et exemplis et rationibus congruis, secundum quod in opponendo[^10] tactum fuit. — Sive enim dicamus, quantitatem gratiae mensurari secundum divinam largitatem, sive secundum suscipientis idoneitatem, recte contingit intelligere, quod caritas, in qua quis resurgit, potest esse aequalis illi caritati, a qua prius cecidit. Nam ex parte divinae largitatis planum est. Ad eius enim commendationem spectat, ut non minus larga dona tribuat homini, quam ante tribuebat, secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^11], nisi ineptitudo suscipientis impediat. — Ex parte vero hominis se disponentis satis planum est; possibile est enim, ut homo post peccatum amplius detestetur malum et abhorreat peccatum quam prius; sicut multi corrupti amplius detestantur peccatum carnis quam multi, qui nunquam fuerunt lapsi. — Et sic rationabiliter poni potest et debet, quod contingat hominem resurgere in aequali caritate; et rationes, quae hoc ostendunt, concedendae sunt.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod nunquam resurgit virgo nec habet tantam gloriam cum eo qui nunquam peccavit; dicendum, quod est gloria quaedam accidentalis et gloria praemii substantialis. Si loquamur de gloria *accidentali*, sic Glossa illa habet veritatem. Quaedam enim gloria est, in qua quis gloriatur, se nunquam peccasse, in quam non poterit resurgere qui aliquando peccavit[^12]. Si loquamur de gloria praemii *substantialis*, quae consistit in videndo et amando Deum, non habet veritatem; et penes hanc attenditur quantitas caritatis, non penes aliam. Et ideo ratio illa non cogit.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Levitae recedentes a Domino inepti erant ad dignitatem sacerdotalem; dicendum, quod sacerdotalis dignitas non tantum respicit rectitudinem voluntatis, sed etiam dignitatem exterioris decoris, propter quam contingit, hominem etiam non peccantem fieri irregularem[^13]. Caritas vero rectitudinem voluntatis respicit proprie et praecise. Et propterea ratio illa non valet, quia non est simile hinc inde.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nunquam disponitur homo per gratiam gratis datam sicut per gratiam gratum facientem; dicendum, quod ad hoc, quod quis se disponat, duo concurrunt, scilicet adiutorium gratiae et cooperatio liberi arbitrii[^14]. Loquendo de dispositione, quantum est ex parte ipsius gratiae, magis est dispositus ad susceptionem omnis boni, qui est in gratia gratum faciente, quam qui illa caret. Sed loquendo de cooperatione liberi arbitrii, non semper habet veritatem, quia in cadente a caritate liberum arbitrium caritati et gratiae non cooperatur, immo potius adversatur et adversando potius disponit ad caritatis defectionem quam ad eius susceptionem; sed in resurgente est e contrario, sicut patet. Et ideo ratio illa non valet.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de continentia virginali, dicendum, quod meritum illius continentiae respicit praemium accidentale de se, et simul cum hoc respicit quandam dispositionem in carne, quae cum amissa est, recuperari non potest; caritas vero praemium substantiale respicit et rectitudinem voluntatis, quae, cum obliquata est, ita bene ut prius cum adiutorio gratiae Dei potest rectificari. Et sic patet, quod non est simile. — Et si obiiciat ulterius, quod innocentia baptismalis similis est statui continentiae virginalis; dicendum, quod quantum ad quandam gloriam accidentalem quodam modo similis est; et de illa potest concedi, quod homo in tanta gloria non resurgit: ex hoc tamen non oportet, quod caritas non sit aequalis. — De hoc autem eodem problemate habetur in libro quarto distinctione decima quarta[^15], ubi quaeritur, utrum perfecta poenitentia in statum pristinum hominem restituat[^16].

