title: Dist. 31, Dubia

source_text:
<!-- page 694 -->

# Dubia circa litteram Magistri

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Caritas, quae deseri potest, nunquam vera fuit*; quoniam secundum hoc videtur, quod immutabilitas sit de veritate caritatis: ergo si homo in via semper mutabilis est a malo in bonum, videtur, quod nunquam habeat veram caritatem. *Si dicas,* quod Magister dicit inferius[^1], quod veritas illa « non refertur ad caritatis essentiam, sed ad eius efficaciam »; hoc non solvit: primum, quia multi viatores habent caritatem, quae perducit eos ad veram beatitudinem; et tamen, quamdiu viatores sunt, possunt caritatem deserere: igitur ista duo possunt simul stare, quod caritas possit deseri et quod fuerit vera. — Item, caritas viae et patriae sunt unius rationis[^2]: ergo si de veritate caritatis patriae est, ut sit immutabilis: videtur similiter, quod sit de veritate caritatis viae. Et sic videtur simpliciter sentire Augustinus, quod caritas vera nunquam amittatur[^3]; sed hoc est simpliciter falsum, sicut manifeste scitur per experimentum: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verbum illud sane potest intelligi, ut fiat vis in duplici verbo: primo, ut fiat vis in verbo ex parte subiecti, in hoc quod dicitur: « caritas, quae deseri potest ». Aliqua enim proprietas sive qualitas deseritur propter hoc, quod non potest resistere impellenti; aliqua deseritur ex mera voluntate habentis. Cum ergo dicit Augustinus, quod caritas non est vera, quae potest deseri; hoc intelligit de illo amore, qui non habet efficaciam resistendi; talis enim amor, qui potest a superveniente tentatione violentia quadam expelli, non meretur dici amor caritatis, cuius est Deum carissimum habere et propter se et super omnia diligere et propter amatum omnia faciliter tolerare. — Aliter potest intelligi, ut fiat vis in hoc quod dicit: « nunquam vera fuit »; quod virtus vera dicitur dupliciter: aut quia habet operationem sibi debitam[^4], aut

<!-- page 695 -->

quia perducit ad finem, propter quem est. Et in verbo proposito dicitur caritas non esse vera, quae deseri potest, quia, si deseritur, finis debitus non acquiritur; ideo potius vana quam vera est reputanda. Nec loquitur hic Augustinus de quacumque potentia deserendi caritatem, sed de potentia, quae est actui coniuncta.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mutabilis et immutabilis non est eadem ratio[^5]; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de eo quod est immutabile per naturam, non de illo quod est immutabile per divinae largitatis beneficentiam et continuae bonitatis influentiam, sicut est caritas perfecta in patria[^6].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quorundam nomina Christus dicit esse scripta in libro vitae, qui postea abierunt retro.* Quod enim scriptum est in libro vitae, cum ille liber sit immutabilis, deleri non potest: ergo videtur, quod non sit possibile, ut aliqui, qui scripti sunt, postea vadant retro et deleantur de illo libro. — Est igitur quaestio, utrum aliquis de illo libro possit deleri. Et quod sic, videtur per illud quod dicitur in Psalmo[^7]: *Deleantur de libro viventium*; et Exodi trigesimo secundo: *Aut dimitte eis hanc noxam, aut dele me de libro vitae.* Sed in contrarium est quod dicitur super illud Apocalypsis tertio[^8]: *Non delebo eum*; Glossa: « Liber vitae est praescientia Dei, in qua omnia sunt constantia ».

Iuxta hoc quaeritur de libro vitae, quid sit et quis eius usus.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc breviter dicendum est — quantum spectat ad propositum, quia quaestio ista determinatur in quarto libro[^9], in tractatu de resurrectione — quod cum liber vitae sit divina dispositio, secundum quam aliquis ordinatur ad vitam et reputatur esse dignus vita, aliquis potest dici dupliciter scribi in illo libro: vel secundum praesentis iustitiae reputationem, vel secundum finalis gratiae praevisionem. Et primo modo dicitur scribi in libro vitae, quia scribuntur eius merita; secundo autem modo, non solum quia[^10] scribuntur eius merita, sed etiam quia ipse ordinatur ad vitam secundum praedestinationem divinam. Qui primo modo scribitur deletur quantum ad praesentem iustitiam, quia iam non reputatur dignus vita: qui secundo modo scribitur nunquam deletur. Deletio autem illa non dicit aliquam immutationem factam circa ipsum Deum, sed solum circa meritum immutatum. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Christus tantum electos dilexit et eorum salutem optavit.* Sed contra: latior fuit caritas in Christo quam in nobis; sed nos non diligimus solummodo electos, verum etiam praescitos: ergo et Christus. — Item, illos dilexit Christus, quos voluit salvos fieri; sed secundum quod dicitur primae ad Timotheum secundo[^11]: *Ipse vult, omnes homines salvos fieri:* ergo videtur, quod tam electos quam reprobos dilexerit. — Item, Angeli non tantum serviunt electis, immo etiam malis, et eos quibus serviunt, volunt perducere ad vitam: ergo diligunt eos ex caritate: ergo multo fortius videtur, quod Christus ex caritate omnes dilexerit; et si hoc verum est, tunc non est verum quod Magister dicit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in primo libro[^12] dictum fuit, voluntas in Deo distinguitur secundum duplicem modum. Est enim voluntas in Deo antecedens et voluntas consequens: voluntas antecedens est solummodo ex ipso, voluntas vero consequens pendet ex causa nostra. Per hunc modum dupliciter distinguenda est dilectio in Christo, videlicet dilectio, quae est secundum voluntatem antecedentem, et hac quidem omnes diligebat, quia omnes ad salutem pervenire cupiebat, quantum est ex se; et dilectio secundum voluntatem consequentem, et hac, quia respicit merita finalia[^13], non omnes diligebat nec omnes ad salutem pervenire cupiebat. Et de hac ultima intelligit Magister, ipse autem opponit de prima. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta[^14].

---

english:
# Doubts concerning the text of the Master

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: *Charity which can be abandoned was never true*; since according to this it seems that immutability belongs to the truth of charity: therefore if a man on the way is always changeable from evil to good, it seems that he never has true charity. *If you say* that the Master says below[^1] that that truth « is not referred to the essence of charity, but to its efficacy »; this does not solve [it]: first, because many wayfarers have charity which leads them to true beatitude; and yet, as long as they are wayfarers, they can abandon charity: therefore these two can stand together, that charity can be abandoned and that it was true. — Likewise, the charity of the way and [the charity] of the fatherland are of one account[^2]: therefore if it belongs to the truth of the charity of the fatherland that it be immutable: it seems likewise that it belongs to the truth of the charity of the way. And thus Augustine seems simply to hold that true charity is never lost[^3]; but this is simply false, as is manifestly known by experience: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that that statement can soundly be understood, so that the stress be made on a twofold word: first, so that the stress be made on the word on the part of the subject, in this that it is said: « charity which can be abandoned ». For a certain property or quality is abandoned on account of this, that it cannot resist what impels [it]; another is abandoned from the mere will of the one having [it]. When therefore Augustine says that charity is not true which can be abandoned; he understands this of that love which does not have the efficacy of resisting; for such a love, which can by a supervening temptation be expelled by a certain violence, does not deserve to be called the love of charity, whose [property] it is to hold God most dear and to love [Him] for His own sake and above all things and to bear all things easily for the sake of the beloved. — Otherwise it can be understood, so that the stress be made on this that he says: « it was never true »; for a true virtue is so called in two ways: either because it has the operation due to it[^4], or

<!-- page 695 -->

because it leads to the end on account of which it is. And in the statement set forth charity is said not to be true, which can be abandoned, because, if it is abandoned, the due end is not acquired; therefore it is to be reckoned rather vain than true. Nor does Augustine here speak of any power whatsoever of abandoning charity, but of the power which is joined to the act.

To that which is objected, that the changeable and the immutable are not the same account[^5]; it must be said that that is understood of that which is immutable by nature, not of that which is immutable by the beneficence of the divine bounty and the influx of continual goodness, such as is perfect charity in the fatherland[^6].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *Christ says that the names of certain ones are written in the book of life, who afterwards went back.* For that which is written in the book of life, since that book is immutable, cannot be blotted out: therefore it seems that it is not possible that any who are written should afterwards go back and be blotted out of that book. — There is therefore the question whether anyone can be blotted out of that book. And that it can [be], seems [the case] from that which is said in the Psalm[^7]: *Let them be blotted out of the book of the living*; and in Exodus thirty-two: *Either forgive them this fault, or blot me out of the book of life.* But to the contrary is that which is said upon that of Apocalypse three[^8]: *I will not blot him out*; the Gloss: « The book of life is the foreknowledge of God, in which all things are constant ».

Alongside this it is asked concerning the book of life, what it is and what is its use.

**I respond:** To this it must be said briefly — as far as pertains to the matter at hand, because this question is determined in the fourth book[^9], in the tractate on the resurrection — that since the book of life is the divine disposition, according to which one is ordered to life and reckoned to be worthy of life, one can be said to be written in that book in two ways: either according to the reckoning of present justice, or according to the foresight of final grace. And in the first way one is said to be written in the book of life, because his merits are written; but in the second way, not only because[^10] his merits are written, but also because he himself is ordered to life according to divine predestination. He who is written in the first way is blotted out as regards present justice, because he is now no longer reckoned worthy of life: he who is written in the second way is never blotted out. But that blotting-out does not assert any change made concerning God Himself, but only concerning the merit [that is] changed. — And thus the response to the objections is evident.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *Christ loved only the elect and desired their salvation.* But on the contrary: charity was broader in Christ than in us; but we do not love only the elect, but also the foreknown: therefore Christ also [did]. — Likewise, Christ loved those whom He willed to be saved; but according to that which is said in the first [letter] to Timothy, the second [chapter][^11]: *He wills all men to be saved:* therefore it seems that He loved the reprobate as much as the elect. — Likewise, the Angels do not serve only the elect, nay even the evil, and those whom they serve they will to lead to life: therefore they love them out of charity: therefore much more strongly it seems that Christ loved all out of charity; and if this is true, then that which the Master says is not true.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was said in the first book[^12], the will in God is distinguished according to a twofold mode. For there is in God an antecedent will and a consequent will: the antecedent will is solely from Himself, but the consequent will depends on a cause on our part. By this mode the love in Christ is to be distinguished in two ways, namely the love which is according to the antecedent will, and by this indeed He loved all, because He desired all to come to salvation, as far as is from Himself; and the love according to the consequent will, and by this, because it regards final merits[^13], He did not love all nor desire all to come to salvation. And of this last [love] the Master understands [it], but he himself objects concerning the first. — And by this the response to the objections is evident[^14].

