site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt: Utrum Adam in statu innocentiae ita cognoverit Deum, sicut Deus in statu gloriae cognoscitur

title_alt: Whether Adam in the state of innocence knew God in the same way as God is known in the state of glory

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 542 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Adam in statu innocentiae ita cognoverit Deum, sicut Deus in statu gloriae cognoscitur.*

Tertio vero quaeritur quantum ad cognitionis Adae complementum et statum, et est quaestio, utrum Adam Deum cognoverit in statu innocentiae eo genere cognitionis, quo exspectamus Deum cognoscere in statu gloriae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Magister Hugo de Sancto Victore in libro de Sacramentis[^1]: « Cognovit homo Creatorem suum non ea cognitione, qua modo a credentibus absens fide quaeritur, sed ea, qua tunc per praesentiam contemplationis scienti manifestius cernebatur »; sed manifeste Deum cernere, hoc est visionis beatae: ergo etc.

2. Item, Magister in quarti libri distinctione prima, capitulo: *Triplici*[^2] *autem ex causa* etc.: « Homo, qui ante peccatum sine medio Deum videbat » etc.; sed videre Deum sine medio, hoc est videre *facie ad faciem*, et haec est visio gloriae: ergo etc.

3. Item, Exodi trigesimo tertio[^3]: *Loquebatur Dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem, sicut loqui solet homo ad amicum suum*; sed multo excellentior fuit status naturae institutae quam lapsae: si ergo sine medio videbatur Deus a Moyse, multo fortius ab homine in statu naturae institutae. Si tu dicas, hoc fuisse in subiecta creatura; obiicitur quod dicitur Numerorum duodecimo: *Palam, et non per figuras et aenigmata Deum videt.*

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione. Sicut volunt Sancti communiter, Adam non solum fuit constitutus in paradiso corporali, immo etiam in paradiso spirituali quantum ad delicias mentis. Fruebatur enim Deo, sicut dicit Damascenus[^4], et Augustinus; et hoc etiam de se planum est. Homo enim in tempore naturae institutae ipsum Deum *in se* et immediate amabat: ergo si ita facilis est intellectus ad cognoscendum, sicut affectus ad amandum, per naturam; videtur, quod sicut Deum *in se ipso* amabat, ita etiam *in se ipso* videbat.

5. Item, omnis anima recta desiderat videre Deum[^5]: ergo Adam hoc desiderabat. Aut igitur desiderium eius non implebatur, et ita iam affligebatur, quod non est conveniens; aut aliquo modo Deum videbat. Sed non videbat visione *imaginaria* nec *corporali*, ergo *intellectuali*; sed haec est visio, qua videtur Deus in sua essentia: ergo etc.

6. Item, mente humana nihil Deo propinquius, cum est ab omni peccato immunis[^6]; sed mens Adae in statu naturae incorruptae non habebat aliquam peccati malitiam, nec oculus habebat aliquam obscuritatis nubem: ergo videtur, quod in ipsum Deum immediate aspectum suum figere poterat; et haec est visio, quam exspectamus in gloria, ut videamus ipsam Dei substantiam: ergo etc.

7. Item, quod in gloria non aliter videatur, quam videbatur ab Adam, ostenditur: aut enim in gloria videtur Deus immediate, aut mediate. Si mediate; sed sic poterat videri ab Adam in via. Si immediate; ostenditur, hoc esse falsum, persuasione sumta ex triplici medio. Quarum *prima* est, quod cognoscens super cognoscibile debet habere poten-
<!-- page 543 -->
tiam quantum ad illud, per quod cognoscit[^7]; sed intellectus creatus non potest super ipsam lucem increatam in se, quantumcumque elevetur per gratiam, sive per gloriam, quia illa semper in infinitum excedit: ergo impossibile est, quod intellectus ipsam lucem increatam videat in se ipsa. — Quodsi tu dicas, rationem istam non cogere, quia potentia cognitiva plus est in suscipiendo quam in agendo; ostenditur hoc ipsum secunda persuasione: quia cognoscentis ad cognoscibile debet esse proportio[^8], maxime in ea cognitione, in qua est magna delectatio. Si ergo illius summae lucis respectu intellectus nostri est excessus improportionabilis et tantus, ut per nihil additum possit ei proportionari noster intellectus, quin semper excedat in infinitum; videtur, quod nunquam in fonte lucis intellectus noster possit contemplari Deum. — Quodsi tu dicas, quod non requiritur ibi proportio quantitatis, sed solum conformitatis; ostenditur hoc idem persuasione *tertia*. Si enim in gloria Deus videtur in se ipso et absque omni medio; cum ipse in se nullam habeat diversitatem, omnino videretur ab omnibus uniformiter. Quodsi constat, esse in gloria differentias praemiorum, non videtur, quod absque omni medio Deus a glorificata anima videatur. — Si igitur videtur per *medium*; et sic videbatur ab Adam: restat ergo, quod Adam eo genere cognitionis cognovit, quo cogniturae sunt animae beatae.

**Sed contra:**

1. Exodi trigesimo tertio[^9]: *Non videbit me homo, et vivet.* Constat, quod hoc non intelligitur de vita spirituali, sed de vita animali. Si igitur Adam in statu innocentiae vita animali vivebat: ergo Deum videre non poterat.

2. Item, Ioannis primo[^10]: *Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenitus* etc.: si ergo nullus unquam vidit Deum ante adventum Christi, ergo nec Adam.

3. Item, super illud Isaiae sexto[^11]: *Vidi Dominum sedentem* etc., Gregorius: « Quantumcumque mens in contemplatione profecerit, semper quod infra Deum est videt »: ergo videtur, quod cum aliqui homines perveniant ad eminentiam gratiae, quae fuit in Adam; et nullus in praesenti per actum contemplationis Deum videat: ergo nondum habebat illam visionem, quam exspectat anima sancta.

4. Item, visio Dei est tota merces[^12]: ergo qui visionem Dei habet plenam habet mercedem, et qui hoc habet plenam gloriam, et nullus talis potest cadere: si igitur Adam cecidit, ergo Deum in se ipso non vidit.

5. Item, lux increata perfecta delectatione delectabit aspicientes: ergo si Adam illam summam lucem aspexisset, perfecte in ea delectatus fuisset: ergo nunquam ab ea averti consensisset.

6. Item, status viae et status patriae debent esse distincti: ergo pari ratione contemplatio viae et contemplatio patriae; sed Adam erat viator, ergo non erat comprehensor: ergo non eo genere visionis videbat, quo videre exspectamus in patria.

### Conclusio

> Adam in statu innocentiae non cognovit Deum immediate et in sua substantia, ut cognoscitur in gloria, sed per speculum, non autem in aenigmate.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod communiter omnes ponunt cognitionem, quam habebat Adam de Deo, mediam inter cognitionem, quae est in statu miseriae, et cognitionem, quae erit in statu gloriae; sed in modo ponendi plurima est differentia.

Quidam namque, innitentes auctoritatibus male intellectis et rationibus sophisticis, dixerunt, Deum nunquam immediate videri, nec in via nec in patria. Dicit enim Chrysostomus[^13]: « Ipsum, qui Deus est, non solum prophetae, sed nec etiam Angeli vident ». Et aliae reperiuntur auctoritates consimiles, quas male intelligentes et putantes, hoc dictum esse, quod Deus immediate videri non posset propter improportionabilitatem lucis increatae ad oculum mentis creatae, dixerunt, quod Deus per quasdam lucubrationes videri habet et in statu viae, et in statu innocentiae videbatur, et in statu gloriae[^14]. Et in illis luminosis influentiis dixerunt, Deum in his statibus videri magis clare et minus clare, secundum quod Deus se magis oculo nostro vult contemperare et clarioribus theophaniis ostendere. — Sed ista positio haeretica est et reprobata; nec immerito, quia et contra *rationem* est, cum anima quiescere perfecte non possit, donec in se ipso videat Deum; et contra sacram *Scripturam*. Nam primae
<!-- page 544 -->
ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^15] dicitur: *Tunc cognoscam, sicut et cognitus sum*; et primae Ioannis tertio: *Videbimus eum, sicut est*. Ad hoc etiam ipsum innumerae auctoritates doctorum reperiuntur, quibus omnibus adhaerendo, error iste reprobandus est; et auctoritates, si quae videantur esse pro ipso, omnes exponendae sunt, quia loquuntur de cognitione *comprehensionis*, qua dicitur aliquid cognosci totaliter; et hac cognitione Deus sibi soli cognoscibilis est, sicut in libro tertio[^16] patebit.