---

english:
### Article I. *On the duration of charity in comparison with the sin opposed to it.*
### Question II. *Whether one who has fallen from charity can rise again in an equal charity.*

Secondly it is asked, whether one who has fallen from charity can rise again in an equal one. And that he can seems true:

1. *First*, from the *Old Testament*. Malachi 3[^1]: *The sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem shall please God, as in the days of old, and as in the ancient years*; the Gloss: "As they pleased in the beginning, so after sin, through penance, they began to please"; and this same thing is had expressly in the Gloss on that text of Leviticus 7[^2]: *This is the sacrifice for transgression*; the Gloss: "Equally pleasing to God is the virtue of the just and the worthy penance of sinners, which restores to the former rank": therefore a man can rise again in an equal charity.

2. Likewise, this same thing is proved from the *New Testament*. For it is written to the Romans 5[^3]: *Where transgression abounded, grace did more abound*; and Luke 15: *Quickly bring forth the first robe for him*; there the Gloss: "He restores the son to his former dignity"; but he is not restored to his former dignity unless he has an equal charity: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *example*: because David after the sin of murder rose again more devout, and Peter after his denial rose again stronger, according to what the authorities of the Saints say, and as Scripture[^4] suggests: therefore it seems that it can be likewise in others.

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *reason*, because, when grace is infused into a sinful man, the sin is blotted out in truth and according to God's reckoning[^5]: therefore it offers no impediment to the infusion of that grace; nor is there anything else to impede why so great a grace cannot be given to a man as before: therefore it seems that a man can rise again in an equal charity.

**To the contrary:**

**On the contrary:** 1. Amos 5[^6]: *He shall no more add, that the virgin of Israel may rise again*; the Gloss: "He does not deny that she can rise again, but that she cannot rise again *a virgin*; because, once having gone astray, even if she be carried back on the shoulders of the devout shepherd, she does not have so great a glory with him who never strayed."

2. Likewise, Ezekiel 44[^7]: *The Levites, who have gone far from me, shall not come near to me, to discharge the priestly office for me*: if therefore God does not receive sinners and penitents to the priestly dignity, it seems that those who rise again cannot have an equal charity.

3. Likewise, gratuitously given grace can never dispose so much for the reception of the divine influence and for the capacity of the divine goodness as grace that makes pleasing; but the just man, before he falls, has grace that makes pleasing; the sinner, before he rises again, has only gratuitously given grace: therefore a man is more disposed for the reception of divine grace before he falls than after he has fallen. If therefore God

communicates to a man grace and charity according as the man is disposed[^8]: it seems that a man has a greater charity when he stands than when he rises again: therefore it seems that he cannot rise again in an equal charity.

4. Likewise, since there is a threefold state of continence, namely virginal, widowed, and conjugal, one who falls from the first state can never rise again to the first state[^9]: therefore if baptismal innocence is like virginal continence, it seems that one who falls from that state can never rise again in an equal one: therefore a man cannot rise again in an equal charity.