---

la: Cap. I. — Pro *quod Magister* cod. bb *sicut Magister.*

en: Chapter I. — For *quod Magister* codex bb [reads] *sicut Magister.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 3. q. I.

en: Cf. above, a. 3, q. I.

la: In verbis huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. I, ubi etiam alii loci ex August. afferuntur. — Mox pro *amittatur* plurimi codd. *amittitur.*

en: In the words of this doubt. Cf. here the littera of the Master, c. I, where also other passages from Augustine are adduced. — Soon, for *amittatur* very many codices [read] *amittitur.*

la: Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 54. (c. ult.): *Omnia autem sunt terminata opere; omnia enim, quae possunt facere suum opus, vere sunt, ut oculus, si videt; quod autem non potest, aequivoce, ut mortuus, aut lapideus, neque enim serra lignea, nisi ut imago.* — De secunda vi *veri* cfr. supra pag. 488, nota 9. — Pro *sibi debitam* cod. A *ita debitam fini.*

en: Aristotle, *Meteorology* IV, text 54 (last chapter): *But all things are determined by their operation; for all things which can do their own work truly are, as the eye, if it sees; but that which cannot, [is] equivocally, as a dead [eye], or one of stone, for neither [is] a wooden saw [a saw], except as an image.* — On the second force of *true* cf. above, page 488, note 9. — For *sibi debitam* codex A [reads] *ita debitam fini.*

la: Edd. *quod immutabilitas sit de veritate caritatis.*

en: The editions [read] *quod immutabilitas sit de veritate caritatis.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here near the littera.

la: Psalm. 68, 29. — Seq. Script. locus est Exod. 32, 31. seq.

en: Psalm 68:29. — The following scriptural passage is Exodus 32:31 f.

la: Vers. 5. — Glossa est ordinaria, in qua Strabus pro *sunt constantia* exhibet *continentur.* Cfr. de hac Glossa August., XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 15.

en: Verse 5. — The Gloss is the Ordinary [Gloss], in which Strabo exhibits *continentur* for *sunt constantia.* Cf. on this Gloss Augustine, *On the City of God* XX, c. 15.

la: Dist. 43. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. I. — Inferius post *ad vitam* cod. U addit *secundum praedestinationem.*

en: Distinction 43, a. 2, q. 1 ff. Cf. here the littera of the Master, c. I. — Below, after *ad vitam* codex U adds *secundum praedestinationem.*

la: Non pauci codd. omittunt *quia.*

en: Not a few codices omit *quia.*

la: Vers. 4. — Inferius cod. Z verbo *dilexerit* praemittit *ipse.*

en: Verse 4. — Below, codex Z prefixes *ipse* to the word *dilexerit.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 33. m. 5. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part I, q. 33, m. 5, a. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3.

la: Dist. 46. q. 1. in corp. et ibid. pag. 728, nota 2, ubi in dicto Damasceni occurrit etiam illa de voluntate consequente loquutio *pendens ex causa nostra.*

en: Distinction 46, q. 1 in the body, and in the same place page 728, note 2, where in the saying of [John] Damascene there occurs also that expression concerning the consequent will, *depending on a cause on our part.*

la: Hoc dubium solvitur etiam a B. Alberto, hic a. 11; a S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1; a Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: This doubt is solved also by Blessed Albert, here a. 11; by St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3, sub-question 1; by Peter of Tarentaise, here near the littera.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi two-column PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p694-{L,R}-*.png` for the DUBIA opener + Dub. I, `vol3-p695-{L,R}-*.png` for Dub. I tail + Dub. II + Dub. III), with the Vol III PDF-priority inversion applied to the Respondeo blocks and footers. IA djvu OCR (raw 48238–48336) used as base only for clean running prose + footnote-marker spacing. English freshly translated literally. **This CLOSES Distinctio XXXI.**

**Page span — [694, 695] (PDF [716, 717]).** The dubia OPENS full-width at the foot of printed p.694 (running head *694 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III*), below a. 3, q. 3's tail (the numbered replies to the negative-part arguments, which occupy the top of both columns of p.694): the full-width header **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** sits mid-p.694, with Dub. I beginning in the L-column and its Respondeo carrying into the R-column. Runs onto p.695 (running head *DIST. XXXI. DUBIA. 695*): Dub. I Respondeo finishes (L-col), Dub. II (L-col → R-col), Dub. III (R-col), with Dub. III's Respondeo closing **mid-p.695 R-column** (*…Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.*). **DISTINCTIO XXXII opens on the NEXT printed page (p.696, *DISTINCTIO XXXII. Cap. I. De caritate Dei.*)** — verified eyes-on. **Correction to the coordinator's pre-brief: the dubia does NOT reach p.696/PDF 718; p.696 is the d.32 littera opener.**

**Dubia structure — THREE dubia (I–III):**
- **Dub. I** — *Caritas, quae deseri potest, nunquam vera fuit* (whether immutability belongs to the truth of charity): twofold reading of Augustine's saying — stress on the *subject* (*caritas quae deseri potest* = love without efficacy of resisting) vs. stress on *nunquam vera fuit* (true virtue either has its due operation or leads to its end).
- **Dub. II** — names *written in the book of life* who *afterwards went back* (whether anyone can be blotted out of the book of life): twofold being-written — according to the reckoning of present justice (blotted out) vs. according to the foresight of final grace (never blotted out).
- **Dub. III** — *Christus tantum electos dilexit* (whether Christ loved only the elect): the twofold will in God — antecedent will (loved all, willed all saved as far as in Himself) vs. consequent will (regards final merits, did not love/will all).

**Apparatus (14 markers).**
- p.694 footer nn.7–10 (4 entries; the page's per-page sequence is nn.1–10, but nn.1–6 anchor a. 3, q. 3's tail and are claimed there) → `[^1]`–`[^4]`, all anchored in Dub. I: n.7 = *Cap. I — Pro quod Magister cod. bb*; n.8 = *Cfr. supra a. 3. q. I*; n.9 = *In verbis huius dubii… amittitur* variant; n.10 = Aristot. IV. Meteor. text. 54.
- p.695 footer nn.1–10 (10 entries; all dubia) → `[^5]`–`[^14]`: L-col footer nn.1–6 [n.1 = *Edd. quod immutabilitas…* (Dub. I); n.2 = S. Thom. (Dub. I close); n.3 = Psalm 68/Exod 32 (Dub. II); n.4 = Glossa ordinaria / August. de Civ. Dei (Dub. II); n.5 = Dist. 43 cross-ref + cod. U add (Dub. II Respondeo); n.6 = *Non pauci codd. omittunt quia* (Dub. II Respondeo)]; R-col footer nn.7–10 [n.7 = Alex. Hal./Albert/Thom./Petr./Richard (Dub. III); n.8 = *Vers. 4 / cod. Z ipse* (Dub. III); n.9 = Dist. 46 + pag. 728 Damascene (Dub. III Respondeo); n.10 = Albert/Thom./Petr. (Dub. III close)].

**Scholion — ABSENT (`has_scholion: false`).** DUBIA blocks carry no scholion (no `SCHOLION.` header anywhere in the p.694–695 dubia range). Matches every other Vol III `*-dubia` chunk.

**a. 3, q. 3 → d31-dubia footer hand-off (RECEIVED + consumed).** a. 3, q. 3 forwarded p.694 footers nn.7–10 (anchored in the Dub. I body opening at the foot of p.694). Consumed as `[^1]`–`[^4]`. p.694 nn.1–6 belong to a. 3, q. 3's negative-part replies (top of p.694) and are NOT re-claimed here.

**d31-dubia → d32-littera footer hand-off (FORWARDED).** NONE. The dubia closes mid-p.695 R-column; **DISTINCTIO XXXII opens on the NEXT printed page (p.696)**, with a fresh footer sequence. Nothing is shared at the d.31/d.32 boundary.

**Margin glosses (not transcribed).** The editorial side-notes printed in the columns — *Notandum* (Dub. I R-col + Dub. II Respondeo), *Alia solutio* (Dub. I Respondeo), *Quaestio* / *Distinctio* / *Notandum* (Dub. II Respondeo), *Duplex Dei voluntas* (Dub. III Respondeo) — are editorial margin glosses (per CLAUDE.md OCR-cleanup rule) and are not transcribed into the body.

**[?] flags.** None outstanding (450 dpi legible throughout both pages; running-head digits OCR-mangled — *693*=695 on p.695's *DIST. XXXI. DUBIA.* head — trusted via the +22 offset + running-head text). The raw OCR's badly-fragmented L-col/R-col footer columns were re-set from the PDF bands, not the cascade-shattered OCR.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 32

title_alt: Distinctio XXXII — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 696 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXII.

### Cap. I. *De caritate Dei.*

Praemissis adiiciendum est de dilectione Dei, qua ipse diligit nos, quae non est alia, quam illa qua diligimus eum. Dilectio autem Dei divina usia est; eadem dilectione Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus se diligunt et nos, ut supra[^1] disseruimus. Cumque eius dilectio sit immutabilis et aeterna, alium tamen magis, alium minus diligit. Unde Augustinus[^2]: «Incomprehensibilis est dilectio atque immutabilis, qua Deus in unoquoque nostrum amat quod fecit, sicut et odit quod fecimus. Miro igitur et divino modo, etiam quando odit, diligit nos; et hoc quidem in omnibus intelligi potest. Quis ergo digne possit eloqui, quantum diligat membra Unigeniti sui, et quanto amplius Unigenitum ipsum? De ipso etiam dictum est: *Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti*». — Ex his percipitur, quod Deus omnes creaturas suas diligat, quia scriptum est: *Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti;* et item: *Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona.* Si omnia quae fecit, bona sunt; et omne bonum diligit: omnia igitur diligit, quae fecit; et inter ea magis diligit rationales creaturas, et de illis eas amplius, quae sunt membra Unigeniti sui, et multo magis ipsum Unigenitum.