Secundus autem modus dicendi est, quod Deus a purgatis mentibus non solum in patria, sed etiam in statu innocentiae et in statu viae in se ipso videri habet; nec est differentia nisi in gradu, quod[^17] clarius et perfectius in statu gloriae videbitur, et minus perfecte in statu innocentiae, et minime in statu naturae lapsae. Differentia autem istorum graduum venit ex hoc, quod anima in statu gloriae est omnino a sarcina corporis absoluta, aut omnino habet corpus spirituale, quod nullo modo impediat ipsam, quin possit immediate in Deum tendere et secundum totum suum posse. In statu vero naturae lapsae, quia habet corpus corruptibile et animale, impeditur et aggravatur ex terrena inhabitatione, ne possit in ipsam lucem tendere perfecte. In statu vero naturae institutae medio modo se habebat, quia corpus Adae, etsi non esset subiectum necessitati moriendi et passibilitati, erat tamen indigens alimoniis et oportebat, animam circa regimen et vegetationem sui corporis aliquando occupari; et ideo nec adeo excellenter intuebatur primus homo Deum, sicut Beati intuentur in gloria, nec adeo exiliter, sicut viri sancti intuentur in praesenti miseria. — Hanc autem suam positionem ex auctoritatibus Augustini eliciunt, qui dicit in pluribus locis in libro de Trinitate, quod etiam in praesenti vita notiorem potest homo habere Deum quam fratrem, et hoc in libro octavo[^18]; et alibi dicit, quod « a purgatissimis mentibus cernitur ». Docet etiam in libro octavo, per contuitum veritatis et bonitatis intueri Deum. — Sed haec positio, etsi non sit adeo veritati adversaria, sicut prima, nihilominus tamen dictis Sanctorum non consonat. Dicit enim Dionysius in libro de Mystica Theologia[^19], quod excellentissimus modus contemplandi est *ignote ascendere*, quia nec ipse Moyses Deum valuit videre, et ideo introductus dicitur fuisse in caliginem. Unde Dionysius vocat eos indoctos, qui dicunt, se nosse eum *qui posuit tenebras latibulum suum*. Et etiam Gregorius[^20] dicit, quod « quantumcumque mens in contemplatione profecerit, non pervenit ad contuitum Dei ». Et communiter doctores in hoc concordant, intelligentes illud quod dicit Apostolus[^21], quod *quamdiu sumus in hoc corpore, peregrinamur a Domino et per fidem ambulamus, non per speciem*. — Unde si quae auctoritates id dicere inveniantur, quod Deus in praesenti ab homine videtur et cernitur, non sunt intelligendae, quod videtur in sua *essentia*, sed quod in aliquo *effectu interiori* cognoscitur, sicut iam melius patebit; nisi fortassis in his qui rapiuntur, sicut credimus fuisse in Paulo[^22], qui specialitate privilegii statum viatorum supergrediuntur, nec ibi aliquid agunt, sed solum aguntur.

Tertius autem modus dicendi est, quod in patria videtur[^23] Deus immediate et plene, quantum est ex parte videntis; in statu vero miseriae mediate et semiplene; in statu vero innocentiae medio modo, scilicet immediate et semiplene: semiplene, inquam, quia non recepetet adhuc plenam remunerationem; immediate autem, quia nullam habebat velaminis interpositionem. Et hoc videntur sonare verba Magistri et Hugonis[^24]. — Verumtamen nec sic intelligendum est, quod homo in statu innocentiae videret Deum in sua essentia, sive facie ad faciem. Huic enim obviant rationes et auctoritates prius inductae.

Et ideo est quartus modus dicendi ad hoc, quod revera cognitio status innocentiae media est inter cognitionem status gloriae et status miseriae, sicut etiam locus paradisi medius est inter hanc vallem miseriae et patriam caelestem; et quemadmodum paradisus terrestris plus se tenet cum terra quam cum caelo, sic Adae *cognitio*, sive status innocentiae plus conformis est cognitioni status praesentis quam futuri. Unde in solo statu gloriae vi-
<!-- page 545 -->
debitur Deus immediate et in sua[^25] substantia, ita quod nulla erit ibi obscuritas. In statu vero innocentiae et naturae lapsae videtur Deus mediante speculo; sed differenter, quia in statu innocentiae videbatur Deus *per speculum clarum*; nulla enim erat in anima peccati nebula. In statu vero miseriae videtur per speculum obscuratum per peccatum primi hominis; et ideo nunc videtur *per speculum et in aenigmate*[^26]. « Aenigma enim, sicut dicit Augustinus, decimo quinto de Trinitate, est similitudo obscura ».

Unde nota, quod quadruplex est modus cognoscendi Deum, videlicet per *fidem*, per *contemplationem*, per *apparitionem* et per *apertam visionem*. Et primum est gratiae *communis*, secundum est gratiae *excellentis*, tertium gratiae *specialis* et quartum gloriae[^27] *consummantis*. — Et sufficientia istorum modorum ita colligitur. Omne enim quod cognoscitur, cognoscitur per aliquid *praesens*; si igitur Deus cognoscitur, necesse est, quod per aliquid praesens intellectui cognoscatur; praesens autem voco hic, secundum quod Augustinus[^28] vocat, quod praesens est intellectui ad videndum. Aut igitur cognosco Deum per hoc quod est praesens *mihi*, aut per hoc quod est praesens *alii*. Si per hoc quod est praesens *alii*, sic est cognitio *fidei*. Quod enim Deus sit trinus et unus, hoc ego credo Dei Filio, qui hoc enarravit[^29] et praedicavit, et Spiritui sancto, qui hoc inspiravit. « Quod enim credimus, debemus auctoritati », sicut dicit Augustinus de Utilitate credendi[^30]. — Si autem cognosco Deum per hoc quod est praesens *mihi*, hoc potest esse tripliciter: aut per hoc quod est praesens mihi in *effectu proprio*; et tunc est *contemplatio*, quae tanto est eminentior, quanto effectum divinae gratiae magis sentit in se homo, vel quanto etiam melius scit considerare Deum in exterioribus creaturis. — Aut est praesens mihi in *signo proprio*; et sic est *apparitio*, sicut apparuit Deus Abrahae in subiecta creatura, quae ipsum Deum figurabat[^31]; et sicut Spiritus sanctus apparuit in columba. — Aut est praesens
<!-- page 546 -->
Deus in *lumine suo* et in se ipso; et sic est cognitio, qua videtur Deus in *vultu suo*, sive *facie ad faciem*; et sic est *aperta visio*, quae tota dicitur merces omnium meritorum.

*Primum* igitur et *ultimum* genus cognitionis statui innocentiae non competebat: primum, propter cognitionem *aenigmaticam*, et propter hoc, quod cognitio fidei ut plurimum *est ex auditu*, secundum quod innuit Apostolus[^32]; ultimum vero ibi esse non poterat propter *summam perfectionem*; ideo homini non exhibebatur, sed potius in praemium promittebatur. *Media* vero duo, scilicet *contemplationis* et *apparitionis*, utrique statui communia esse potuerunt, maxime cognitio *contemplationis*, quae in utroque statu est. Ibi tamen potissime vigebat tum propter animae puritatem, tum etiam propter carnis et inferiorum virium subiectionem; quibus duobus quia[^33] ut plurimum anima caret in statu naturae lapsae, ideo non potest ad illum gradum contemplationis attingere. — Rationes igitur monstrantes, Adam Deum non cognovisse eo genere cognitionis, quam exspectamus in gloria, sunt concedendae; ad eas autem, quae ad oppositum adducuntur, satis facile est respondere.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1, 2, 3.* Ad illas enim tres auctoritates primo inductas iam patet responsio. Omnes enim intelliguntur de contemplationis cognitione, non per remotionem *cuiuscumque medii*, sed per remotionem velaminis et obscuritatis, qualis est in his qui aliquo[^34] vitio peccati infecti sunt.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud autem quod obiicitur, quod immediate Deum amabat[^35]; dicendum, quod non est simile. Amor enim, sicut vult Bernardus[^36], multo plus se extendit quam visio; ex sola enim aestimatione sequitur aliquando dilectio. Et ipse etiam dicit in libro de Amore Dei, quod ubi deficit intellectus, ibi proficit affectus. Et ratio huius est, quia visio est solummodo rei praesentis, sed dilectio non solummodo rei praesentis, sed etiam absentis. Praeterea, visio non dicit qualemcumque modum cognoscendi, sed modum cognoscendi completum; dilectio vero et
<!-- page 546b -->
perfecta potest esse et imperfecta: ideo quamvis immediata Dei *dilectio* sit in via, non tamen oportet, quod visio sive *cognitio immediata*[^37].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Adam desiderabat Deum videre etc.; dicendum, quod verum est; sed sic desiderabat videre, quod aliquam cognitionem *habebat*, in qua reficiebatur, et aliquam *exspectabat* in remunerationem et praemium. Et illa quam exspectabat, erat cognitio patriae; illa vero, quam habebat, erat contemplatio viae, quae erat visio *per speculum*. — Et si tu quaeras, utrum erat visio *intellectualis*, vel *corporalis*; dicendum, quod intellectualis; sed non ipsius divinae minime in se, sed alicuius gratiae vel influentiae; et illam in se per experientiam nosse et videre poterat, sicut sentit anima sancta, quando liquefit[^38], cum Sponsus alloquitur eam.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mens humana in illo statu erat Deo immediata; dicendum, quod immediata erat quantum ad *esse naturae*, quia nulla natura est ea superior[^39]; quantum vero ad *statum* non erat immediata; ad ulteriorem enim statum promovenda erat. Tunc enim erat in similitudine gratiae, sed perducenda erat ad deiformitatem gloriae, in qua non solum aspiceret divinum *effectum*, sed etiam ipsum *vultum* desideratum. — Concedo tamen nihilominus, quod oculi aspectus[^40] in Deum figi potest, ita quod ad nihil aliud aspiciat; attamen non perspiciet vel videbit ipsius lucis claritatem, immo potius elevabitur in caliginem et ad hanc cognitionem elevabitur per omnium ablationem, sicut Dionysius dicit in libro de Mystica Theologia[^41] et vocat istam cognitionem *doctam ignorantiam*. Haec enim est, in qua mirabiliter inflammatur affectio, sicut eis patet, qui aliquoties consueverunt ad anagogicos[^42] elevari excessus. Hunc modum cognoscendi arbitror cuilibet viro iusto in via ista esse quaerendum; quodsi Deus aliquid ultra faciet, hoc privilegium est speciale, non legis communis.