### Conclusion.

> It is possible that a man, after the loss of charity, should rise again in an equal charity.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is possible for a man to rise again in an equal charity, as can be shown by authorities and examples and fitting reasons, according to what was touched on in the arguing of the case[^10]. — For whether we say that the quantity of grace is measured according to the divine bounty, or according to the fitness of the recipient, it is rightly understood that the charity in which one rises again can be equal to that charity from which he first fell. For on the part of the divine bounty it is plain. For it pertains to the commendation of God's bounty that he bestow on a man gifts not less generous than he bestowed before, according to what Augustine says[^11], unless the unfitness of the recipient impedes it. — And on the part of the man disposing himself it is plain enough; for it is possible that a man after sin should detest evil and abhor sin more than before; just as many corrupt persons detest the sin of the flesh more than many who have never fallen. — And so it can and must reasonably be held that it happens that a man rises again in an equal charity; and the reasons which show this are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected first, that the virgin never rises again nor has so great a glory with him who never sinned; it must be said that there is a certain accidental glory and the glory of the substantial reward. If we speak of *accidental* glory, then that Gloss holds true. For there is a certain glory in which one glories that he has never sinned, into which he who has at some time sinned cannot rise again[^12]. If we speak of the glory of the *substantial* reward, which consists in seeing and loving God, it does not hold true; and the quantity of charity is reckoned by this glory, not by the other. And therefore that reason does not compel.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the Levites who departed from the Lord were unfit for the priestly dignity; it must be said that the priestly dignity regards not only rectitude of the will, but also a dignity of exterior comeliness, on account of which it happens that even a man who does not sin becomes irregular[^13]. But charity regards rectitude of the will properly and precisely. And therefore that reason is not valid, because the case is not alike on either side.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that a man is never disposed by gratuitously given grace as he is by grace that makes pleasing; it must be said that for one to dispose himself, two things concur, namely the help of grace and the cooperation of free choice[^14]. Speaking of the disposition, so far as it is on the part of grace itself, he who is in grace that makes pleasing is more disposed for the reception of every good than he who lacks it. But speaking of the cooperation of free choice, it does not always hold true, because in one falling from charity the free choice does not cooperate with charity and grace, but rather opposes them, and by opposing rather disposes toward the defection of charity than toward its reception; but in one rising again it is the contrary, as is evident. And therefore that reason is not valid.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning virginal continence, it must be said that the merit of that continence regards an accidental reward of itself, and together with this regards a certain disposition in the flesh, which once lost cannot be recovered; but charity regards the substantial reward and rectitude of the will, which, when it has been bent aside, can just as well as before be set right again with the help of God's grace. And so it is evident that the case is not alike. — And if one objects further, that baptismal innocence is like the state of virginal continence; it must be said that with regard to a certain accidental glory it is in some way like it; and concerning that it can be granted that a man does not rise again in so great a glory: yet from this it does not follow that the charity is not equal. — But concerning this same problem it is treated in the fourth book, distinction fourteen[^15], where it is asked whether perfect penance restores a man to his former state[^16].

---

la: Vers. 4. — In Glossa, quae petita est ex Hieronymi exposit. in hunc loc., cod. E cum textu origin. post *placuerunt* addit *Deo*.

en: Verse 4. — In the Gloss, which is drawn from Jerome's exposition on this passage, codex E, with the original text, adds *Deo* after *placuerunt*.

la: Vers. 1: *Haec quoque lex hostiae pro delicto*. — Glossa habetur apud Lyranum (ad v. 2.) ut interlinearis.

en: Verse 1: *This also is the law of the sacrifice for transgression*. — The Gloss is found in Lyra (on v. 2) as the interlinear gloss.

la: Vers. 20. — Seq. Script. locus est Luc. 15, 22. — Glossa sumta est ex Bedae exposit. in cap. cit. 2. 19: *Pristinae filiorum restituit dignitati*.

en: Verse 20. — The following Scripture passage is Luke 15, 22. — The Gloss is taken from Bede's exposition on the cited chapter, 2. 19: *He restores [him] to the former dignity of sons*.

la: Libr. II. Reg. 12, 13. seqq.; Matth. 26, 75. Cfr. Ambros., I. *Apologia prophetae David*, c. 2. n. 3. seqq. et c. 8. n. 43; Gregor., II. *Homil. in Evang.* homil. 21. n. 4; homil. 25. n. 9; homil. 30. n. 8; Chrysost., *Orat.* 8. *adversus Hebr.* n. 3; Beda, *in Ps.* 50, 1. seqq. et *in Ps.* 91. n. 4.

en: 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 12, 13 ff.; Matthew 26, 75. Cf. Ambrose, *Apology of the Prophet David* I, c. 2, n. 3 ff. and c. 8, n. 43; Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels* II, hom. 21, n. 4; hom. 25, n. 9; hom. 30, n. 8; Chrysostom, *Oration* 8 *against the Hebrews*, n. 3; Bede, *on Psalm* 50, 1 ff. and *on Psalm* 91, n. 4.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 17. p. 1. a. 1. q. I. et a. 2. q. I. seqq.

en: Cf. *IV Sent.* d. 17, p. 1, a. 1, q. I and a. 2, q. I ff.

la: Vers. I. seq. Vulgata sic distinguit duas propositiones: *ut resurgat.* (v. 2.) *Virgo Israel proiecta est* etc. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, delibata est ex Hieronymi Comment. in hunc locum. — Pro *non habet* edd. *non tamen habet*.