### Cap. II. *Quomodo Deus dicitur magis diligere, vel minus hunc, vel illum.*

Cum autem dilectio Dei immutabilis sit, et ideo non intenditur vel remittitur, si quaeritur, quae sit ratio dicti, cum dicitur magis vel minus diligere hoc quam illud, et cum dicitur Deus omnia diligere; dicimus, dilectionem Dei, sicut *pacem,* exsuperare omnem sensum[^3] humanum, ut ad tantae altitudinis intelligentiam vix aliquatenus aspiret. Potest tamen intelligi, ea ratione dici: omnia diligi a Deo, quae fecit, quia omnia placent ei, omnia approbat, in quantum opera eius sunt, nec tunc, vel prius, vel amplius placuerunt ei, cum facta sunt; sed et[^4] antequam fierent, immo ab aeterno omnia placuerunt ei, non minus, quam postquam esse coeperunt. Quod vero rationales creaturas, id est homines vel Angelos, alios magis, alios minus diligere dicitur, non mutabilitatem caritatis eius significat, sed quod alios ad maiora bona, alios ad minora dilexit, alios ad meliores usus, alios ad minus bonos. Omnia enim bona nostra ex eius dilectione nobis proveniunt. Electorum ergo alios magis, alios minus dilexit ab aeterno, et diligit etiam nunc, quia aliis maiora, aliis minora ex dilectione sua praeparavit bona, aliisque maiora, et aliis minora bona confert in tempore. Unde magis vel minus dicitur hos vel illos diligere.

### Cap. III. *Quod dupliciter inspicienda est dilectio[^8] Dei.*

Consideratur enim duobus modis dilectio Dei: secundum *essentiam* et secundum *efficientiam.* Non recipit magis vel minus secundum *essentiam,* sed tantum secundum *efficientiam,* ut *magis dilecti* dicantur, quibus ex dilectione ab aeterno maius bonum praeparavit et in tempore tribuit, et *minus dilecti,* quibus non tantum. Inde etiam est, quod aliqui, quando convertuntur et iustificantur, dicuntur tunc *incipere diligi a Deo,* non quod Deus nova dilectione quemquam possit diligere — immo sempiterna dilectione dilexit *ante mundi constitutionem*[^5], quoscumque diligit — sed tunc dicuntur *incipere diligi ab eo,* cum aeternae Dei dilectionis sortiuntur effectum, scilicet gratiam, vel gloriam. Unde Augustinus[^6]: «Absit, ut Deus temporaliter aliquem diligat quasi nova dilectione, quae in ipso ante non erat, apud quem nec praeterita transierunt, et futura iam facta sunt[^7]. Itaque omnes Sanctos suos ante mundi constitutionem dilexit, sicut praedestinavit. Sed cum convertuntur et inveniunt illum, tunc *incipere ab eo diligi* dicuntur, ut eo modo dicatur, quo potest humano affectu capi quod dicitur. Sic etiam, cum *iratus* malis dicitur et *placidus* bonis, illi mutantur, non ipse. Ut lux infirmis oculis aspera, firmis lenis est, ipsorum scilicet mutatione, non sua»; «ita, cum aliquis per iustificationem incipit esse amicus Dei, ipse mutatur, non Deus».

### Cap. IV. *Si quis magis vel minus diligitur a Deo uno tempore quam alio.*

Si vero quaeritur de aliquo, utrum magis diligatur a Deo uno tempore quam alio, distinguenda est dilectionis[^5] intelligentia. Si enim referatur ad dilectionis *effectum,* concessibile est; si vero ad dilectionis *essentiam,* infitiabile est.

<!-- page 697 -->

### Cap. V. *Si Deus ab aeterno dilexit reprobos.*

De reprobis vero, qui praeparati non sunt ad vitam, sed ad mortem, si quaeritur, utrum debeat concedi, quod Deus ab aeterno dilexit eos; dicimus, de electis solis *simpliciter* hoc esse concedendum, quod Deus ab aeterno eos dilexit, quos ad iustitiam et coronam praeparavit. De non electis vero simpliciter est concedendum, quod *odio habuit,* id est reprobavit, sicut legitur[^9]: *Iacob dilexi, Esau odio habui;* sed non est simpliciter dicendum, quod dilexit, ne praedestinati intelligantur, sed cum adiectione: dilexit eos, in quantum opus eius futuri erant, id est, quos et quales eos facturus erat.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXII.

### Chapter I. *On the love of God.*

To what has gone before must be added [a treatment] of the love of God, by which he himself loves us, which is no other than that by which we love him. Now the love of God is the divine substance; by the same love the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit love themselves and us, as we discussed above[^1]. And although his love is immutable and eternal, yet he loves one more, another less. Hence Augustine[^2]: «Incomprehensible and immutable is the love by which God in each one of us loves what he has made, just as he hates what we have made. In a wondrous and divine manner, therefore, even when he hates, he loves us; and this indeed can be understood in all. Who then can worthily tell how much he loves the members of his Only-Begotten, and how much more the Only-Begotten himself? Of him too it has been said: *Thou hatest none of the things which thou hast made*». — From these things it is perceived that God loves all his creatures, because it is written: *Thou hatest none of the things which thou hast made;* and likewise: *God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.* If all the things he made are good, and he loves every good: he therefore loves all the things he has made; and among them he loves the rational creatures more, and of these more those which are members of his Only-Begotten, and much more the Only-Begotten himself.

### Chapter II. *How God is said to love this one or that one more, or less.*

But since the love of God is immutable, and therefore is neither intensified nor remitted, if it is asked what is the account of the saying, when he is said to love this more than that, and when God is said to love all things; we say that the love of God, like *peace,* surpasses all human understanding[^3], so that it scarcely in any measure aspires to the comprehension of so great a height. Yet it can be understood that it is said for this reason: that all the things he made are loved by God, because all please him, he approves all, insofar as they are his works; nor did they please him then, or earlier, or more, when they were made; but even[^4] before they came to be, indeed from eternity all pleased him, no less than after they began to be. But that he is said to love some rational creatures, that is, men or Angels, more, others less, does not signify mutability of his charity, but that he loved some unto greater goods, others unto lesser, some unto better uses, others unto less good ones. For all our goods come to us from his love. Of the elect, therefore, he loved some more, others less from eternity, and loves them even now, because for some he has prepared from his love greater goods, for others lesser, and on some he confers greater goods in time, and on others lesser. Hence he is said to love these or those more or less.

### Chapter III. *That the love of God[^8] is to be considered in two ways.*

For the love of God is considered in two ways: according to *essence* and according to *efficacy.* It does not admit of more or less according to *essence,* but only according to *efficacy,* so that those are called *more loved* for whom from his love from eternity he prepared a greater good and bestowed it in time, and those *less loved* for whom not so much. Hence too it is, that some, when they are converted and justified, are then said to *begin to be loved by God,* not that God can love anyone with a new love — nay, with an everlasting love he loved, *before the foundation of the world*[^5], whomever he loves — but they are then said to *begin to be loved by him,* when they obtain the effect of God's eternal love, namely grace, or glory. Hence Augustine[^6]: «Far be it that God should love anyone temporally as if with a new love, which was not before in him, with whom neither have the things past passed away, and the things future are already done[^7]. Therefore he loved all his Saints before the foundation of the world, just as he predestined them. But when they are converted and find him, then they are said to *begin to be loved by him,* so that it is said in that manner in which what is said can be grasped by human affection. So too, when he is said to be *angry* with the evil and *kindly* toward the good, they are changed, not he. As light is harsh to weak eyes, gentle to strong ones, namely by their change, not its own»; «so, when anyone through justification begins to be a friend of God, he himself is changed, not God».

### Chapter IV. *Whether anyone is loved by God more or less at one time than at another.*

But if it is asked of someone, whether he is loved by God more at one time than at another, the understanding of the love[^5] must be distinguished. For if it is referred to the *effect* of the love, it can be granted; but if to the *essence* of the love, it is to be denied.

### Chapter V. *Whether God from eternity loved the reprobate.*

But of the reprobate, who are prepared not for life but for death, if it is asked whether it ought to be granted that God from eternity loved them; we say that of the elect alone this is *simply* to be granted, that God from eternity loved those whom he prepared for justice and the crown. But of the non-elect it is simply to be granted that he *held [them] in hatred,* that is, reprobated them, as it is read[^9]: *Jacob I loved, Esau I held in hatred;* yet it is not to be said simply that he loved them, lest they be understood as predestined, but with the addition: he loved them, insofar as they would be his work, that is, who and what manner of persons he would make them.