*Ad 7.* Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum Deus in
<!-- page 546c -->
patria videatur per medium, an sine medio; respondendum est, quod videre[^43] *per medium*, hoc potest intelligi tripliciter: aut per *medium disponens*, aut per *medium deferens*, aut per *medium deducens*. Per *medium disponens* recte et catholice ponitur, Deum in patria esse videndum, quia anima in patria mediante deiformitate et influentia gloriae disponetur ad hoc, quod clarissime possit Deum in se ipso videre. Deiformitas enim gloriae sufficiens est dispositio ad hoc, quod anima Deum in se possit videre. Ad hoc enim, quod videat, non oportet, quod anima potens sit in Deum agere; videre enim potius est in suscipiendo quam in agendo, maxime cum videtur lumen. Nec oportet, eam[^44] proportionari quantitative, scilicet quantum ad infinitatem, ut sit tanta, quantus Deus est in virtute; sed sufficit qualitative, quantum ad similitudinem expressam, secundum cuius maiorem et minorem participationem erit ordo in gradibus praemiorum in futura gloria. Et sic patet, quod si ponatur, Deum videri per *medium disponens*, persuasiones, quae prius ponebantur, dissolvuntur, et veritas explicatur.

Per *medium* autem *deferens* nullus posuit, Deum videri, cum ipse sit immediatus rationali creaturae[^45]; sed per *medium deducens* sive contemperans posuerunt aliqui Deum videri, ne per excellentiam lucis obtunderetur acies intellectus et potius deiiceretur, quam laetificaretur. Sed hoc ponere, sicut prius[^46] tactum fuit, non est sanum nec habet rationem, quia lumen illud potius est salvativum quam corruptivum; unde excellentia in nullo obest, sed potius confert. Et quia pax et gaudium et lux illa superat omnem sensum[^47], ideo homo totus undique completur, ut nihil aliud quaerat, sed potius absorbeatur ipsa nostra intelligentia ab eminentia lucis, sicut ipsa nostra affectio a torrente voluptatis. Et hoc supra determinatum fuit in primo libro, distinctione prima[^48] de fruitione.

Nunc autem pro firmo tenendum est, quod etsi Adam Deum in sua substantia non videbat in statu innocentiae, videbitur tamen in gloria in sua
<!-- page 547 -->
substantia. Nec licet huius contrarium sentire et dicere. Nam hic est unus de decem articulis, reprobatis ab universitate magistrorum Parisiensium tempore Episcopi Gulielmi et Odonis Cancellarii et fratris Alexandri de Hales, patris et magistri nostri, qui, ut evitentur, subscripti sunt[^49].

#### ARTICULI PARISIIS CONDEMNATI.

Primus articulus est, quod divina essentia in se nec ab homine nec ab Angelo videbitur[^50].

Secundus est, quod licet divina essentia una sit in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, tamen ut in ratione formae una est in Patre et Filio, et non una in his et Spiritu sancto, et tamen forma idem est quod essentia divina.

Tertius est, quod Spiritus sanctus ut amor vel nexus non procedit a Filio, sed tantum a Patre.

Quartus est, quod animae glorificatae non sunt in caelo empyreo cum Angelis, nec corpora glorificata erunt ibi, sed in caelo aqueo vel crystallino, quod est supra firmamentum[^51].

Quintus est, quod malus angelus in primo instanti suae creationis fuit malus et nunquam fuit bonus.

Sextus est, quod Angelus in uno instanti potest esse in diversis locis et etiam ubique[^52], si voluerit.

Septimus est, quod multae sunt veritates ab aeterno, quae non sunt Deus.

Octavus est, quod primum nunc et creatio-passio non est Creator nec creatura[^53].

Nonus est, quod qui habet meliora naturalia, plus habebit de necessitate de gratia et gloria.

Decimus est, quod malus angelus nunquam habuit unde stare posset, nec etiam Adam in statu innocentiae.

Hi omnes errores a praedictis personis prohibiti fuerunt et excommunicati, et propterea sunt tanquam pestiferi evitandi.

english:
### Question III. *Whether Adam in the state of innocence knew God in the same way as God is known in the state of glory.*

Third, the question is raised with respect to the completion and state of Adam's knowledge, and the question is whether Adam, in the state of innocence, knew God by that kind of knowledge by which we expect to know God in the state of glory. And that this is so seems to be the case.

1. Master Hugh of Saint Victor, in his book *On the Sacraments*[^1]: « Man knew his Creator not by that knowledge by which he is now sought by believers, being absent, through faith, but by that by which he was then, through the presence of contemplation, more manifestly discerned by one who knew »; but to discern God manifestly is the mark of the beatific vision: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the Master, in the first distinction of the fourth book, in the chapter: *Triplici*[^2] *autem ex causa* etc.: « Man, who before sin saw God without a medium » etc.; but to see God without a medium is to see *face to face*, and this is the vision of glory: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, Exodus thirty-three[^3]: *The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend*; but the state of established nature was much more excellent than the fallen state: if, then, God was seen without a medium by Moses, much more strongly so by man in the state of established nature. If you should say that this took place in a subjected creature; the objection is made by what is said in Numbers twelve: *Plainly, and not by figures and riddles does he see God.*

4. Likewise, this very thing is shown by reason. As the Saints commonly hold, Adam was not only set in a bodily paradise, but indeed also in a spiritual paradise with respect to the delights of the mind. For he enjoyed God, as Damascene says[^4], and Augustine; and this too is plain of itself. For man, in the time of established nature, loved God himself *in himself* and immediately: therefore, if the intellect is as ready for knowing, by nature, as the affection is for loving; it seems that, just as he loved God *in himself*, so too he saw him *in himself*.

5. Likewise, every upright soul desires to see God[^5]: therefore Adam desired this. Either, then, his desire was not fulfilled, and so he was already afflicted, which is not fitting; or in some way he saw God. But he did not see by an *imaginary* nor a *bodily* vision, therefore by an *intellectual* one; but this is the vision by which God is seen in his essence: therefore, etc.

6. Likewise, nothing is nearer to God than the human mind, when it is free of all sin[^6]; but Adam's mind, in the state of uncorrupted nature, did not have any malice of sin, nor did his eye have any cloud of darkness: therefore it seems that he was able to fix his gaze immediately upon God himself; and this is the vision which we expect in glory, that we may see God's very substance: therefore, etc.

7. Likewise, that in glory God is not seen otherwise than he was seen by Adam, is shown: for either in glory God is seen immediately, or mediately. If mediately; but thus he could be seen by Adam on the way. If immediately; it is shown that this is false, by a persuasion drawn from a threefold medium. The *first* of these is that the knower, with respect to the knowable, must have a power
<!-- page 543 -->
proportioned to that by which it knows[^7]; but the created intellect cannot, of itself, rise above the uncreated light, however much it be elevated by grace or by glory, because that light always exceeds it infinitely: therefore it is impossible that the intellect should see the uncreated light in itself. — But should you say that this reasoning does not compel, because the cognitive power is more in receiving than in acting; this same thing is shown by a second persuasion: that there ought to be a proportion of the knower to the knowable[^8], especially in that knowledge in which there is great delight. If, then, with respect to that highest light there is, for our intellect, a disproportionate and so great an excess that by nothing added can our intellect be proportioned to it, but it always exceeds infinitely; it seems that our intellect can never contemplate God in the fount of light. — But should you say that proportion of quantity is not required there, but only of conformity; this same thing is shown by a *third* persuasion. For if in glory God is seen in himself and without any medium; since he has in himself no diversity, he would be seen by all entirely uniformly. But if it is established that there are differences of rewards in glory, it does not seem that God is seen by the glorified soul without any medium. — If, therefore, he is seen through a *medium*; and thus he was seen by Adam: it remains, therefore, that Adam knew by that kind of knowledge by which the blessed souls are to know.

**On the contrary:**

1. Exodus thirty-three[^9]: *Man shall not see me, and live.* It is established that this is not understood of spiritual life, but of animal life. If, then, Adam in the state of innocence lived an animal life: therefore he could not see God.

2. Likewise, John one[^10]: *No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten* etc.: if, then, no one ever saw God before the coming of Christ, therefore neither did Adam.

3. Likewise, on that of Isaiah six[^11]: *I saw the Lord seated* etc., Gregory: « However much the mind advances in contemplation, it always sees that which is below God »: therefore it seems that, since some men attain to that eminence of grace which was in Adam; and no one in the present, by an act of contemplation, sees God: therefore he did not yet have that vision which the holy soul awaits.

4. Likewise, the vision of God is the whole reward[^12]: therefore whoever has the full vision of God has the reward, and whoever has this has full glory, and no such one can fall: if, then, Adam fell, therefore he did not see God in himself.

5. Likewise, the uncreated light will delight the beholders with perfect delight: therefore if Adam had beheld that highest light, he would have been perfectly delighted in it: therefore he would never have consented to be turned away from it.

6. Likewise, the state of the way and the state of the fatherland ought to be distinct: therefore, by parity of reasoning, the contemplation of the way and the contemplation of the fatherland; but Adam was a wayfarer, therefore he was not a comprehensor: therefore he did not see by that kind of vision by which we expect to see in the fatherland.

### Conclusion

> Adam, in the state of innocence, did not know God immediately and in his substance, as he is known in glory, but through a mirror, yet not in a riddle.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that all commonly hold the knowledge which Adam had of God to be midway between the knowledge which is in the state of misery and the knowledge which will be in the state of glory; but in the manner of positing it there is the greatest difference.

