title: Dist. 31, Art. 3, Q. 1

title_alt: Utrum contingat caritatis habitum in patria evacuari

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. **Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page**, so the markers reset per page; they are rendered continuously here as 1, 2, …. Entries 1–9 are p.688 nn.1–9; entries 10–16 are p.689 footer notes. Page 690 carries no footnote apparatus (the Solutio tail and the SCHOLION fill it).

<!-- page 688 -->

### Articulus III. *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad praemium.*

Consequenter quaeritur de duratione caritatis per comparationem ad ipsum praemium. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primum est, utrum per gloriam contingat, caritatis habitum evacuari.

Secundum est, utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria dilatari.

Tertium est, utrum contingat, caritatis ordinem in patria immutari.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria evacuari.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria evacuari. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^1]: *Caritas nunquam excidit*; ibi Glossa: «Nec in hoc saeculo nec in futuro, etsi opera eius cessent».

2. Item, actus caritatis est *diligere* Deum propter se et super omnia, *et ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota mente*[^2]; sed iste actus magis competit statui gloriae quam viae: ergo habitus caritatis maxime competit statui glorioso; et si hoc, tunc non evacuatur in illo.

3. Item, ipsius caritatis sive amoris est *unire*, iuxta illud quod dicit beatus Dionysius[^3]: «Amorem dicimus unitivam vim»; sed magis unimur in patria quam in via: ergo etc.

4. Item, amoris est *assimilare*, iuxta illud quod dicit Hugo de sancto Victore[^4], quod «anima in eius quod diligit imaginem transformatur»; sed magis erimus similes in patria quam nunc, secundum illud primae Ioannis tertio: *Cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus*: si ergo statui gloriae maxime competit perfectio assimilationis, videtur, quod et maxime competat illi statui habere habitum caritatis.

**Sed contra:** 1. Primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^5]: *Cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est*; illud autem est ex parte, quod est imperfectum; sed caritas viae est imperfecta, quia *ignis est in Sion et caminus in Ierusalem*, secundum quod dicitur in Isaia: ergo videtur, quod habitus caritatis evacuetur in patria.

2. Item, cessante causa, cessat effectus, ergo evacuata causa, evacuatur effectus; sed «fides generat spem, spes generat caritatem»: cum igitur in patria evacuetur habitus fidei et spei, ut supra[^6] ostensum fuit; videtur similiter, quod evacuetur habitus caritatis.

3. Item, quod ordinat ad aliquem finem et terminum cessat, cum perventum est ad illum; sed caritas est pondus inclinans animam et elevans eam, ut tendat sursum[^7]: cum igitur anima sursum per gloriam fuerit collocata, videtur, quod iam amplius non habeat caritatis habitum.

4. Item, quanto maior est unio animae ad Deum, tanto anima perfectius beatificatur; sed magis unitur quod unitur immediate, quam quod unitur per medium: ergo si anima perfecte beatificatur in gloria, videtur, quod inter animam et Deum non sit ponere caritatem mediam[^8]: videtur ergo, quod cesset habitus caritatis, superveniente complemento beatitudinis.

### Conclusio.

> Habitus caritatis in patria non evacuatur, sed consummatur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio caritas in patria non evacuatur, sed consummatur, secundum quod expresse dicit Apostolus[^9]. Ad cuius intelligentiam est notandum, quod quaedam est dispositio, quae respectu dispositi habet oppositionem, quaedam vero est, quae simpliciter disponit; et prima quidem per adventum eius, ad quod disponit, evacuatur; secunda vero perficitur et consummatur. Et huiusmodi est evidens exemplum. Nam primo modo disponit medius color ad extremos, et tepiditas ad frigiditatem; et superveniente extremo, medius color tollitur, propter hoc

<!-- page 689 -->

quod medium non tantum ad extremum disponebat, sed etiam repugnabat. Secundo modo disponit transparentia ad lumen. Nam superveniente lumine, transparentia et pervietas non tollitur, sed magis perficitur et decoratur.