---

la: Libr. I. d. X. c. I. et d. XVII. c. I.

en: Book I, dist. X, c. I, and dist. XVII, c. I.

la: In Evang. Ioan. tr. 110. n. 6. — Post *dilectio* edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt *Dei,* refragantibus codd., et deinde pro *possit* eaedem ponunt *potest,* et solae edd. 1, 8 *loqui* pro *eloqui.* — Locus Scripturae est Sap. 11, 25; deinde Gen. 1, 31.

en: On the Gospel of John, tractate 110, n. 6. — After *dilectio* (love) the editions, except 1, 8, add *Dei* (of God), the codices opposing; and then for *possit* (can) the same put *potest,* and editions 1, 8 alone read *loqui* (to speak) for *eloqui* (to tell). — The scriptural passage is Wisdom 11:25; then Genesis 1:31.

la: Respicitur Phil. 4, 7, in quo loco edd. 1, 8 cum Vulgata adiiciunt *Dei* post *pacem,* et superius eaedem cum codd. ABD omittunt *Deus* post *dicitur.* Denique in fine propositionis omnes edd. superflue adiiciunt *humanus sensus,* refragantibus nostris codd., qui immediate post *cum* sola ed. 8 bene addunt *sane* ante *intelligi.*

en: Reference is made to Philippians 4:7, in which passage editions 1, 8 with the Vulgate add *Dei* (of God) after *pacem* (peace), and above the same with codices ABD omit *Deus* (God) after *dicitur* (is said). Finally, at the end of the proposition all the editions superfluously add *humanus sensus* (human sense), our codices opposing, which immediately after *cum;* edition 8 alone rightly adds *sane* before *intelligi.*

la: Vat. cum plurimis edd. pro *sed et,* quod habent codd. et ed. 1, legit *quam,* ed. 8 *et,* ed. 5 *scilicet.*

en: The Vatican edition with most editions, for *sed et* (but even), which the codices and edition 1 have, reads *quam* (than); edition 8 reads *et* (and); edition 5 reads *scilicet* (namely).

la: Respicitur Eph. 1, 4. — Inferius edd. 1, 8 glossando legunt *gratiam in praesenti vel gloriam in futuro.*

en: Reference is made to Ephesians 1:4. — Below, editions 1, 8 by way of gloss read *grace in the present or glory in the future.*

la: Libr. V. de Trin. c. 16. n. 17. Ultima verba capituli leguntur ibid., sed paulo superius.

en: Book V, *On the Trinity,* c. 16, n. 17. The last words of the chapter are read in the same place, but a little above.

la: De hac profunda sententia S. Augustini cfr. doctrina Ss. Thomae et Bonaventurae relata 1. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 3, et scholion.

en: On this profound sentence of St. Augustine cf. the doctrine of Saints Thomas and Bonaventure reported at 1 Sent., dist. 39, a. 2, q. 3, and the scholion.

la: Codd. ABDE bene *dictionis,* quam lectionem etiam Erf. annotat.

en: Codices ABDE rightly read *dictionis,* which reading the Erfurt codex also notes.

la: Malach. 1, 2. 3. et Rom. 9, 13. — Pro *simpliciter dicendum* edd. 1, 8 *intelligendum.* Vat. cum edd. 1, 9 post *adiectione* adiiciunt *concedatur.*

en: Malachi 1:2–3 and Romans 9:13. — For *simpliciter dicendum* (simply to be said) editions 1, 8 read *intelligendum* (to be understood). The Vatican edition with editions 1, 9 after *adiectione* (addition) add *concedatur* (let it be granted). ---

translators_notes:
**Chapter subjects.** DISTINCTIO XXXII is Lombard's treatment *de caritate per comparationem ad divinam dilectionem* — charity considered by comparison to the divine love. The littera has **five chapters.** **Cap. I** (*De caritate Dei*) establishes that God's love is the divine substance, immutable and eternal, yet loving one more and another less (Augustine, *de Trin.* — *Incomprehensibilis est dilectio*). **Cap. II** (*Quomodo Deus dicitur magis diligere, vel minus hunc, vel illum*) explains the account of "more/less" loving: God's love surpasses human understanding, but the "more/less" refers to the greater or lesser goods he prepared from eternity, not to mutability of his charity. **Cap. III** (*Quod dupliciter inspicienda est dilectio Dei*) draws the governing distinction: God's love considered *secundum essentiam* (admits no more/less) vs. *secundum efficientiam* (whence *magis/minus dilecti*); the converted "begin to be loved" only as to the eternal love's *effect.* **Cap. IV** (*Si quis magis vel minus diligitur a Deo uno tempore quam alio*) applies the essence/effect distinction to the temporal question (granted as to effect, denied as to essence). **Cap. V** (*Si Deus ab aeterno dilexit reprobos*) — of the elect alone is it *simply* to be granted that God loved them from eternity; of the non-elect, *odio habuit* (Jacob/Esau), only with the qualification that he loved them as the future work he would make.

**Provenance (PDF-priority inversion).** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{696,697}-{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 48337–48411) was the base only for clean running prose and exact `[^N]` marker spacing; all footers were read eyes-on from the PDF (the OCR cascade-shatters the footer blocks and garbles the running heads — e.g. `iDIST. XXXII. ART. UNIGDS QOAEST. I.` for *DIST. XXXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I.*). Offset `pdf = printed + 22`. Running-head **text** trusted over OCR'd digits.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.696 (PDF 718):** the d.32 header `DISTINCTIO XXXII` prints centered at the top of the R column; **Cap. I** caption + opening (`Praemissis adiiciendum est…`) fill the L column and continue at the top of the R column (`alios ad minus bonos…`). **Cap. II** caption prints centered in the L column (`Quomodo Deus dicitur magis diligere…`), its body filling the lower L column and continuing into the R column. **Cap. III** caption prints centered in the R column upper half (`Quod dupliciter inspicienda est dilectio Dei`), its body filling the R column. **Cap. IV** caption + opening (`Si quis magis vel minus diligitur…` / `Si vero quaeritur de aliquo…`) print at the **foot of the R column**; Cap. IV's last sentence (`…infitiabile est.`) finishes there.
- **p.697 (PDF 719):** **Cap. V** caption + body (`Si Deus ab aeterno dilexit reprobos` / `De reprobis vero…`) open at the top of the L column and finish at the top of the R column (`…quos et quales eos facturus erat.`). The littera **ends** there, mid-p.697; the **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII** begins below it (full-width).

**Apparatus (9 entries, NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, per-page restart):**
- p.696 footer: **8 entries** — nn.1–3 in the left footer block (n.1 *Libr. I. d. X. c. I.* on `supra¹`; n.2 the Augustine *In Evang. Ioan. tr. 110* chain on `Augustinus²`; n.3 *Phil. 4, 7* on `sensum³`), nn.4–8 in the right footer block (n.4 *sed et* variant on `sed et⁴`; n.5 *Eph. 1, 4* on `ante mundi constitutionem⁵`; n.6 *de Trin. V c.16* on `Augustinus⁶`; n.7 the cross-reference to 1 Sent. d.39 on `facta sunt⁷`; n.8 *dictionis* codd. variant on Cap. III's caption `dilectio⁸ Dei`) → renumbered `[^1]`–`[^8]`.
- p.697 footer: **1 entry** — n.1 (*Malach. 1, 2. 3. et Rom. 9, 13;* the *simpliciter dicendum* variants) on Cap. V's `legitur⁹` → renumbered `[^9]`. This is the **only** NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM note on p.697; the rest of the p.697 footer is the separate **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** block (nn.1–4), which belongs to the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO / ARTICULUS UNICUS body → forwarded to `d32-divisio` (NOT this littera).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* **NONE.** DISTINCTIO XXXII opens on a fresh page (p.696); d31-dubia closed mid-p.695 and forwarded nothing across the d.31/d.32 boundary.
- *Forwarded to `d32-divisio`:* the p.697 **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** footer block (nn.1–4: n.1 *Cod. Z ad eius durationem;* n.2 *Edd. quos, et paulo inferius quos non pro quos;* n.3 *Vers. 4. — Quoad minorem vide 1 Sent. d. 10 dub… d. 40 a. 3 q. 2; tom. II pag. 599 nota 5;* n.4 *Cap. 16 n. 17, cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 3, ubi pro aliquid legitur aliquem…*) belongs wholly to the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO body and is the divisio chunk's own footer — it is NOT a forward of a NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM note, but is flagged here so the next dispatch captures it.

**Boundary verification.** The auto-chunk skeleton's range (`line_start: 48337, line_end: 48442`) wrongly included the COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM block (raw 48412–48442); that entire block was **CUT** — it belongs to `d32-divisio`. The littera body stops cleanly at Cap. V's `…quos et quales eos facturus erat.` (p.697 R column), confirmed eyes-on against `vol3-p697-R-0.png` / `vol3-p697-L-0.png`. The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII` header is at **raw line 48412** (OCR garble `COMMENTAMUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.`), subtitle *De caritate per comparationem ad divinam dilectionem.*

**`[?]` flags.** None. All 9 footer entries and all body readings confirmed against the 450 dpi PDF bands.

**Apparatus repair (2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E).** Health-scan flagged `defs=9 la=10 en=9` (Latin `[^5]` appearing twice, English once). Diagnosed via the printed page rather than assumed: `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p696-R-2.png` shows Quaracchi genuinely setting superscript **⁵ twice** on p.696 — once at Cap. III's `ante mundi constitutionem⁵` and again at Cap. IV's `dilectionis⁵` — both keying to the **single** footer entry "⁵ Respicitur Eph. 1, 4. — Inferius edd. 1, 8 glossando legunt…". This is the benign one-footnote/two-lemmas case (not a mislabel or missing content): the footer has only one n.5 entry, and both Latin body occurrences are correctly bound to it by content (both concern the "before the foundation of the world" / Eph. 1:4 point). The actual defect was that the **English body was missing the second anchor** — the Cap. IV sentence ("the understanding of the love must be distinguished") had no `[^5]` even though its Latin counterpart (`distinguenda est dilectionis⁵ intelligentia`) does. Fixed by adding `[^5]` to the English Cap. IV sentence after "love" (mirroring the Latin's `dilectionis⁵` position); no apparatus def content added or changed (the existing `[^5]` entry already covers both occurrences). Verified post-fix: `defs=9 la=10 en=10`, label sets match exactly, no dupes/extras beyond the two genuine `[^5]` anchors in each language.

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. 32, Divisio Textus

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 697 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.

#### *De caritate per comparationem ad divinam dilectionem.*

*Praemissis adiiciendum est de dilectione Dei etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de caritate quantum ad definitionem, et quantum ad diligibilium distinctionem, et quantum ad diligendi ordinem, et quantum ad meriti perfectionem, et etiam quantum ad durationem[^1]. In hac parte agit de eadem per comparationem ad divinam dilectionem. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes tres. In quarum prima determinat de ipsa dilectione Dei, quid sit ipsa Dei dilectio. In secunda vero determinat, quantum diligit, ibi: *Cumque eius dilectio sit immutabilis et aeterna.* In tertia vero determinat quos diligit, ibi: *De reprobis vero, qui non sunt praeparati ad vitam aeternam.*

Prima et ultima parte remanentibus indivisis, media pars dividitur in tres partes. In quarum prima Magister proponit, quod Deus non omnia aequaliter diligit. In secunda vero ostendit, pro quanto dicatur unum diligere magis quam alterum, ibi: *Cum autem dilectio Dei immutabilis sit* etc. In tertia vero determinat, quare unum et eundem hominem secundum diversa tempora dicitur diligere plus et minus, ibi: *Si vero quaeratur de aliquo uno* etc. Subdivisiones autem partium satis manifestae sunt in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis possunt hic quaeri sex dubitabilia de dilectione divina.