For some, relying on authorities ill-understood and on sophistical arguments, said that God is never seen immediately, neither on the way nor in the fatherland. For Chrysostom says[^13]: « Him who is God, not only the prophets, but not even the Angels see ». And other similar authorities are found, which, misunderstanding and supposing that the saying meant that God could not be seen immediately on account of the disproportion of the uncreated light to the eye of the created mind, they said that God is to be seen through certain effulgences both in the state of the way, and was seen in the state of innocence, and in the state of glory[^14]. And in those luminous influences they said that God is seen in these states more clearly and less clearly, according as God wills to temper himself more to our eye and to show himself by clearer theophanies. — But this position is heretical and reproved; and not without reason, because it is both against *reason*, since the soul cannot rest perfectly until it sees God in himself; and against sacred *Scripture*. For in First
<!-- page 544 -->
Corinthians thirteen[^15] it is said: *Then I shall know, even as I am known*; and in First John three: *We shall see him as he is*. To this very point too innumerable authorities of the doctors are found, and by adhering to all of these, that error is to be reproved; and the authorities, if any seem to be for it, are all to be expounded, because they speak of the knowledge of *comprehension*, by which something is said to be known totally; and by this knowledge God is knowable to himself alone, as will be made clear in the third book[^16].

The second mode of speaking is that God is to be seen in himself by purged minds not only in the fatherland, but also in the state of innocence and in the state of the way; nor is there a difference except in degree, in that[^17] he will be seen more clearly and more perfectly in the state of glory, and less perfectly in the state of innocence, and least of all in the state of fallen nature. Now the difference of these degrees comes from this, that the soul in the state of glory is entirely freed from the burden of the body, or entirely has a spiritual body, which in no way impedes it from being able to tend immediately toward God and according to its whole power. But in the state of fallen nature, because it has a corruptible and animal body, it is impeded and weighed down by its earthly dwelling, so that it cannot tend perfectly into that light. But in the state of established nature it held itself in a middle way, because the body of Adam, although it was not subject to the necessity of dying and to passibility, nevertheless was in need of nourishment and the soul had to be occupied at times about the governance and sustenance of its body; and therefore the first man did not behold God so excellently as the Blessed behold him in glory, nor so faintly as holy men behold him in present misery. — Now they draw out this position of theirs from the authorities of Augustine, who says in many places in the book *On the Trinity* that even in the present life a man can have God more known to him than his brother, and this in the eighth book[^18]; and elsewhere he says that « he is discerned by the most purged minds ». He also teaches, in the eighth book, that God is beheld through an intuition of truth and goodness. — But this position, although it is not so adverse to the truth as the first, nevertheless does not accord with the sayings of the Saints. For Dionysius says in the book *On Mystical Theology*[^19] that the most excellent mode of contemplating is *to ascend unknowingly*, because not even Moses himself was able to see God, and therefore he is said to have been led into the darkness. Hence Dionysius calls those untaught who say that they know him *who made darkness his hiding-place*. And Gregory also says[^20] that « however much the mind advances in contemplation, it does not arrive at the sight of God ». And the doctors commonly agree in this, understanding that which the Apostle says[^21], that *as long as we are in this body, we are pilgrims from the Lord and walk by faith, not by sight*. — Hence if any authorities are found to say that God is seen and discerned in the present by man, they are not to be understood as that he is seen in his *essence*, but that he is known in some *interior effect*, as will now better appear; unless perhaps in those who are rapt, as we believe was the case with Paul[^22], who by a special privilege transcend the state of wayfarers, and there do nothing, but are only acted upon.

The third mode of speaking is that in the fatherland God is seen[^23] immediately and fully, as far as is on the part of the one seeing; but in the state of misery mediately and half-fully; but in the state of innocence in a middle way, namely immediately and half-fully: half-fully, I say, because he had not yet received the full reward; immediately, however, because he had no interposition of a veil. And the words of the Master and of Hugh seem to sound this[^24]. — Yet neither is it to be understood thus, that man in the state of innocence saw God in his essence, or face to face. For the reasons and authorities adduced before stand against this.

And therefore there is a fourth mode of speaking on this matter, that in truth the knowledge of the state of innocence is midway between the knowledge of the state of glory and that of the state of misery, just as the place of paradise too is midway between this valley of misery and the heavenly fatherland; and just as the earthly paradise holds itself more with earth than with heaven, so Adam's *knowledge*, or the state of innocence, is more conformed to the knowledge of the present state than to that of the future. Hence only in the state of glory will
<!-- page 545 -->
God be seen immediately and in his[^25] substance, so that there will be no obscurity there. But in the state of innocence and of fallen nature God is seen by means of a mirror; yet differently, because in the state of innocence God was seen *through a clear mirror*; for there was no cloud of sin in the soul. But in the state of misery he is seen through a mirror darkened by the sin of the first man; and therefore now he is seen *through a mirror and in a riddle*[^26]. « For a riddle, as Augustine says in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*, is an obscure likeness ».

Hence note that there is a fourfold mode of knowing God, namely through *faith*, through *contemplation*, through *apparition*, and through *open vision*. And the first is of *common* grace, the second is of *excellent* grace, the third of *special* grace, and the fourth of *consummating* glory[^27]. — And the sufficiency of these modes is gathered thus. For everything that is known, is known through something *present*; if, therefore, God is known, it is necessary that he be known to the intellect through something present; and here I call *present* that which, as Augustine calls it[^28], is present to the intellect for being seen. Either, then, I know God through that which is present *to me*, or through that which is present *to another*. If through that which is present *to another*, thus it is the knowledge of *faith*. For that God is three and one, this I believe on the word of the Son of God, who narrated[^29] and preached this, and on the Holy Spirit, who inspired this. « For what we believe, we owe to authority », as Augustine says in *On the Usefulness of Believing*[^30]. — But if I know God through that which is present *to me*, this can be in three ways: either through that which is present to me in its *proper effect*; and then it is *contemplation*, which is the more eminent the more a man feels in himself the effect of divine grace, or the better too he knows how to consider God in exterior creatures. — Or it is present to me in a *proper sign*; and thus it is *apparition*, as God appeared to Abraham in a subjected creature, which figured God himself[^31]; and as the Holy Spirit appeared in a dove. — Or
<!-- page 546 -->
God is present in his *own light* and in himself; and thus it is the knowledge by which God is seen in his *own countenance*, or *face to face*; and thus it is *open vision*, which is wholly called the reward of all merits.

The *first*, therefore, and the *last* kind of knowledge did not belong to the state of innocence: the first, on account of *riddling* knowledge, and on account of this, that the knowledge of faith is for the most part *from hearing*, as the Apostle intimates[^32]; but the last could not be there on account of its *supreme perfection*; therefore it was not exhibited to man, but rather promised as a reward. But the two *middle* ones, namely of *contemplation* and of *apparition*, could be common to either state, especially the knowledge of *contemplation*, which is in either state. Yet there it flourished most fully both on account of the purity of the soul, and also on account of the subjection of the flesh and the lower powers; and because the soul for the most part lacks these two[^33] in the state of fallen nature, therefore it cannot attain to that degree of contemplation. — The arguments, therefore, showing that Adam did not know God by that kind of knowledge which we expect in glory, are to be granted; but to those which are adduced to the opposite, it is easy enough to respond.

**To the arguments for the affirmative part:**

*To 1, 2, 3.* For to those three authorities adduced first the response is now clear. For all are understood of the knowledge of contemplation, not through the removal of *any medium whatever*, but through the removal of the veil and of the obscurity, such as is in those who are infected by some[^34] vice of sin.

*To 4.* But to that which is objected, that he loved God immediately[^35]; it must be said that it is not alike. For love, as Bernard holds[^36], extends itself much further than vision; for from mere estimation love sometimes follows. And he himself also says, in the book *On the Love of God*, that where the intellect falls short, there the affection advances. And the reason for this is that vision is only of a thing present, but love is not only of a thing present, but also of an absent one. Moreover, vision does not signify any mode whatever of knowing, but a completed mode of knowing; whereas love
<!-- page 546b -->
can be both perfect and imperfect: therefore, although immediate *love* of God is on the way, it is nevertheless not necessary that there be immediate vision or *knowledge*[^37].

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that Adam desired to see God etc.; it must be said that it is true; but he so desired to see that he *had* some knowledge in which he was refreshed, and he *awaited* some as a reward and prize. And that which he awaited was the knowledge of the fatherland; but that which he had was the contemplation of the way, which was a vision *through a mirror*. — And if you should ask whether it was an *intellectual* vision or a *bodily* one; it must be said that it was intellectual; yet not of the divine itself in the least in itself, but of some grace or influence; and that he was able to know and see in himself by experience, as the holy soul feels when it melts[^38], when the Spouse addresses it.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that the human mind in that state was immediate to God; it must be said that it was immediate as to the *being of nature*, since no nature is higher than it[^39]; but as to *state* it was not immediate; for it was to be advanced to a further state. For then it was in the likeness of grace, but it was to be led on to the deiformity of glory, in which it would not only gaze upon the divine *effect*, but also upon the desired *countenance* itself. — Yet nonetheless I grant that the gaze of the eye[^40] can be fixed upon God, so that it look at nothing else; yet it will not perceive or see the brightness of that light itself, but rather will be elevated into the darkness, and to this knowledge it will be elevated through the removal of all things, as Dionysius says in the book *On Mystical Theology*[^41], and he calls this knowledge *learned ignorance*. For this is the knowledge in which the affection is wondrously inflamed, as is clear to those who have at times been accustomed to be elevated to anagogical[^42] raptures. This mode of knowing I judge to be worth seeking by every just man on this way; but if God should do anything beyond, this is a special privilege, not of the common law.

*To 7.* To that which is asked, whether God in
<!-- page 546c -->
the fatherland is seen through a medium, or without a medium; it must be answered that to see[^43] *through a medium* can be understood in three ways: either through a *disposing medium*, or through a *conveying medium*, or through a *leading medium*. By a *disposing medium* it is rightly and catholically held that God is to be seen in the fatherland, because the soul in the fatherland, by means of deiformity and the influence of glory, will be disposed to this, that it may most clearly be able to see God in himself. For the deiformity of glory is a sufficient disposition for this, that the soul may be able to see God in himself. For in order that it may see, it is not necessary that the soul be capable of acting upon God; for to see is rather in receiving than in acting, especially when light is seen. Nor is it necessary that it[^44] be proportioned quantitatively, namely as to infinity, so that it be as great as God is in power; but it suffices qualitatively, as to an expressed likeness, according to whose greater and lesser participation there will be an order in the degrees of rewards in future glory. And thus it is clear that if it be held that God is seen through a *disposing medium*, the persuasions which were posited before are dissolved, and the truth is unfolded.