en: Verse 1 f. The Vulgate thus distinguishes two propositions: *that it may rise again.* (v. 2.) *The virgin of Israel is cast down* etc. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one, is excerpted from Jerome's Commentary on this passage. — For *non habet* the editions read *non tamen habet*.

la: Vers. 10. et 13. — Paulo inferius pro *resurgentes non possint* codd. F 1 L N *resurgens non possit*.

en: Verses 10 and 13. — A little below, for *resurgentes non possint* codices F 1 L N read *resurgens non possit*.

la: Matth. 25, 15: *Et uni dedit quinque talenta... unicuique secundum propriam virtutem*.

en: Matthew 25, 15: *And to one he gave five talents... to each according to his own ability*.

la: Hieron., Epist. 22. ad Eustoch. n. 5: *Cum omnia possit Deus, suscitare virginem non potest post ruinam*. — Pro *ad primum* cod. K *ad pristinum*, edd. 1, 2 *ad ipsum*, Vat. *ad ipsum primum*.

en: Jerome, *Letter* 22 *to Eustochium*, n. 5: *Though God can do all things, he cannot raise up a virgin after her ruin*. — For *ad primum* codex K reads *ad pristinum*, the editions 1, 2 read *ad ipsum*, the Vatican edition *ad ipsum primum*.

la: Scil. in fundamentis.

en: That is, in the foundations (the affirmative arguments above).

la: Epist. 153. (alias 54.) c. 3. n. 7: vide IV. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XIV. circa finem.

en: *Letter* 153 (otherwise 54), c. 3, n. 7: see *IV Sent.*, the Master's text, d. XIV, near the end.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 12. q. 3. — Supra pro *in quam* (ita codd. AEIKLT et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 73. s. 2.) in aliis *in qua*, subinde pro *non poterit* cod. A *nunquam poterit*.

en: Cf. *I Sent.* d. 12, q. 3. — Above, for *in quam* (so codices AEIKLT and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collation 73, s. 2) other manuscripts read *in qua*, and thereupon for *non poterit* codex A reads *nunquam poterit*.

la: Incurritur irregularitas ob defectum tam corporis quam animi. — Pro *fieri* cod. L *esse*.

en: Irregularity is incurred on account of a defect of body as well as of mind. — For *fieri* codex L reads *esse*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. p. 2. q. I. et 3.

en: Cf. *II Sent.* d. 28, p. 2, q. I and 3.

la: Partis II. a. 2. q. I. et 2. — Superius pro *Et si obiiciat* codd. I L W *Et si obiicias*.

en: Part II, a. 2, q. I and 2. — Above, for *Et si obiiciat* codices I L W read *Et si obiicias*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 47010–47120 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Latin re-set from the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{676,677}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.698–699; offset pdf = printed + 22), which are authoritative for the Respondeo, Conclusio, and every page-footer NOTAE block (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters these two-column regions — Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion); the IA OCR (raw 47010–47120) was the base for the clean running prose (*videtur* / *Sed contra* arguments) and for footnote-marker spacing. Running heads inside the span: `DIST. XXXI. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 677` (raw 47064; OCR-mangled `DIST. XXXL ART. I. QUAEST. II.`), and the q3 running head `678 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (raw 47119) sits just past the chunk's end. Trust the running-head **text** over the OCR'd digits per the override.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.676–677** (PDF 698–699). p.676: `QUAESTIO II` head + title + the four *Fundamenta* (affirmative) arguments and the first three *Ad oppositum* (*Sed contra*) arguments (arg. 3 runs to the page foot, *Si ergo Deus*). p.677: the tail of *Sed contra* arg. 3 (*communicat homini gratiam…*) + arg. 4, the `CONCLUSIO`, the `Respondeo`, and the four replies *Ad 1–4* (closing *…hominem restituat*). The chunk **opens** on p.676 immediately after q1's article-master scholion (which closes the top of p.676's left column) and **closes** at the end of *Ad 4* on p.677, just before the `QUAESTIO III` head (raw 47121).