Primum est, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter.

Secundum est, utrum diligat omnes creaturas universaliter.

Tertium est, utrum omnes diligat aequaliter.

Quartum est, utrum magis diligat hominem quam Angelum.

Quintum est, utrum magis dilexerit genus humanum quam Christum.

Sextum et ultimum est, utrum magis Ioannem dilexerit quam Petrum.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De dilectione ipsius Dei.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXII.

#### *On charity by comparison to the divine love.*

*To the things set forth before must be added concerning the love of God, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of charity as regards its definition, and as regards the distinction of the things to be loved, and as regards the order of loving, and as regards the perfection of merit, and also as regards its duration[^1]. In this part he treats of the same by comparison to the divine love. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the love of God itself, what God's love itself is. But in the second he determines how much he loves, there: *And since his love is immutable and eternal.* And in the third he determines whom he loves, there: *But concerning the reprobate, who are not prepared for eternal life.*

The first and the last part remaining undivided, the middle part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master proposes that God does not love all things equally. But in the second he shows in what respect one is said to be loved more than another, there: *But since the love of God is immutable,* etc. And in the third he determines why one and the same man is said to be loved more and less according to diverse times, there: *But if it be asked concerning some one [man],* etc. And the subdivisions of the parts are sufficiently manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part six matters of inquiry can be asked here concerning the divine love.

The first is whether God loved creatures eternally.

The second is whether he loves all creatures universally.

The third is whether he loves all equally.

The fourth is whether he loves man more than an Angel.

The fifth is whether he loved the human race more than Christ.

The sixth and last is whether he loved John more than Peter.

### THE SOLE ARTICLE.

#### *On the love of God himself.*

---

la: Cod. *Z ad eius durationem.*

en: The codex *Z* reads *ad eius durationem* (to its duration).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** **NEW chunk — created this session (2026-06-12).** Like d.29, d.30, and d.31, the 2026-06-02 auto-chunker skipped the d.32 divisio entirely: no `d32-divisio` skeleton existed (the inventory jumps from `d32-littera` straight to `d32-a1-q1`). The COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM block (raw 48412–48447) was left outside the d32-littera promotion precisely so it could be created here. Backup dir `_backup-d32-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 XXXII` head (OCR garble `COMMENTAMUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.`, raw 48412; subtitle *De caritate per comparationem ad divinam dilectionem*; incipit *Praemissis adiiciendum est de dilectione Dei etc.*) + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` + `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` + the `ARTICULUS UNICUS` opener. Re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p697-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 48412–48447) 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 — running head reads `DIST. XXXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 697`), so the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout. `type: divisio`, **`has_scholion: false`** — a divisio chunk carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*.

**ARTICULUS UNICUS opener — folded INTO this divisio.** Distinction XXXII has a single article — **ARTICULUS UNICUS, *De dilectione ipsius Dei*** — and the opener carries **no *Primo/Secundo… quaeritur* listing of its own** (the six-question listing is the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM above, *Primum… Sextum et ultimum est…*). Per the locked Vol II/III chunking convention (a short ARTICULUS opener with no separate question-list folds into the divisio, not into a1-q1), only the `ARTICULUS UNICUS.` header + subtitle are folded here; `QUAESTIO I.` and its body (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter…*) open the next chunk, d32-a1-q1. (This mirrors d.30, the parallel ARTICULUS UNICUS / six-question divisio.)

**★ FULL d.32 SIX-QUESTION TRACTATIO MAP (verbatim, eyes-on p.697 L+R bands).** Distinction XXXII is **ARTICULUS UNICUS with SIX questions** (a1-q1..q6 — none missing; all six skeletons present). The TRACTATIO (L-column Primum–Tertium, R-column Quartum–Sextum) lists:
1. *Primum est, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter.* (Whether God loved creatures eternally.) [= a1-q1]
2. *Secundum est, utrum diligat omnes creaturas universaliter.* (Whether he loves all creatures universally.) [= a1-q2]
3. *Tertium est, utrum omnes diligat aequaliter.* (Whether he loves all equally.) [= a1-q3]
4. *Quartum est, utrum magis diligat hominem quam Angelum.* (Whether he loves man more than an Angel.) [= a1-q4]
5. *Quintum est, utrum magis dilexerit genus humanum quam Christum.* (Whether he loved the human race more than Christ.) [= a1-q5]
6. *Sextum et ultimum est, utrum magis Ioannem dilexerit quam Petrum.* (Whether he loved John more than Peter.) [= a1-q6]

So the full d.32 slate = **littera (DONE) · divisio (this chunk, DONE) · a1-q1 · q2 · q3 · q4 · q5 · q6 · dubia** = 9 chunks. Six questions in a single article.

**Question-listing alignment (TRACTATIO ↔ a1-q1..q6).** ALIGNED 1:1, no q-swap. The QUAESTIO I body (= TRACTATIO Primum) confirmed eyes-on at the foot of p.697: *Utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter.* The six a1-q1..q6 skeletons match this count (six). No misalignment — proceeding.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed p.697 only** (PDF 719). The d32-littera (Cap. V, *Si Deus ab aeterno dilexit reprobos*) closes the upper two-column block of p.697 (L-column tail *…electis solis simpliciter hoc esse concedendum, quod…*; R-column tail *…quos et quales eos facturus erat.*, with margin note *Dubium 4.*). The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII` head + subtitle + incipit + `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` head span the **full page width** immediately below the Cap. V tail. `DIVISIO TEXTUS` then runs as two columns: L-column (*Supra egit Magister… vero, qui non sunt praeparati ad vitam aeternam.*) continued in R-column (*Prima et ultima parte remanentibus indivisis… satis manifestae sunt in littera.*). `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.` follows, also two columns: *Ad intelligentiam… Primum est… Secundum… Tertium est…* in the L-column, *Quartum est… Quintum… Sextum et ultimum est… quam Petrum.* in the R-column. Then the `ARTICULUS UNICUS.` head + subtitle (*De dilectione ipsius Dei*) span both columns at the foot of p.697, immediately followed by `QUAESTIO I.` + its title + body opening (*Circa primum sic proceditur…*, *Utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter*) on the lower third of p.697 (L-column) and running onto p.698 (R-column / next page). The chunk ends at the `ARTICULUS UNICUS` subtitle; `QUAESTIO I` onward = d32-a1-q1.

**Apparatus (1 entry owned), NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart — p.697 footer n.1.** p.697 carries TWO footer blocks in the L-column foot: first the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* sequence (¹ *Malach. 1, 2. 3. et Rom. 9, 13. — Pro simpliciter dicendum edd. 1, 8 intelligendum. Vat. cum edd. 1, 9 post adiectione adiiciunt concedatur.*) — that belongs to the littera (Cap. V), **not mine** — then below it the **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`** header opening a fresh sequence nn.1–4. **Footer n.1 is MINE** — its marker (`durationem¹`) falls in the DIVISIO TEXTUS, after *…et etiam quantum ad durationem*: **n.1** = *Cod. Z ad eius durationem.* **Footers nn.2–4 are NOT mine** — their markers fall in the QUAESTIO I body, which is d32-a1-q1 (see hand-off below).

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED.** Picked up the p.697 **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.1–4** block in printed order. NONE forwarded from d32-littera — the littera's footers were the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* (the ¹ *Malach. 1, 2. 3…* entry on p.697-L plus the prior-page Cap. I–IV sequences). The p.697 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block starts fresh here; my n.1 (*Cod. Z ad eius durationem*) is its first entry.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED to d32-a1-q1 = p.697 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–4** (markers on the QUAESTIO I body, read eyes-on from the p.697 L-2 + R-2 footer bands):
- **n.2** = *Edd. quos, et paulo inferius quos non pro quos.* — marker `diligit²` (QUAESTIO I, on the *Elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem* / *si ergo ab aeterno ante mundi constitutionem nos elegit, videtur, quod ab aeterno nos dilexit²* line).
- **n.3** = *Vers. 4. — Quoad minorem vide I Sent. d. 10 dub. 1, [et] d. 10 a. 3 q. 2; tom. II pag. 598/599 nota 5.* — marker on the *Ad Ephesios primo³* citation (argument 1, *Elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti et immaculati in ipso*).
- **n.4** = *Cap. 16 n. 17. Cfr. hic III Magistri c. 3, ubi pro aliquid legitur aliquem, sicut et in textu originali. — Deinde pro quod diligit permulti codd. quos diligit, codd. A bb omnes quos diligit, qui in fine arg. cum codd. H N semel omittunt diligit.* — marker on the *Augustinus quinto de Trinitate⁴* citation (argument 2, *si ergo… ut Deus aliquid temporaliter diligat*). [textual variant]

a1-q1 claims p.697 nn.2–4 first, then a fresh p.698 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* sequence. **Do NOT re-claim n.1 in a1-q1 (it is the divisio's).** Signature `88` confirmed under the p.697 footer block.

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends.
- **Open seam (d32-littera → this chunk):** the littera (Cap. V, *Si Deus ab aeterno dilexit reprobos*) closes mid-p.697 at *…quos et quales eos facturus erat.*; the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII` head opens fresh full-width below it — seam clean, no leakage.
- **Close seam (this chunk → d32-a1-q1):** the `ARTICULUS UNICUS` subtitle (*De dilectione ipsius Dei.*) is the last line of this chunk; `QUAESTIO I. / Utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter. / Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur…* (raw 48448) 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 six-question TRACTATIO, the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener, and the owned p.697 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footer (n.1) were read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p697-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). No ambiguity survives.