But that God is seen through a *conveying medium*, no one held, since he is immediate to the rational creature[^45]; but some held that God is seen through a *leading* or tempering *medium*, lest by the excellence of the light the keenness of the intellect be dulled and rather cast down than gladdened. But to posit this, as was touched on before[^46], is neither sound nor has reason, because that light is rather salvific than corruptive; hence its excellence in no way harms, but rather confers benefit. And because that peace and joy and light surpasses every sense[^47], therefore the whole man is everywhere filled, so that he seeks nothing else, but rather our intelligence is absorbed by the eminence of the light, as our affection is by the torrent of pleasure. And this was determined above in the first book, distinction one[^48], on enjoyment.

Now, however, it must be firmly held that, although Adam did not see God in his substance in the state of innocence, he will nevertheless be seen in glory in his
<!-- page 547 -->
substance. Nor is it permitted to hold or say the contrary of this. For this is one of the ten articles reproved by the university of the masters of Paris in the time of Bishop William and of Odo the Chancellor and of brother Alexander of Hales, our father and master, which, that they may be avoided, are written down below[^49].

#### THE ARTICLES CONDEMNED AT PARIS.

The first article is that the divine essence in itself will be seen neither by man nor by Angel[^50].

The second is that, although the divine essence is one in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, nevertheless as in the formal character it is one in the Father and the Son, and not one in these and the Holy Spirit, and yet the form is the same as the divine essence.

The third is that the Holy Spirit as love or bond does not proceed from the Son, but only from the Father.

The fourth is that the glorified souls are not in the empyrean heaven with the Angels, nor will the glorified bodies be there, but in the watery or crystalline heaven, which is above the firmament[^51].

The fifth is that the bad angel in the first instant of his creation was bad and was never good.

The sixth is that an Angel in one instant can be in diverse places and even everywhere[^52], if he should will it.

The seventh is that there are many truths from eternity which are not God.

The eighth is that the first *now* and creation-passion is neither Creator nor creature[^53].

The ninth is that whoever has better natural endowments will of necessity have more of grace and glory.

The tenth is that the bad angel never had anything whereby he could stand, nor even Adam in the state of innocence.

All these errors were prohibited and condemned by the aforesaid persons, and therefore they are to be avoided as pestilential.

la: Libr. I. p. VI. c. 14: *Cognovit ergo homo Creatorem suum non ea cognitione, quae foris ex auditu solo percipitur, sed ea, quae potius intus per inspirationem ministratur. Non ea quidem, qua Deus modo a credentibus absens fide quaeritur, sed ea... scienti manifestius cernebatur.* — Fide cod. cc et ed. 1. posuimus cum originali *manifestius* pro *manifestus*.

en: Bk. I, p. VI, c. 14: *Therefore man knew his Creator not by that knowledge which is perceived from without by hearing alone, but by that which is rather administered within through inspiration. Not indeed by that by which God is now sought by believers, being absent, through faith, but by that... was more manifestly discerned by one who knew.* — On the faith of cod. cc and ed. 1 we have put, with the original, *manifestius* (more manifestly) for *manifestus*.

la: Codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 falso *Duplici*. — Quoad *videre facie ad faciem* cfr. I. Cor. 13, 12.

en: The codices, with eds. 1, 2, 3, wrongly *Duplici*. — Concerning *to see face to face* cf. 1 Cor. 13, 12.

la: Vers. 11. — Textus seq. est Num. 12, 8.

en: Verse 11. — The following text is Num. 12, 8.

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 11, ubi, distincto duplici paradiso, in quo homo positus fuit, de paradiso animae disserens dicit, quod anima « Dei contemplatione... multa cum voluptate frueretur eaque pasceretur ». August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 26, loquens de homine in paradiso posito ait: *Vivebat fruens Deo.* Cfr. supra pag. 426, nota 5. et pag. 427, nota 1.

en: Bk. II, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 11, where, having distinguished a twofold paradise in which man was set, discussing the paradise of the soul he says that the soul « would enjoy and be fed with much pleasure by the contemplation... of God ». Augustine, XIV *On the City of God*, c. 26, speaking of man set in paradise, says: *He lived enjoying God.* Cf. above p. 426, note 5, and p. 427, note 1.

la: August., Serm. 33. c. 6. n. 6.: *Videre Deum volumus, videre Deum quaerimus, videre Deum inardescimus. Quis non?* — Triplex visio, de qua infra agitur, ab August. explicatur, XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 6. n. 15. seqq. — In fine argumenti pro *in sua essentia* multi codd., inter quos F K T W Y, cum edd. 1, 2 *in sui essentia*.

en: Augustine, Serm. 33, c. 6, n. 6: *We wish to see God, we seek to see God, we burn to see God. Who does not?* — The threefold vision, of which there is treatment below, is explained by Augustine, XII *On Genesis according to the Letter*, c. 6, n. 15 ff. — At the end of the argument, for *in his essence* many codices, among them F K T W Y, with eds. 1, 2 *in sui essentia*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 45, n. 5. — Mox pro *naturae incorruptae* codd. F V *naturae institutae*, et dein pro *peccati malitiam* Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *peccati maculam*.

en: Cf. above p. 45, n. 5. — Soon, for *of uncorrupted nature* codd. F V *of established nature*, and then for *malice of sin* the Vatican edition, with one or another codex, *stain of sin*.

la: Secundum August., de Vera Relig. c. 29. n. 83. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 68, nota 3. — Vat., discrepans cum codd. et primis edd., *quod cognoscit* pro *per quod cognoscit*. Immediate post plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 omittunt *sed*.

en: According to Augustine, *On True Religion* c. 29, n. 83. Cf. tom. I, p. 68, note 3. — The Vatican edition, differing from the codices and the first editions, *quod cognoscit* for *per quod cognoscit*. Immediately after, very many codices with eds. 1, 2 omit *sed*.

la: Aristot., VI. Ethic. c. 1: *Siquidem ex similitudine quadam et affinitate cognitio existit ipsis* (potentiis animae).

en: Aristotle, VI *Ethics* c. 1: *Since indeed knowledge comes to be for them* (the powers of the soul) *from a certain likeness and affinity.*

la: Vers. 20.

en: Verse 20.

la: Vers. 18.

en: Verse 18.

la: Vers. 1. Verba Gregorii, II. in Ezech. homil. 2. n. 14. haec sunt: *Cum mens in contemplatione profecerit, non iam quod ipse est, sed id quod sub ipso est, contemplatur.* — In hoc textu pro *mens* non pauci codd., ut C L N P Q R S T, substituunt *vis*, alii, ut F I O, *quis*. Aliquanto inferius post *videat* in codd. Y aa subiungitur: *quod Adam in statu innocentiae Deum in se ipso non videbat*; in nonnullis aliis codd., ut D Q X, immediate post *ergo* inseritur *Adam*; pro *ergo* Vat. substituit *ipse*.

en: Verse 1. The words of Gregory, II *On Ezekiel*, homily 2, n. 14, are these: *When the mind has advanced in contemplation, it contemplates not now what he himself is, but that which is below him.* — In this text, for *mens* (mind) not a few codices, as C L N P Q R S T, substitute *vis* (power), others, as F I O, *quis* (who). Somewhat below, after *videat* in codd. Y aa is subjoined: *that Adam in the state of innocence did not see God in himself*; in some other codd., as D Q X, immediately after *ergo* is inserted *Adam*; for *ergo* the Vatican edition substitutes *ipse*.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 90. serm. 2. n. 13: *Quidquid laboras, ad hoc laboras, ut videas. Nescio, quid magnum est quod visuri sumus, quando tota merces nostra visio est* etc.

en: Augustine, *Expositions on Ps. 90*, serm. 2, n. 13: *Whatever you labor at, you labor for this, that you may see. I know not how great is that which we are to see, since our whole reward is the vision* etc.

la: De Incomprehensibili, homil. 3. n. 1.

en: *On the Incomprehensible*, homily 3, n. 1.

la: Supple cum Alex. Hal., qui S. p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1. eandem propositionem exhibet, *videtur* (vel *videbitur*). Vat. legit cum ed. 4: *et in statu innocentiae, ita videbitur etiam in statu gloriae.* In cod. X deest *videbatur*.

en: Supply, with Alexander of Hales, who S. p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1. presents the same proposition, *is seen* (or *will be seen*). The Vatican edition reads with ed. 4: *and in the state of innocence, so it will be seen also in the state of glory.* In cod. X *videbatur* is lacking.

la: Episl. I. Cor. 13, 12. — Verba Augustini, loc. cit. c. 9. n. 16. sunt: *Sicut nomine speculi imaginem voluit intelligi, ita nomine aenigmatis quamvis similitudinem, tamen obscuram et ad perspiciendum difficilem.* — Paulo inferius pro *modus cognoscendi* Vat. cum ed. 4 *genus cognoscendi*.

en: Ep. 1 Cor. 13, 12. — The words of Augustine, loc. cit. c. 9, n. 16, are: *Just as by the name of mirror he wished an image to be understood, so by the name of riddle a likeness, but an obscure one and difficult to perceive.* — A little below, for *mode of knowing* the Vatican edition with ed. 4 *kind of knowing*.