**Apparatus (16 entries, NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^16]):**
- **p.676 footer nn.1–7 → [^1]–[^7]** (PICKED UP as the inbound hand-off from d31-a1-q1, whose boundary falls inside p.676; q1 claimed **none** of these). n.1 Malachiae/Glossa; n.2 Levitici/Lyranum interlinear; n.3 Romanos+Lucae/Bedae Glossa; n.4 the David/Petrus exempla dossier (Reg./Matth./Ambros./Gregor./Chrysost./Beda — spans the L→R column foot); n.5 *Cfr. IV. Sent. d.17*; n.6 Amos/Vulgata-Glossa/edd. variant; n.7 Ezech./codd. variant.
- **p.677 footer nn.1–9 → [^8]–[^16]** (note order read from the p.677 bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p677-{L,R}-2.png`). n.1 Matth.25,15 (marker on *dispositus*, arg.3 tail → [^8]); n.2 Hieron. Ep.22 ad Eustoch. + codd. variant (marker on *resurgere*, arg.4 virginal → [^9]); n.3 *Scil. in fundamentis* (marker on *in opponendo*, Respondeo → [^10]); n.4 Ep.153 / *IV. Sent. lit. Magistri d.XIV* (marker on *dicit Augustinus* → [^11]); n.5 *Cfr. I. Sent. d.12 q.3* + codd. variant (marker on *peccavit*, Ad 1 → [^12]); n.6 irregularitas note + cod.L variant (marker on *irregularem*, Ad 2 → [^13]); n.7 *Cfr. II. Sent. d.28* (marker on *liberi arbitrii*, Ad 3 → [^14]); n.8 *Partis II. a.2 q.I et 2* + codd. variant (marker on *decima quarta*, Ad 4 → [^15]); n.9 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (marker on *restituat*, Ad 4 end → [^16]).
- The p.677 marker positions in the Respondeo/Ad-arguments region (heavily OCR-fragmented) were placed from the PDF column bands, not raw-line order.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. This question prints **no** free-standing scholion. The d31-a1-q1 article-master **Scholion §II** forward-covers it: §II opens *"Ad seqq. duas quaestiones (2. 3.) etiam S. Thom. … cum S. Bonav. respondet…"* — explicitly answering questions 2 **and** 3 together (verified in d31-a1-q1, commit `90daf83`). The p.677 apparatus note [^16] itself directs *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion to the preceding question"), confirming the scholarly apparatus for q2 lives in q1's scholion. Convention mirrored from sibling redirect chunks (e.g. `vol3/bon-sent-III-d11-a1-q2.md`, `vol3/bon-sent-III-d30-a1-q1.md`).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a1-q1*: the **entire p.676 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block (p.676 nn.1–7)** — q2's body opens on p.676 (raw 47010) right after q1's scholion, so the p.676 per-page footer sequence is consumed here, not by q1. Now [^1]–[^7].
- *Forwarded to d31-a1-q3*: **none.** This chunk closes at the end of *Ad 4* on p.677; the `QUAESTIO III` head and its body open the next chunk (raw 47121) at the top of **p.678**, with a fresh p.678 footer sequence. No p.677 footer is shared across the q2/q3 seam (q2 takes all nine of p.677's notes, the last being the scholion-redirect).

**Title note.** The printed page header reads `QUAESTIO II. / Utrum cadens a caritate possit resurgere in aequali` (verified on the p.676 band) — used as `title_la`. The d31-divisio TRACTATIO paraphrases this as *Utrum amittens caritatem possit resurgere in caritate aequali*; the printed quaestio title is authoritative per CLAUDE.md.

**Alignment check.** Passed, no q-swap. TRACTATIO/ARTICULUS-I second member (*utrum amittens caritatem possit resurgere in caritate aequali* — the "rise again in an EQUAL charity" question) = this q2 body opener *Secundo quaeritur, utrum a caritate cadens possit resurgere in aequali* 1:1. q3 (*Utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori* — the "lesser" charity) is distinct.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation and the Respondeo/Ad-arguments region were fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all 16 NOTAE entries are legible and the scholion-redirect is confirmed by note [^16].