**HAND-OFF TO d32-a1-q1 (forwarded):** the next chunk is **bon-sent-III-d32-a1-q1** — `ARTICULUS UNICUS. / De dilectione ipsius Dei. / QUAESTIO I. / Utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter`. `type: quaestio`, `articulus: 1`, `quaestio: 1`. **Raw anchors:** QUAESTIO I header at raw **48448**; body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter. Et quod sic, videtur.* on the lower L-column of **p.697** (PDF 719), with argument 1 *Ad Ephesios primo³: Elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti et immaculati in ipso; sed nemo eligit nisi quod diligit: si ergo ab aeterno ante mundi constitutionem nos elegit, videtur, quod ab aeterno nos dilexit²* and argument 2 *Item, Augustinus quinto de Trinitate⁴: «Absurdum est, ut Deus aliquid temporaliter diligat»…* in the L/R columns. **Page span:** opens at the foot of p.697 and runs onto p.698 (PDF 720). **Footer split (p.697):** **p.697 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–4 belong to a1-q1** — n.2 = *Edd. quos, et paulo inferius quos non pro quos.* (marker `diligit²`); n.3 = *Vers. 4. — Quoad minorem vide I Sent. d. 10 dub. 1, [et] d. 10 a. 3 q. 2; tom. II pag. 598/599 nota 5.* (marker `Ephesios primo³`); n.4 = *Cap. 16 n. 17. Cfr. hic III Magistri c. 3, ubi pro aliquid legitur aliquem, sicut et in textu originali. — Deinde pro quod diligit permulti codd. quos diligit…* (marker `de Trinitate⁴`). **a1-q1's first three body footers are p.697 nn.2–4; do NOT re-claim n.1 (that is the divisio's).** Then a fresh p.698 footer sequence. **quaeritur alignment:** TRACTATIO Primum (*utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter*) = QUAESTIO I body 1:1 — alignment passes, no q-swap. The d.32 chunk slate: **littera (DONE) · divisio (this chunk, DONE) · a1-q1 · q2 · q3 · q4 · q5 · q6 · dubia** = 9 chunks.


title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 697 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS. *De dilectione ipsius Dei.*
### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Ephesios primo[^2]: *Elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti et immaculati in ipso;* sed nemo eligit nisi quod diligit: si ergo ab aeterno ante mundi constitutionem nos elegit, videtur, quod ab aeterno nos dilexit[^1].

2. Item, Augustinus quinto de Trinitate[^3]: «Absurdum est, ut Deus aliquid temporaliter diligat»: si ergo

<!-- page 698 -->

quod diligit diligit aut *temporaliter*, aut *aeternaliter;* et non *temporaliter*, constat: ergo quod diligit diligit *aeternaliter.*

3. Item, Magister dicit in littera[^4], quod «dilectio est usia» sive substantia: si ergo substantia Dei non potest non esse aeterna, videtur, quod dilectio Dei similiter aeterna sit: ergo quidquid diligit aeternaliter diligit.

4. Item, aut dilectio Dei *praecedit* ipsas res, aut *sequitur.* Si *praecedit:* ergo ante fuit, quam res essent: ergo Deus dilexit res ante earum productionem, ergo non ex tempore, sed ab aeterno. Si *sequitur:* ergo videtur, quod dilectio Dei causetur ab ipsis rebus. Quodsi hoc est inconveniens, restat, quod Deus ea quae diligit, diligit[^5] aeternaliter.

5. Item, si Deus de non-potente efficeretur potens et de non-sapiente sapiens, mutatus esset et imperfectus: ergo pari ratione, si de non-amante fieret amans; cum amor respiciat quod intra est, esset in eo mutatio et imperfectio. Quodsi hoc est impossibile, necesse est, Deum ea quae diligit, aeternaliter diligere.

**Sed contra:** 1. Dilectio est amor boni; sed «bonum et ens convertuntur[^6]»: ergo quod non est ens non est amabile: ergo si res, antequam producerentur, non fuerunt; videtur, quod antequam producerentur, a Deo non diligerentur.

2. Item, amor est copula amantis et amati[^7]; sed si copula est, necesse est esse extrema: ergo impossibile est, quod Deus creaturam diligat, quousque creatura habeat actualem existentiam. Sed hoc est solum ex tempore: ergo videtur, quod Deus non dilexerit creaturam aliquam aeternaliter.

3. Item, Deus non dicitur aliquem diligere *affectu:* ergo si diligit, hoc est, quia diligit *effectu[^8];* sed effectus divinae bonitatis est solum ex tempore: ergo Deus neminem diligit nisi temporaliter.

4. Item, dilectio Dei est causa sufficiens et proxima et immediata boni creati; sed posita causa efficiente proxima et immediata et sufficiente, ponitur effectus[^9]: ergo si res creatae solum sunt ex tempore, videtur, quod Deus solummodo diligat eas temporaliter.

5. Item, si Deus diligit creaturas, aut diligit *fruens*, aut *utens;* sed constat, quod non diligit *fruens*, quoniam non est creatura fruendum, sicut

<!-- page 698b -->

in primo libro[^10] fuit ostensum, cum illud quo fruendum est, sit summum Bonum: restat ergo, quod si creaturam diligat, diligit ut *utens.* Sed constat, quod non contingit *uti* nisi eo quod est actu: ergo nunquam Deus diligit creaturam nisi actu entem: non ergo diligit aliquam creaturam aeternaliter.

> ### Conclusio.
> Creaturae non solum temporaliter, sed etiam aeternaliter a Deo diliguntur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quaedam verba dicuntur de Deo respectu creaturae, quae connotant effectum in *actu*, sicut verbum *creandi;* quaedam, quae connotant effectum in *habitu*, sicut vocabulum *praedestinandi[^11];* quaedam, quae indifferenter *utroque modo*, sicut vocabulum *diligendi.* Dicitur enim Deus aliquem *diligere*, vel quia *actu communicat* ei bonum, vel quia *proponit communicare.* Et quoniam *communicatio* est effectus in tempore, *propositum* vero communicandi est ab aeterno; hinc est, quod *diligere* de Deo aliquando dicitur *aeternaliter*, aliquando dicitur *temporaliter.* Unde bene concedi potest, quod creaturae non solum temporaliter, sed etiam aeternaliter a Deo diliguntur, sicut rationes ad primam partem inductae ostendunt[^12]. — Verumtamen illa ratio, quam adducit quasi *per simile* de potentia et sapientia, non valet, quoniam non est simile. *Posse* enim et *scire*, quantum est de vi vocabuli, non ita connotat effectum in *actu*, secundum quod *diligere.* Nam verbum *diligendi* impositum est ab ipsa liberalitate affectionis se ipsam alteri communicantis.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod bonum et ens convertuntur; dicendum, quod verum est de bono in *actu* et ente in *actu.* Sed cum dicitur, quod dilectio est solummodo boni; dicendum, quod non est verum solummodo de bono, quod est in *actu*, sed etiam de bono, quod est in *causa.* Sicut enim ad cognitionem sufficit veritas rei in sua causa, sic ad diligendum sufficit bonitas, secundum quod res habet *esse* in suo principio producente, etiam antequam exterius producatur. Unde artifex non solummodo diligit bonum, quod fecit, sed etiam bonum, quod proponit et disponit facere[^13].

<!-- page 699 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod amor est copula amantis et amati; dicendum, quod illud est verum, secundum quod amor est quaedam affectio et vinculum amicitiae, quo aliqui ad invicem colligantur; sed hoc modo non accipitur in proposito, cum dicitur, quod Deus diligit creaturam; «dilectio enim Dei est eius usia», non est affectio aliqua unitiva, sicut dicit Magister in littera: et ideo non cogit illa ratio.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus non dicitur diligere *affectu*, sed *effectu;* dicendum, quod *diligere effectu* potest esse dupliciter, secundum quod effectus potest dupliciter connotari: *actu*, vel *habitu;* et quia res est in *habitu* et in *potentia*, antequam sit in *actu:* hinc est, quod dilectio Dei, quae connotat effectum in *habitu*, potest esse ante productionem ipsarum rerum. Et propterea ex hoc non habetur, si Deus dicitur *diligere effectu*, quod tunc solum incipiat diligere, quando effectus in *esse* producitur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dilectio Dei est causa, sufficiens proxima et immediata boni creati; dicendum, quod verum est; sed quemadmodum *voluntas* divina dicitur *causa immediata*, quia non intervenit alia causa, non tamen, quod semper ponat effectum, sed solum pro tempore, pro quo vult, sicut ab aeterno voluit; sed statim fecit, cum venit tempus, pro quo voluit: sic et in ipsa *dilectione* Dei oportet intelligi.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si diligit, aut ut *fruens*, aut ut *utens;* dicendum, quod dilectio Dei una est, qua diligit se et qua diligit creaturam; et haec quidem, relata ad ipsum Deum, est *fruitio*, comparata vero ad creaturam est *usus.* Cum ergo dicit, quod non contingit *uti* nisi eo quod est; dicendum, quod si *usus* accipiatur pro *exteriori* actione, verum est; sed si accipiatur pro *interiori* et habituali ordinatione in finem alicuius effectus producendi, sic non habet veritatem, quia efficiens longe ante refert ad finem illud quod intendit facere, quam etiam producat in re.

english:
### THE SOLE ARTICLE. *On the love of God himself.*
### QUESTION I. *Whether God loved creatures eternally.*

Concerning the first [matter] one proceeds thus and it is asked whether God loved creatures eternally. And that he did, it seems.

1. To the Ephesians, chapter one[^2]: *He chose us before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in him;* but no one chooses except what he loves: if therefore from eternity, before the foundation of the world, he chose us, it seems that from eternity he loved us[^1].

2. Likewise, Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^3]: «It is absurd that God should love anything temporally»: if therefore

what he loves he loves either *temporally* or *eternally;* and not *temporally*, that is established: therefore what he loves he loves *eternally.*

3. Likewise, the Master says in the text[^4] that «love is *usia*» or substance: if therefore the substance of God cannot but be eternal, it seems that the love of God is likewise eternal: therefore whatever he loves he loves eternally.