la: Intellige: ita quod. Cod. cc et ed. 1 *quia*. Paulo inferius idem cod. cc *provenit* pro *venit*.

en: Understand: so that. Cod. cc and ed. 1 *quia*. A little below, the same cod. cc *provenit* for *venit*.

la: Cap. 8. n. 12. — Seq. textus est I. de Trin. c. 2. n. 4. Tertius text. ibid. VIII. c. 2. n. 3. seqq.

en: Ch. 8, n. 12. — The following text is I *On the Trinity* c. 2, n. 4. The third text ibid. VIII, c. 2, n. 3 ff.

la: Cap. 1. § 1, ubi Timotheum alloquens dicit: *Sensus relinque et intellectuales operationes... ut ad unionem eius, qui supra essentiam et scientiam est, quantum fas est, indemonstrabiliter assurgas* (ἀγνώστως ἀνατάθητι, quod Scotus Erigena transtulit: *inscius restituere*). Cfr. ibid. § 3. et c. 3. — Seq. textus est ibid. c. 1. § 2, et verba Script. sunt Ps. 17, 12.

en: Ch. 1, § 1, where, addressing Timothy, he says: *Leave the senses and the intellectual operations... that you may, as far as is lawful, rise indemonstrably to the union of him who is above essence and knowledge* (ἀγνώστως ἀνατάθητι, which Scotus Erigena rendered: *inscius restituere*). Cf. ibid. § 3 and c. 3. — The following text is ibid. c. 1, § 2, and the words of Scripture are Ps. 17, 12.

la: Libr. II. in Ezech. homil. 2. n. 14. Cfr. hic fundam. 3.

en: Bk. II *On Ezekiel*, homily 2, n. 14. Cf. here fundamentum 3.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 5, 6. seq.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 12, 2. seqq. — Paulo superius pro *in aliquo effectu interiori*, quod habent fere omnes codd. cum edd. 1, 2; Vat. *in aliquo effectu inferiori*, non quidem falso, sed minus consentanee dictis in solut. ad 5. in fine et lit. Magistri, hic c. 3. Aliquanto inferius post *nec ibi* cod. cc et ed. 1 interserunt *quidem*.

en: Ep. 2 Cor. 12, 2 ff. — A little above, for *in some interior effect*, which nearly all codices have with eds. 1, 2; the Vatican edition *in some inferior effect*, not indeed falsely, but less consonantly with what is said in the solution to 5 at the end and with the text of the Master, here c. 3. Somewhat below, after *nec ibi* cod. cc and ed. 1 insert *quidem*.

la: Vat., ceteras edd. et multos codd. secuta, *videbitur*, qua lectione recepta, coacta fuit paulo inferius post *miseriae* verbum *videtur*, et post *innocentiae* verbum *videbatur* suo marte subiungere.

en: The Vatican edition, following the other editions and many codices, *videbitur* (will be seen), with which reading received it was compelled a little below to subjoin, after the word *miseriae*, the word *videtur*, and after *innocentiae* the word *videbatur*, on its own authority.

la: Hic in arg. 1. et 2. ad opp. citt.

en: Here in args. 1 and 2 to the contrary, cited above.

la: Multi codd. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 et Vat. *sui*: pro lectione nostra *sua* sunt codd. aa cc et ed. 1.

en: Many codices with eds. 2, 3, 4 and the Vatican edition *sui*: for our reading *sua* are codd. aa cc and ed. 1.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12. — Verba Augustini, loc. cit. c. 9. n. 16. sunt: *Sicut nomine speculi imaginem voluit intelligi, ita nomine aenigmatis quamvis similitudinem, tamen obscuram et ad perspiciendum difficilem.*

la: Codd. F W *gratiae*. Subinde pro *consummantis* plures codd., ut B R M P V, male *conservantis*. Paulo inferius post *cognoscitur per aliquid praesens* cod. I adiungit *intellectui*.

en: Codd. F W *of grace*. Then for *consummating* several codices, as B R M P V, wrongly *conserving*. A little below, after *is known through something present* cod. I adds *to the intellect*.

la: Tract. I. in Ioan. n. 19, de quo vide supra pag. 123, nota 6. Cfr. etiam X. de Trin. c. 9. n. 12. — Necessitas praesentiae obiecti in cognitione colligitur ex eo, quod cum cognitio sit actio immanens, ad hoc quod obiectum cognoscatur, requiritur, ut ipsum facultatem cognoscitivam immutet et quasi sistatur in ipso cognoscente.

en: Tract. I *On John* n. 19, concerning which see above p. 123, note 6. Cf. also X *On the Trinity* c. 9, n. 12. — The necessity of the presence of the object in knowledge is gathered from this, that since knowledge is an immanent action, in order that the object be known, it is required that it alter the cognitive faculty and as it were be set in the knower himself.

la: Ioan. 1, 18: *Deum nemo vidit unquam; unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit.*

en: John 1, 18: *No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has narrated him.*

la: Gen. 18, 1. seqq. — De apparitione Spiritus S. vide Matth. 3, 16. et Luc. 3, 22. — Pro *figurabat* plures codd., inter quos C F I L O S T Y aa, *significabat* aut *signabat*. Paulo inferius pro *qua videtur Deus* cod. T *qua dicitur videri Deus*.

en: Gen. 18, 1 ff. — On the apparition of the Holy Spirit see Matt. 3, 16 and Luke 3, 22. — For *figured* several codices, among them C F I L O S T Y aa, *signified* or *marked*. A little below, for *by which God is seen* cod. T *by which God is said to be seen*.

la: In Vat. et edd. 3, 4 nec non in aliquibus codd., inter quos aa, desideratur *quia*.

en: In the Vatican edition and eds. 3, 4, and also in some codices, among them aa, *quia* is lacking.

la: Nonnulli codd., ut A cc cum ed. 1, adiiciunt *modo*.

en: Some codices, as A cc with ed. 1, add *modo*.

la: Cod. aa post *videre* interiicit *Deum*.

en: Cod. aa after *videre* inserts *Deum*.

la: Tract. de Contemplando Deo (olim Bernardo tribut., sed est Gulielmi, abbatis S. Theodorici, qui etiam scripsit librum de Natura et dignitate amoris, mox citatum), c. 8. n. 17: « Licet enim nullus sensus cuiuslibet animae vel spiritus te comprehendat, tamen totum te, quantus es, comprehendit amor amantis, qui totum te amat, quantus es ». Ratio huius est, quia actus cognoscendi dicit motum a rebus ad animam, actus amoris autem motum ab anima ad res. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 32. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. — Seq. text. est de Natura et dignitate amoris, c. 8. n. 21.

en: *Tract. on Contemplating God* (formerly attributed to Bernard, but it is by William, abbot of St. Theodoric, who also wrote the book *On the Nature and Dignity of Love*, cited soon after), c. 8, n. 17: « For although no sense of any soul or spirit comprehends you, nevertheless the love of the lover comprehends the whole of you, as great as you are, which loves the whole of you, as great as you are ». The reason for this is that the act of knowing signifies a motion from things to the soul, but the act of love a motion from the soul to things. Cf. I Sent. d. 32. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. — The following text is *On the Nature and Dignity of Love*, c. 8, n. 21.

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. — Mox pro *ulteriorem* sola Vat. *altiorem*.

en: Cf. above d. 10. a. 2. q. 1 f. and d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. — Soon, for *ulteriorem* (further) the Vatican edition alone *altiorem* (higher).

la: Pauci codd., inter quos aa, cum Vat. et edd. 3, 4 *liquescit*.

en: A few codices, among them aa, with the Vatican edition and eds. 3, 4 *liquescit* (it melts).

la: Vat. cum uno alteroque cod., ut F aa, *sit immediata*.

en: The Vatican edition with one or another codex, as F aa, *sit immediata* (it is immediate).

la: Multi codd., ut F K T V W, cum edd. 1, 2 *oculus aspectus*. Mox pro *perspiciet* multi codd., ut B C D E S W Z, *perficiet*, nonnulli, ut K T, cum edd. 2, 3 *proficiet*.

en: Many codices, as F K T V W, with eds. 1, 2 *oculus aspectus*. Soon, for *perspiciet* (will perceive) many codices, as B C D E S W Z, *perficiet*, some, as K T, with eds. 2, 3 *proficiet*.

la: Cap. 1. § 2. et c. 2. seq. — Immediate ante loco *per omnium ablationem* (scil. negationem sive remotionem creaturarum) Vat. cum ed. 4 *per omnium oblivionem*, plures codd. cum edd. 1, 3 *per omnium oblationem*, quae duae lectiones et textui originali contradicunt et ceteris codd. nec non ed. 2.

en: Ch. 1, § 2, and c. 2 f. — Immediately before, in place of *through the removal of all things* (namely the negation or removal of creatures) the Vatican edition with ed. 4 *through the oblivion of all things*, several codices with eds. 1, 3 *through the offering of all things*, which two readings both contradict the original text and the other codices as well as ed. 2.

la: Vox Graeca ἀναγωγικόν (derivata a verbo ἀνάγω i. e. sustollo) hic sumitur in eodem sensu, quem habet locutio *sensus anagogicus* s. Scripturae, cuius sensus spiritualis (mysticus) dividitur in allegoricum, moralem et anagogicum; anagogicus autem est, « prout significat ea quae sunt in aeterna gloria » (S. Thom., S. I. q. 1. a. 10.). — Paulo superius ante *eis patet* cod. cc et ed. 1 praemittunt *in*.

en: The Greek word ἀναγωγικόν (derived from the verb ἀνάγω, i.e. I lift up) is taken here in the same sense as the phrase *anagogical sense* of sacred Scripture, whose spiritual (mystical) sense is divided into the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical; and the anagogical is, « insofar as it signifies the things which are in eternal glory » (St. Thomas, S. I. q. 1. a. 10.). — A little above, before *eis patet* cod. cc and ed. 1 prefix *in*.