Per hunc etiam modum intelligendum est in ipsarum virtutum habitibus, quae disponunt ad gloriae complementum. Nam quaedam disponunt sic, quod habent aliquo modo oppositionem, sicut fides et spes, quae dicunt ipsius crediti et sperati absentiam et carentiam, quorum opposita sunt in gloria, scilicet visio aperta et tentio firma: et ideo necesse est, hos habitus tolli et evacuari per adventum gloriae[^10]. — Et est alia dispositio, quae non habet rationem oppositionis, sed tantum dispositionis; et talis dispositio est caritas, quae ad gloriam disponit, sicut imperfectum ad perfectum, non tamen habet repugnantiam ad ipsam, immo conformitatem expressam. Et ideo quantum ad habitum non evacuatur, sed dum tollitur imperfectio, ipse habitus perficitur et consummatur.

Si autem quaeratur ratio huius, quare caritas magis conformatur complemento gloriae quam alius habitus virtutis theologicae; huius potest triplex ratio assignari, quarum una attenditur penes *qualitatem* ipsorum habituum, altera vero penes *dignitatem potentiarum*, tertia vero penes *largitatem divinorum munerum*. — Quantum ad differentem *qualitatem habituum* ratio sumitur talis: quia dilectio est respectu absentis et praesentis; visio vero et tentio non est nisi respectu habiti et praesentis: exspectatio vero et credulitas est tantummodo respectu non habiti et absentis: et ideo tam *actus* quam *habitus* ipsius caritatis statui patriae et viae est communis: et per hoc magis conformis est caritas viae caritati patriae, quam habitus credendi habitui videndi, vel quam exspectatio tentioni.

Penes *dignitatem* ipsarum potentiarum attenditur ratio sic: quia, sicut vult Bernardus, de Amore Dei[^11], «ubi deficit intellectus, ibi proficit affectus». Et Dionysius septimo de Divinis Nominibus, capitulo de sapientia[^12] dicit, quod multo altius ascendit affectus noster et vis affectiva quam vis cognitiva. Ait enim sic: «Oportet agnoscere, nostrum intellectum quandam habere potentiam ad intelligendum, per quam videt intelligibilia, unitionem vero excedentem intellectus naturam, per quam coniungitur ad ea quae sunt ultra se». Et quoniam altius

<!-- page 689 (running head DIST. XXXI. ART. III. QUAEST. I.) -->

elevatur ipsa vis unitiva in homine, ideo habet quandam praecipuam excellentiam dignitatis, et habitus ipsam perficiens est aliis habitibus maior et excellentior ac per hoc statui gloriae conformior.

Penes *largitatem divinorum* etiam *munerum* ratio sumitur: quia viris sanctis Dominus largitatem suae benignitatis quodam modo communicat et praegustare facit dulcedinem aeternae refectionis, ut in tribulationibus non succumbant et in vastitate eremi prae ariditate et inopia refectionis non deficiant. Cum ergo sapere caelestia non possit nisi gustus dispositus secundum dispositionem illi statui convenientem; divinae largitatis munus hoc requisivit, ut gustui nostro daretur habitus et dispositio, secundum quam statui gloriae esset conformis. Haec autem dispositio est habitus caritatis, per quam dispositi sumus ad spiritualia degustanda, secundum quod vult magister Hugo[^13]. Ideo caritatis habitus non evacuatur, sed magis consummatur in patria. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod perfectum evacuat illud quod est ex parte; dicendum, quod ex parte dicitur esse aliquid dupliciter, secundum quod dupliciter dicitur esse aliquid secundum quid. Uno modo dicitur aliquid secundum quid, quod tantum deficit ab eo quod est simpliciter, sicut albus secundum pedem est albus secundum quid. Alio modo dicitur aliquid secundum quid, quod non tantum deficit, sed etiam repugnat, sicut homo mortuus respectu hominis[^14]. Sic et aliquid dicitur ex parte dupliciter: uno modo, secundum quod sonat in imperfectionem; alio modo, secundum quod sonat in imperfectionem et oppositionem. Et primo modo potest dici caritas ex parte; et quod sic est ex parte, non evacuatur, sed consummatur et quodam modo integratur, ut quasi totum ex partibus conficiatur. Secundo autem modo habitus fidei et spei est ex parte; et hoc modo dicit Apostolus illud quod est ex parte fore evacuandum, cum venerit id quod perfectum est.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cessante causa, cessat effectus: dicendum, quod fides et spes non dicuntur esse causa caritatis, nisi quia disponunt ad actum eius[^15], et hoc non simpliciter, sed secundum statum viae; nam in statu patriae ipsa visio disponit ad diligendum perfecte. Et ideo ratio illa non valet, quia nec proprie est causa nec secundum omnem statum.