4. Likewise, either the love of God *precedes* the things themselves, or it *follows.* If it *precedes:* then it was before the things were: therefore God loved the things before their production, therefore not from time, but from eternity. If it *follows:* then it seems that the love of God is caused by the things themselves. But if this is unfitting, it remains that God loves the things which he loves[^5] eternally.

5. Likewise, if God were made powerful from non-powerful and wise from non-wise, he would be changed and imperfect: therefore by parity of reasoning, if from non-loving he became loving; since love regards what is within, there would be in him change and imperfection. But if this is impossible, it is necessary that God love eternally the things which he loves.

**On the contrary:** 1. Love is the love of the good; but «good and being are convertible[^6]»: therefore what is not being is not lovable: therefore if things, before they were produced, did not exist; it seems that before they were produced, they were not loved by God.

2. Likewise, love is the bond of the lover and the beloved[^7]; but if there is a bond, the extremes must necessarily exist: therefore it is impossible that God love a creature, until the creature has actual existence. But this is only from time: therefore it seems that God did not love any creature eternally.

3. Likewise, God is not said to love anyone by *affection:* therefore if he loves, this is because he loves by *effect[^8];* but the effect of the divine goodness is only from time: therefore God loves no one except temporally.

4. Likewise, the love of God is the sufficient and proximate and immediate cause of the created good; but the efficient cause being posited, proximate and immediate and sufficient, the effect is posited[^9]: therefore if created things are only from time, it seems that God loves them only temporally.

5. Likewise, if God loves creatures, either he loves them as *enjoying*, or as *using;* but it is established that he does not love them as *enjoying*, since a creature is not something to be enjoyed, as

was shown in the first book[^10], since that which is to be enjoyed is the highest Good: it remains therefore that if he loves a creature, he loves it as *using.* But it is established that one cannot *use* except that which is in act: therefore God never loves a creature except one being in act: therefore he does not love any creature eternally.

> ### Conclusion.
> Creatures are loved by God not only temporally, but also eternally.

**I respond:** It must be said that certain words are said of God with respect to a creature which connote an effect in *act*, like the word *to create;* certain ones which connote an effect in *habit*, like the term *to predestine[^11];* certain ones which [connote] indifferently in *either way*, like the term *to love.* For God is said *to love* someone either because he *actually communicates* a good to him, or because he *proposes to communicate* it. And since *communication* is an effect in time, while the *proposal* of communicating is from eternity; hence it is that *to love* is said of God sometimes *eternally*, sometimes *temporally.* Hence it can well be conceded that creatures are loved by God not only temporally, but also eternally, as the reasons adduced for the first part show[^12]. — Nevertheless that reason which he brings forward as if *by way of similitude* concerning power and wisdom does not hold, since it is not similar. For *to be able* and *to know*, as far as concerns the force of the word, do not connote an effect in *act* in the way that *to love* does. For the word *to love* is imposed from the very liberality of an affection communicating itself to another.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

1. To that indeed which is first objected to the contrary, that good and being are convertible; it must be said that this is true of the good in *act* and being in *act.* But when it is said that love is only of the good; it must be said that it is not true only of the good which is in *act*, but also of the good which is in *cause.* For just as for cognition the truth of a thing in its cause suffices, so for loving the goodness suffices, according as the thing has *being* in its producing principle, even before it is produced externally. Hence the artisan loves not only the good which he has made, but also the good which he proposes and disposes to make[^13].

2. To that which is objected, that love is the bond of the lover and the beloved; it must be said that this is true insofar as love is a certain affection and bond of friendship, by which some are bound to one another; but in this way it is not taken in the matter at hand, when it is said that God loves a creature; for «the love of God is his *usia*», it is not some unitive affection, as the Master says in the text: and therefore that reasoning does not compel.

3. To that which is objected, that God is not said to love by *affection*, but by *effect;* it must be said that *to love by effect* can be in two ways, according as the effect can be connoted in two ways: by *act*, or by *habit;* and since a thing is in *habit* and in *potency*, before it is in *act:* hence it is that the love of God, which connotes an effect in *habit*, can be before the production of the things themselves. And therefore from this it does not follow, if God is said *to love by effect*, that he then only begins to love when the effect is produced into *being.*

4. To that which is objected, that the love of God is the cause, sufficient proximate and immediate, of the created good; it must be said that this is true; but just as the divine *will* is said to be an *immediate cause*, because no other cause intervenes, yet not such that it always posits the effect, but only for the time for which it wills, as it willed from eternity; but it made [it] at once, when the time came for which it willed: so too it must be understood in the very *love* of God.

5. To that which is objected, that if he loves, either as *enjoying*, or as *using;* it must be said that the love of God is one, by which he loves himself and by which he loves the creature; and this indeed, referred to God himself, is *enjoyment*, but compared to the creature is *use.* When therefore he says that one cannot *use* except that which is; it must be said that if *use* is taken for *exterior* action, it is true; but if it is taken for the *interior* and habitual ordering toward the end of some effect to be produced, thus it does not hold true, because the efficient cause refers to the end, long before, that which it intends to make, before it even produces it in reality.

la: Edd. *quos*, et paulo inferius *quos non* pro *quos.*

en: The editions read *quos*, and a little below *quos non* for *quos.*

la: Vers. 4. — Quoad minorem vide I. Sent. d. 10. dub. 1, [et] d. 10. a. 3. q. 2; tom. II. pag. 599, nota 5.

en: Verse 4. — As to the minor [premise], see *Sentences* I, d. 10, dub. 1, [and] d. 10, a. 3, q. 2; vol. II, p. 599, note 5.

la: Cap. 16. n. 17. Cfr. hic III. Magistri, c. 3, ubi pro *aliquid* legitur *aliquem*, sicut et in textu originali. — Deinde pro *quod diligit* permulti codd. *quos diligit*, codd. A bb *omnes quos diligit*, qui in fine arg. cum codd. H N semel omittunt *diligit.*

en: Chapter 16, n. 17. Cf. here the Master's [text], III, c. 3, where for *aliquid* one reads *aliquem*, as also in the original text. — Then for *quod diligit* very many codices [read] *quos diligit*, codices A bb *omnes quos diligit*, which at the end of the argument, with codices H N, once omit *diligit.*

la: Hic c. 1. Codd. K Z bb *dilectio Dei est usia*, cod. A *dilectio est Dei usia.* Post pauca pro *non esse* cod. aa *nisi esse.*

en: Here c. 1. Codices K Z bb [read] *dilectio Dei est usia*, codex A *dilectio est Dei usia.* A little after, for *non esse* codex aa [reads] *nisi esse.*

la: Cod. A *dilexit.*

en: Codex A [reads] *dilexit.*

la: Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 5. § 2. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 32, nota 2. Vide etiam Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 6.

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 5, § 2. Cf. vol. I, p. 32, note 2. See also Aristotle, *Ethics* I, c. 6.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 613, nota 8. et 16. — Paulo inferius Vat. verbo *habeat* praefigit *non.*

en: Cf. above p. 613, note 8 and 16. — A little below the Vatican [edition] prefixes *non* to the word *habeat.*

la: Vide quaest. seq. in corp. et ad 2.

en: See the following question, in the body and ad 2.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 37. (c. 3.), et supra pag. 22, nota 1.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 37 (c. 3.), and above p. 22, note 1.

la: Dist. 1. a. 3. q. 2. August., I. de Doctr. christ. c. 31. n. 34: *Diligit enim nos Deus, et multum nobis dilectionem eius erga nos divina Scriptura commendat; quomodo ergo diligit?* ut nobis utatur, an ut fruatur? Sed si fruitur, eget bono nostro, quod nemo sanus dixerit... Non ergo fruitur nobis, sed utitur. Nam si neque fruitur neque utitur, non invenio, quemadmodum diligat. — Paulo superius pro *quod non diligit* codd. A F I R L N T V X aa *quod non diligat.* Paulo inferius pro *contingit* cod. A *habet.*

en: Dist. 1, a. 3, q. 2. Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* I, c. 31, n. 34: *For God loves us, and divine Scripture much commends to us his love toward us; how then does he love?* that he may use us, or that he may enjoy us? But if he enjoys, he needs our good, which no sane man would say... Therefore he does not enjoy us, but uses us. For if he neither enjoys nor uses, I do not find in what manner he loves. — A little above, for *quod non diligit* codices A F I R L N T V X aa [read] *quod non diligat.* A little below, for *contingit* codex A [reads] *habet.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* I, d. 30, q. 1 and following, and d. 40, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: See here the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 7. (VIII. c. 3.) docet, ipsa non-entia intelligibilia et desiderabilia esse, non autem mota; a hoc autem, ait Philosophus, quia, cum non sint actu, erunt actu; non-entium enim quaedam *potentia* sunt, non autem sunt, quoniam actu non sunt».

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IX, text 7 (VIII, c. 3.), teaches that non-beings themselves are intelligible and desirable, but not moved; and this, says the Philosopher, because, since they are not in act, they will be in act; for some of non-beings are in *potency*, yet are not, since in act they are not».

latin_scholion:
**I.** De quaestionibus huius dist. aliisque ad dilectionem ipsius Dei spectantibus prolixe tractat Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 31. 32, et brevius B. Albert., S. p. I. tr. 16. q. 64, quorum doctrinam posteriores Scholastici sequuntur. — S. Bonav. hic praesupponit, quod Deus creaturas diligat, quippe quibus communicat aliquatenus suam bonitatem; unde, cum amet propriam bonitatem, etiam similitudinem eiusdem in creaturis per ipsam suam bonitatem amat (cfr. S. Thom., hic a. 1; S. 1. q. 20. a. 2; S. c. Gent. 1. c. 91.).

**II.** Solutio primae quaestionis eruitur ex ipsa significatione verbi *diligere*, quod manifeste non importat principaliter *relationem*, sed *operationem* voluntatis, quae quidem, quatenus a voluntate elicitur, intra diligentem manet. Cfr. etiam hic dub. 1. 2.

De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic a. 3; S. 1. q. 20. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert., S. loc. cit. quaest. incid. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic n. 1. q. 2. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. unica. — Dionys. Carth. et Biel, de hac aliisque huius dist. qq. hic q. unica.