la: Non pauci codd., ut H I K T V aa, cum ed. 1 *ei scil. Deo*. Mox pro *quantus*, quod auctoritate codd. V W cc et ed. 1 posuimus, Vat. *quanta*, codd. T ee *quantum*. — Cfr. de his proposit. I. Sent. d. 3. p. 1. q. 1. ad 1.

en: Not a few codices, as H I K T V aa, with ed. 1 *ei scil. Deo* (to it, namely to God). Soon, for *quantus*, which we have put on the authority of codd. V W cc and ed. 1, the Vatican edition *quanta*, codd. T ee *quantum*. — Cf. on these matters I Sent. d. 3. p. 1. q. 1. ad 1.

la: Vide supra d. 8. p. II. q. 2.

en: See above d. 8. p. II. q. 2.

la: Hic in corp. art., ubi refutatur prima opinio. — Paulo inferius post *unde excellentia* edd. 3, 4 cum Vat. supplent *illius*.

en: Here in the body of the article, where the first opinion is refuted. — A little below, after *unde excellentia* eds. 3, 4 with the Vatican edition supply *illius*.

la: Phil. 4, 7: *Et pax Dei, quae exsuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra* etc. — In fine huius proposit. respicitur illud Ps. 35, 9. seq.: *Inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus tuae, et torrente voluptatis tuae potabis eos. Quoniam apud te est fons vitae, et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen.*

en: Phil. 4, 7: *And may the peace of God, which surpasses every sense, guard your hearts* etc. — At the end of this proposition there is regard to that of Ps. 35, 9 f.: *They shall be inebriated with the abundance of your house, and you shall give them to drink of the torrent of your pleasure. For with you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light.*

la: Art. 3. q. 1. seq.

la: In cod. N annotatur: *Haec sententia data fuit Parisiis anno Domini 1240 in octava Epiphaniae*, quibus verbis terminatur etiam in Collectione D'Argentré (cfr. nota seq.) enumeratio istorum decem articulorum.

en: In cod. N it is noted: *This sentence was given at Paris in the year of the Lord 1240, on the octave of the Epiphany*, with which words the enumeration of these ten articles also ends in the Collection of D'Argentré (cf. the following note).

la: Carol. Du Plessis D'Argentré, in Collectione iudiciorum de novissimis erroribus etc. tom. 1. pag. 186 seq. et quoad ordinem harum propositionum et quoad aliquas lectiones parumper discrepat, ut hic notatur. In prima habet: *in se, nec a sanctis animabus glorificatis nec ab Angelis videtur aut videbitur.* Secundus est, quod licet divina essentia *eadem* sit... tamen ut *haec essentia est* in ratione formae... et Filio, *sed non una in* Spiritu sancto. *Et in his tamen* forma idem est quod essentia. Tertius est... sanctus *prout* amor etc.

en: Carol. Du Plessis D'Argentré, in his *Collection of Judgments concerning the most recent errors* etc., tom. 1, p. 186 f., differs slightly both as to the order of these propositions and as to some readings, as is here noted. In the first he has: *in itself, and is or will be seen neither by the holy glorified souls nor by the Angels.* The second is that, although the divine essence is *the same*... nevertheless as *this essence is* in the formal character... and the Son, *but not one in* the Holy Spirit. *And in these nevertheless* the form is the same as the essence. The third is... the Spirit *as* love etc.

la: D'Argentré ponit quarto loco errorem a nobis cum codd. et edd. exhibitum ut septimum, scil. quod multae sunt veritates etc.; quinto loco errorem nobis octavum; sexto loco errorem nobis quintum; septimo loco errorem nobis quartum. In quarto errore, iuxta nostram enumerationem, Vat. *in solo aqueo* pro *in caelo aqueo*, et in fine post verba *supra firmamentum* D'Argentré addit *et hoc idem praesumunt dicere de B. Virgine.* In errore quinto (iuxta nostram lect.) D'Argentré: *malus, et nunquam nisi malus.*

en: D'Argentré places in the fourth position the error exhibited by us, with the codices and editions, as the seventh, namely that there are many truths etc.; in the fifth position the error which is our eighth; in the sixth position the error which is our fifth; in the seventh position the error which is our fourth. In the fourth error, according to our enumeration, the Vatican edition *in solo aqueo* for *in caelo aqueo*, and at the end, after the words *above the firmament*, D'Argentré adds *and they presume to say this same thing of the Blessed Virgin.* In the fifth error (according to our reading) D'Argentré: *bad, and never anything but bad.*

la: Cod. ee *et in ubique*; cod. cc et ed. 1 omittunt *et*, cod. aa *etiam*; D'Argentré: *et ubique, si velit esse ubique.* Seq. errorem (septim. apud nos) D'Argentré sic exhibet: *quod multae veritates fuerunt ab aeterno, quae non sunt ipse Deus.*

en: Cod. ee *et in ubique*; cod. cc and ed. 1 omit *et*, cod. aa *etiam*; D'Argentré: *and everywhere, if he should will to be everywhere.* The following error (our seventh) D'Argentré thus exhibits: *that many truths were from eternity, which are not God himself.*

la: D'Argentré: *non sunt Creator nec creatura*; in nono pro *plus habebit de necessitate de gratia et gloria* legit: *de necessitate habebit maiorem gratiam et gloriam*; demum in ultimo errore pro *malus angelus* substituit *diabolus*.

en: D'Argentré: *are neither Creator nor creature*; in the ninth, for *will of necessity have more of grace and glory* he reads: *will of necessity have greater grace and glory*; finally, in the last error, for *bad angel* he substitutes *the devil*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Diffusius et duabus distinctis quaest. de hac re disputat Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1. et 2, in quibus multa iisdem verbis dicta sunt, quae hic leguntur; de quo vide scholion ad q. 1. — Sibi constans S. Bonav. hic clarius explicat eadem principia, quae iam docuit tum quoad cognitionem Dei generaliter (I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. 2, cfr. ibi scholia), tum quoad cognitionem Dei in statu innocentiae (ibid. q. 3.), tum quoad eandem in Angelis (II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.).

**II.** Antiqui Scholastici omnes propositam quaestionem solvunt ordiendo ab hoc principio, quod Adam pro illo statu habuit cognitionem mediam inter cognitionem Dei in statu naturae lapsae et cognitionem eius in statu gloriae (cfr. Magister, hic c. 3.). Cum autem de utraque Dei cognitione, scil. in via et in patria, fuerint diversae opiniones, et ipse Hugo a S. Vict. et Magister (vide hic argg. 1. 2. ad oppos.) ambigue locuti sint; S. Doctor simul disputat de cognitione Dei in his duobus statibus duosque principales errores reprobat. Ipsi in hoc concordat communis doctrina cum S. Thoma, qui (hic q. 2. a. 1.) dicit: « Quidam... errant ponentes, Deum nunquam per essentiam, nec in patria nec in via, videri, quod haereticum est... Quidam vero per contrarium dicunt, Deum per essentiam in *omni statu* videri; et his etiam auctoritates Sanctorum repugnant » (cfr. S. I. q. 94. a. 1, de Verit. q. 18. a. 1. 2.). — Conveniunt doctores etiam in hoc, quod sicut in statu viae, sic et in statu innocentiae Deus non cognoscebatur, saltem habitualiter, nisi in speculo sive in aliquo, in quo relucet similitudo Dei, sicut in speculo relucet similitudo rei corporalis. Diximus saltem habitualiter, quia ab eisdem in medio relinquebatur, sed ut parum probabile (cfr. S. Thom., de Verit. q. 18. a. 1. ad 14.), utrum mens Adami in sopore a Deo immisso per modum raptus transeunter elevatus sit ad videndum Deum, quemadmodum de Moyse et Paulo plures cum Ss. Augustino et Thoma, aliis cum B. Alberto refragantibus, probabiliter sentiunt. — Denique ipsi communiter consentiebant S. Bonaventurae quoad distinctionem duplicis speculi, in quo Adam Deum videre poterat, scil. « in speculo imaginis interioris per lucem intelligentiae interioris, et in speculo vestigii exterioris creaturarum per lucem rationis ex visibilibus invisibilia conspicientis » (Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1.). Ad rem S. Thom. (hic loc. cit.) dicit: « Tripliciter (Deus) videri potest: uno modo per suam essentiam; alio modo per effectum aliquem eius, influentem in intellectum videntis; tertio modo per effectum aliquem extra intellectum videntis, in quo divina similitudo resultat ». Idem (ibid. ad 1.) verba, quod Adam in primo statu Deum sine medio vidisset, ita explicat: « Non quia ipsum per essentiam videret, sed quia non per medium argumentationis ex creaturis sensibilibus procedens, in cognitionem eius deveniebat, sed mediante effectu spirituali, in intellectum eius resultante, sicut et Angeli in primo statu videbant ». Cfr. etiam Sum. loc. cit. ad 3, ubi duplex medium distinguitur: « quoddam, in quo simul videtur quod per medium videri dicitur, sicut cum homo videtur per speculum et simul videtur cum ipso speculo. Aliud medium est, per cuius notitiam in aliquid ignotum devenimus, sicut est medium demonstrationis, et sine tali medio Deus videbatur, non tamen sine *primo medio* »; cfr. de Verit. q. 18. a. 1. 2. — Quod verba *cognitio rei per medium vel sine medio* multipliciter intelligi possint, patet ex solut. ad 7. aliisque locis S. Bonaventurae iam citatis, et fusius docetur ab Aegid. R. (hic q. 2. a. 1.), qui enumerat ibi quintuplex medium, scil. speculare, situale, confortativum, habituale et actuale.

**III.** In corp. docetur cum Alex. Hal., quod cognitio fidei non competat statui innocentiae, ob duplicem rationem ibi tactam. Sed alii principales Scholastici omnino tenent contrariam sententiam, ut S. Thom., S. II. II. q. 5. a. 1, de Verit. q. 18. a. 3; Richard., hic a. 2. q. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. circa finem. Hi ad rationem primam S. Bonaventurae, quod cognitio aenigmatica non competat illi statui, distinguunt aenigma dupliciter; vel secundum quod importat obscuritatem poenae vel culpae, vel secundum quod importat rei creditae *non apparentiam* in sua claritate, ut dicit Richard. a Med. — Notandae sunt in fine quaestionis theses ab universitate magistrorum Parisiensium condemnatae, quorum verba cum textu a D'Argentré publicato exacte contulimus. Quoad articulum octavum cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. et schol.

**IV.** Praeter iam citatos: B. Albert., hic q. 2; S. p. II. tr. 14. q. 89. m. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Alexander of Hales disputes this matter more diffusely and in two distinct questions, S. p. II. q. 92. m. 2. a. 1 and 2, in which many things are said in the same words as are read here; concerning whom see the scholion to q. 1. — Consistent with himself, St. Bonaventure here more clearly explains the same principles which he has already taught both concerning the knowledge of God generally (I Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1. 2, cf. the scholia there), and concerning the knowledge of God in the state of innocence (ibid. q. 3.), and concerning the same in the Angels (II Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.).

**II.** All the ancient Scholastics solve the proposed question by beginning from this principle, that Adam for that state had a knowledge midway between the knowledge of God in the state of fallen nature and the knowledge of him in the state of glory (cf. the Master, here c. 3.). But since concerning each knowledge of God, namely on the way and in the fatherland, there were diverse opinions, and Hugh of St. Victor himself and the Master (see here args. 1, 2 to the contrary) spoke ambiguously; the holy Doctor disputes at once concerning the knowledge of God in these two states and reproves two principal errors. In this the common doctrine agrees with St. Thomas, who (here q. 2. a. 1.) says: « Some... err in positing that God is never seen by essence, neither in the fatherland nor on the way, which is heretical... But some, on the contrary, say that God is seen by essence in *every state*; and the authorities of the Saints also oppose these » (cf. S. I. q. 94. a. 1, On Truth q. 18. a. 1. 2.). — The doctors also agree in this, that just as in the state of the way, so also in the state of innocence God was not known, at least habitually, except in a mirror or in something in which the likeness of God shines forth, as in a mirror the likeness of a bodily thing shines forth. We said at least habitually, because it was left undecided among them, but as something scarcely probable (cf. St. Thomas, On Truth q. 18. a. 1. ad 14.), whether the mind of Adam, in a sleep sent by God, was elevated by way of rapture transiently to seeing God, just as concerning Moses and Paul many, with Sts. Augustine and Thomas, others with B. Albert opposing, probably hold. — Finally, they commonly consented to St. Bonaventure as to the distinction of the twofold mirror in which Adam was able to see God, namely « in the mirror of the interior image through the light of interior understanding, and in the mirror of the exterior vestige of creatures through the light of reason which discerns the invisible things from the visible » (Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1.). To the point St. Thomas (here loc. cit.) says: « (God) can be seen in three ways: in one way through his essence; in another way through some effect of his, flowing into the intellect of the one seeing; in a third way through some effect outside the intellect of the one seeing, in which the divine likeness results ». The same (ibid. ad 1.) thus explains the words that Adam in the first state would have seen God without a medium: « Not because he saw him through his essence, but because he came to knowledge of him not through a medium of argumentation proceeding from sensible creatures, but by means of a spiritual effect resulting in his intellect, just as the Angels too saw in the first state ». Cf. also the Sum. loc. cit. ad 3, where a twofold medium is distinguished: « one in which there is seen at the same time that which is said to be seen through a medium, as when a man is seen through a mirror and the mirror itself is seen along with him. Another medium is that through whose notion we come to something unknown, as is the medium of demonstration, and without such a medium God was seen, yet not without the *first medium* »; cf. On Truth q. 18. a. 1. 2. — That the words *knowledge of a thing through a medium or without a medium* can be understood in many ways is clear from the solution to 7 and other places of St. Bonaventure already cited, and is more fully taught by Giles of Rome (here q. 2. a. 1.), who there enumerates a fivefold medium, namely the mirroring, the situational, the strengthening, the habitual, and the actual.

**III.** In the body it is taught, with Alexander of Hales, that the knowledge of faith does not belong to the state of innocence, for the twofold reason touched on there. But the other principal Scholastics altogether hold the contrary opinion, as St. Thomas, S. II. II. q. 5. a. 1, On Truth q. 18. a. 3; Richard, here a. 2. q. 2; Giles of Rome, here q. 2. a. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. near the end. These, to the first reason of St. Bonaventure, that riddling knowledge does not belong to that state, distinguish the riddle in two ways; either according as it imports the obscurity of penalty or fault, or according as it imports the *non-appearance* of the thing believed in its clarity, as Richard of Mediavilla says. — Worthy of note at the end of the question are the theses condemned by the university of the masters of Paris, whose words we have exactly collated with the text published by D'Argentré. Concerning the eighth article cf. above d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. and the scholion.

**IV.** Besides those already cited: B. Albert, here q. 2; S. p. II. tr. 14. q. 89. m. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, here the single question.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p54{2..8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 38034–38432. Vol II PDF-priority inversion applied throughout the Respondeo and condemned-articles list. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page-split map (q3 footer notes, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^53]):**
- **p.542** footers 1–6 → [^1]–[^6] (args 1–7 portion: Hugo de S.V. *de Sacr.*; Magister IV.d.1; Vers.11+Num.12,8; Damascenus *de Fide orth.*II.11+Aug. *de Civ.Dei*; Aug. Serm.33; Cfr.pag.45 + *naturae institutae*/*peccati maculam* vars).
- **p.543** footers 1–8 → [^7]–[^14] (persuasiones + Sed contra: Aug. *de Vera Relig.*; Aristot. VI Ethic.; Vers.20; Vers.18; Gregorius II in Ezech. + *mens/vis/quis* var; Aug. *Enarr. in Ps.90*; Chrysost. *de Incompreh.*; Supple cum Alex.Hal.).
- **p.544** footers 1–5 → [^15]–[^19] (Respondeo: 1 Cor.13,12 + Aug. *aenigma*; Dist.14 a.1 q.2; *ita quod*/*quia* var; Cap.8 n.12 *de Trin.*; Dionys. *Myst.Theol.* c.1 §1 + Greek).
- **p.545** footers 1–11 → [^20]–[^30] (Greg. II in Ezech.; 2 Cor.5; 2 Cor.12 + *effectu interiori/inferiori* var; *videbitur* Vat var; *sua/sui* var; 1 Cor.13,12 + Aug.; *gratiae/consummantis/conservantis* var; Aug. *Tract. in Ioan.*; Ioan.1,18; *de Util. cred.* c.11 n.25; Rom.10,17... ).
  - **NB renumbering:** because q3 footers cascade across 7 pages, the continuous [^N] scheme assigns by *body-anchor position*, not strict per-page footer order. The page-split groupings above are the printed-footer provenance; [^N] order follows the body markers.
- **p.546** footers 1–12 → covers [^31]–[^48] span (Gen.18 apparition + *figurabat/significabat* var; Rom.10,17; *quia* var; *modo* var; cod.aa *Deum*; Bernard/Gulielmus *de Contempl.Deo*+*de Nat. et dign. amoris*; Cfr.d.10/d.15 + *ulteriorem/altiorem* var; *liquescit* var; *sit immediata* var; *oculus aspectus*/*perspiciet/perficiet/proficiet* var; *medium disponens* triplex; *ei scil.Deo*+*quantus/quanta/quantum* var; d.8 p.II q.2; *prius in corp.* + *illius* var; Phil.4,7+Ps.35,9; Art.3 q.1).
- **p.547** footers 1–5 → [^49]–[^53] (cod.N 1240 octava Epiph.; D'Argentré Collectio + art.1–3 lect.var; D'Argentré ordo art.4–5; cod.ee *ubique* art.6; D'Argentré art.8–10 lect.var).
- **p.548** = SCHOLION conclusion (parts III–IV) — no body footnote markers; the 4 footers on p.548 L belong to **DUBIA** (DUB. I–II text), forwarded to `d23-dubia`.

**has_scholion: true** — closing ART II SCHOLION (parts I–IV): I = Alex.Hal. parallel + self-consistency cross-refs; II = ancient-Scholastic common principle + S.Thom./Petr. a Tar. twofold-mirror; III = fides-cognitio dispute (S.Thom./Richard./Aegid./Dionys.Carth.) + D'Argentré-collation note on the condemned theses; IV = commentator-roll (B.Albert, Richard. a Med., Durand., Dionys. Carth., Biel).

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED: none (a2-q2 closed clean on p.542 with its own scholion; q3 opens fresh below). FORWARDED: the four p.548-L footer notes (*esset*; *mali*/*nihilominus*; cod.N *respicit voluntatem*; Vers.5) belong to the DUBIA body and migrate to `d23-dubia`. q3 closes at the end of SCHOLION IV on p.548 R; DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI (DUB. I) opens immediately after on p.548.

**Dubia count (verified for resume hand-off):** the d.23 DUBIA range (raw ~38434–38497) contains **DUB. I, DUB. II, DUB. III** (three dubia), ending at DISTINCTIO XXIV running head (raw ~38497).

**[?] flags:** none. OCR + PDF bands agreed throughout; condemned-articles list verified glyph-by-glyph against p.547.

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