**III.** In seq. (2.) quaestione solutio fit per distinctionem communiter receptam inter dilectionem *generalem*, qua Deus vult bonum quodcumque ordinis naturalis, et dilectionem *specialem*, qua aliquibus vult bona ordinis supernaturalis (cfr. solut. ad 1.). — Notanda est solut. ad 2, qua explicantur principia communiter recepta, quod amor Dei sit *effectivus*, non *affectivus*, et quod ipse causet bonitatem in rebus, dum amor noster causatur a bonitate in rebus. Attamen ad rem dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. unica, in fine): «Nihilominus sub correctione existimo, quod amor et caritas tam vere et proprie competunt Deo, sicut sapientia et scientia, et diligere, sicut scire... Si de ratione dilectionis seu amoris sit affectio, sequi videtur, quod dilectio Dei ad creaturas sit vere affectiva, sicut et volitiva» etc. Quae verba concedi possunt, si intelliguntur secundum doctrinam S. Thomae, S. 1. q. 20. a. 1. in corp. et ad 1. 2.

De hac quaestione specialiter tractant: S. Thom., hic a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic n. 1. q. 1.

**IV.** De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 4; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., S. loc. cit. q. incid. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the questions of this distinction and others pertaining to the love of God himself, Alexander of Hales treats at length, *Summa* p. I, q. 31, 32, and more briefly Bl. Albert, *Summa* p. I, tr. 16, q. 64, whose doctrine the later Scholastics follow. — St. Bonaventure here presupposes that God loves creatures, inasmuch as he communicates to them in some measure his own goodness; whence, since he loves his own goodness, he also loves the likeness of the same in creatures through his own goodness (cf. St. Thomas, here a. 1; *Summa* I, q. 20, a. 2; *Summa contra Gentiles* I, c. 91.).

**II.** The solution of the first question is drawn from the very signification of the verb *to love*, which manifestly does not principally import a *relation*, but an *operation* of the will, which indeed, insofar as it is elicited by the will, remains within the one loving. Cf. also here dub. 1, 2.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. — St. Thomas, here a. 3; *Summa* I, q. 20, a. 2, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, *Summa* loc. cit. incidental q. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here n. 1, q. 2. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. unica. — Dionysius the Carthusian and Biel, on this and the other questions of this distinction, here q. unica.

**III.** In the following (2nd) question the solution is made through the distinction commonly received between the *general* love, by which God wills some good or other of the natural order, and the *special* love, by which he wills for some certain ones goods of the supernatural order (cf. solution to 1.). — Note is to be taken of the solution to 2, by which are explained the commonly received principles, that the love of God is *effective*, not *affective*, and that he himself causes goodness in things, while our love is caused by goodness in things. Nevertheless, to the point Dionysius the Carthusian says (here q. unica, at the end): «Nonetheless, under correction, I judge that love and charity belong to God as truly and properly as wisdom and knowledge, and to love as to know... If affection belongs to the nature of love or affection, it seems to follow that the love of God toward creatures is truly affective, just as it is also volitive» etc. Which words can be conceded, if they are understood according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 20, a. 1, in the body and ad 1, 2.

On this question specially treat: St. Thomas, here a. 2; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here n. 1, q. 1.

**IV.** On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3. — Scotus, in both works here q. unica. — St. Thomas, here a. 4; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, *Summa* loc. cit. incidental q. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Promoted in place from the 2026-06-02 auto-chunked skeleton (`line_start 48448 / line_end 48586`, which were correct — q1 ends at *…III. In seq. (2.) quaestione solutio fit per distinctionem com-* and QUAESTIO II opens at raw 48587). Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{697,698,699}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw 48448–48586) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Vol III is two-column with cascade-shattered Respondeo / Ad-replies / footers, so the **PDF-priority inversion** applies (offset pdf = printed + 22; trust running-head TEXT over OCR'd digits — running heads read `DIST. XXXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 697`, `698`, `DIST. XXXII. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. 699`). `type: quaestio`, articulus 1, quaestio 1.

**Alignment check (TRACTATIO ↔ q1).** PASS, no q-swap. TRACTATIO Primum (*Primum est, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter*) = QUAESTIO I body opener (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter*) 1:1. Title set to the raw/TRACTATIO form *Utrum Deus dilexerit creaturas aeternaliter* (the printed quaestio-title is identical).

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.697–699** (PDF 719–721).
- **p.697** (foot): ARTICULUS UNICUS subtitle (inherited as the q-opener header context from divisio) + QUAESTIO I header + title + opener + arg. 1 + the head of arg. 2 (*Augustinus quinto de Trinitate: «Absurdum est…»: si ergo*). Lower L+R columns.
- **p.698**: tail of arg. 2 + args 3–5 + Sed contra 1–5 (arg. 5 / *fruens-utens* spills to the verso R-column) + Conclusio + Respondeo + Ad 1. Marked internally as `<!-- page 698 -->` (recto L→R) and `<!-- page 698b -->` (verso continuation, R-column tail of arg. 5 onward) to keep the paragraph boundary clean for the reader.
- **p.699**: Ad 2–5 (foot of the Ad-replies) + the full **SCHOLION §I–IV**.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The scholion printed on **p.699** under q1's body is the **ARTICLE-MASTER scholion** for the sole article (six questions): **§I** = general bibliography on the dist. + Bonaventure's presupposition that God loves creatures; **§II** = *Solutio primae quaestionis* (this q1) + "De hac I. quaestione" citation register; **§III** = FORWARDS to q2 (*In seq. (2.) quaestione…* — the general/special-love distinction) + "De hac quaestione specialiter" register; **§IV** = FORWARDS to q3 (*De 3. quaestione…*). So q2 and q3 (d32-a1-q2, d32-a1-q3) carry **no own scholion** — they redirect here (`Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.`), exactly as in the parallel ARTICULUS-UNICUS distinctions d.29/d.30. Body-then-scholion order preserved (scholion LAST in each language block).

**Apparatus (13 entries), NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart.**
- **p.697 nn.2–4 → `[^1]`–`[^3]`** — PICKED-UP hand-off from d32-divisio (n.1 *Cod. Z ad eius durationem* belongs to the divisio and is NOT re-claimed). n.2 *Edd. quos…* (marker `dilexit²`); n.3 *Vers. 4. — Quoad minorem…* (marker `Ephesios primo³`); n.4 *Cap. 16. n. 17. Cfr. hic III. Magistri c. 3…* (marker `de Trinitate⁴`, textual variant). Note: n.3 reads `tom. II. pag. 599, nota 5` (the divisio hand-off listed 598/599 — eyes-on the 450 dpi band shows **599**).
- **p.698 nn.1–10 → `[^4]`–`[^13]`** — fresh page sequence. n.1 *Hic c. 1. Codd. K Z bb dilectio Dei est usia…* (marker on arg. 3, *Magister dicit in littera¹*); n.2 *Cod. A dilexit* (marker `diligit²` in arg. 4); n.3 *Secundum Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 5. § 2…* (Sed contra 1, *convertuntur³*); n.4 *Cfr. supra pag. 613…* (Sed contra 2, *amati⁴*); n.5 *Vide quaest. seq. in corp. et ad 2* (Sed contra 3, *effectu⁵*); n.6 *Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys…* (Sed contra 4, *ponitur effectus⁶*); n.7 *Dist. 1. a. 3. q. 2. August., I. de Doctr. christ…* (Sed contra 5, *in primo libro⁷*; long entry spanning both footer columns); n.8 *Cfr. I. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. seqq…* (Respondeo, *praedestinandi⁸*); n.9 *Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2* (Respondeo, *ostendunt⁹*); n.10 *Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 7…* (Ad 1, *facere¹⁰*).
- **p.699 footers** = QUAESTIO II's (the p.699 footer block keys to the q2 body in the lower columns — *copula amantis et amati*, Sapientiae undecimo, etc.); they do NOT belong here. The q1 scholion on p.699 carries no marker of its own.

**Footer hand-offs.** PICKED-UP from d32-divisio = p.697 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.2–4 (consumed as `[^1]`–`[^3]`). FORWARDED to d32-a1-q2 = NONE — q1's last footer is p.698 n.10; QUAESTIO II opens on p.699 with its own fresh NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM sequence (p.699 nn.1–6, read eyes-on but belonging to q2). The d32-a1-q2 dispatch starts its footer pickup at p.699 n.1.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All three pages (args, Sed contra, Conclusio, Respondeo, Ad 1–5, scholion §I–IV, and the p.697 + p.698 footers) read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands. No ambiguity survives.

**J4 Class B — orphaned apparatus definitions, resolved (2026-07-17).** Classifier found 3 of 13 defs ([^11], [^12], [^13]) with a def in `## Apparatus` but no `[^N]` anchor in either body — the markers were never placed when the chunk was originally set, even though this file's own provenance Notes above already correctly identified their target lemmas (page-local p.698 nn.8–10). Re-cropped p.698 at 450 dpi (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p698-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) and confirmed eyes-on, per Trap 1 (keyed on content, not position):
- `[^11]` (Cfr. I. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. seqq. et d. 40. a. 1. q. 1.) → printed superscript ⁸, on *praedestinandi* in the Respondeo's *triplex connotatio* passage (*vocabulum praedestinandi⁸*). Placed in both bodies.
- `[^12]` (Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.) → printed superscript ⁹, on *ostendunt* closing the Respondeo's conclusio-restatement sentence (*inductae ostendunt⁹*). Placed in both bodies.
- `[^13]` (Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 7…) → printed superscript ¹⁰, on *facere* at the tail of Ad 1 (*disponit facere¹⁰*), continuing onto p.699. Placed in both bodies.

No defs refused — all three page-698 superscripts (8, 9, 10) were legible and their lemmas matched the apparatus entries' own content unambiguously. Checked the sibling `d32-a1-q2` Notes (per handoff instruction) for the p.700 shared-footer caveat it documents — that caveat concerns q2's own p.700/p.701 apparatus and its L-column split with q3, not this chunk's p.698 orphans, so it does not bear on this fix. Post-fix classifier: `defs=13 la=13 en=13 orphanDefs=[]` — fully healthy.