<!-- page 690 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordinans ad aliquid cessat, obtento eo, ad quod disponebat et inclinabat; dicendum, quod illud est verum de eo quod solum habet rationem viae; caritas autem non tantummodo est dispositio ad tendendum et eundum in caelum, sed etiam ad quiescendum. Sicut enim lapis eodem pondere, quo movetur ad terram, quiescit ibi, cum ad terram pervenerit; sic et suo modo intelligendum est in pondere amoris sive in habitu caritatis: et de eo, quod isto modo ordinat et inclinat aliquid in finem, nec oportet, ipsum cessare in finis et termini assecutione.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est beatificatio, ubi perfectior est unio; dicendum, quod verum est; sed quod obiicit, quod perfectius uniretur Deus animae, si uniretur absque caritate; dicendum, quod falsum est: quia anima non est disposita ad hoc, quod uniatur Deo per gloriam, nisi interveniat habitus, quo ipsi conformetur et quo elevetur et quodam modo fortiter alligetur[^16]. Unio enim beatitudinis est per cognitionem et amorem; unde sicut habitus diligendi non facit ad dilectionis diminutionem, immo potius ad perfectionem; sic etiam non facit ad illius unionis imperfectionem, sed potius ad perfectionem et complementum. Unde quod dicit, quod magis unitur quod unitur sine medio quam cum medio; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem de medio, quod facit distare, non autem de eo, quod facit approximare et ad unionem magis reddit habilem, cuiusmodi est vinculum caritatis.

english:
### Article III. *On the duration of charity by comparison to the reward.*

Next it is asked about the duration of charity by comparison to the reward itself. And concerning this three things are asked.

The first is, whether through glory it happens that the habit of charity is emptied out.

The second is, whether it happens that the habit of charity is enlarged in the fatherland.

The third is, whether it happens that the order of charity is changed in the fatherland.

### Question I. *Whether it happens that the habit of charity is emptied out in the fatherland.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether it happens that the habit of charity is emptied out in the fatherland. And that it is not seems true.

1. The first to the Corinthians, 13[^1]: *Charity never falls away*; there the Gloss: "Neither in this world nor in the future, even though its works cease."

2. Likewise, the act of charity is to *love* God for His own sake and above all things, *and with the whole heart and with the whole soul and with the whole mind*[^2]; but this act befits the state of glory more than that of the way: therefore the habit of charity most befits the glorious state; and if this, then it is not emptied out in it.

3. Likewise, it belongs to charity itself, or love, to *unite*, according to that which blessed Dionysius says[^3]: "We call love a uniting power"; but we are more united in the fatherland than on the way: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it belongs to love to *assimilate*, according to that which Hugh of St. Victor says[^4], that "the soul is transformed into the image of that which it loves"; but we shall be more like in the fatherland than now, according to that of the first of John 3: *When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him*: if therefore the perfection of assimilation most befits the state of glory, it seems that it most befits that state also to have the habit of charity.

**On the contrary:** 1. The first to the Corinthians, 13[^5]: *When that which is perfect shall come, that which is in part shall be emptied out*; but that is in part which is imperfect; but the charity of the way is imperfect, because *there is a fire in Sion and a furnace in Jerusalem*, according to what is said in Isaiah: therefore it seems that the habit of charity is emptied out in the fatherland.

2. Likewise, when the cause ceases, the effect ceases, therefore when the cause is emptied out, the effect is emptied out; but "faith generates hope, hope generates charity": since therefore in the fatherland the habit of faith and of hope is emptied out, as was shown above[^6]; it seems likewise that the habit of charity is emptied out.

3. Likewise, that which orders to some end and term ceases when one has arrived at it; but charity is a weight inclining the soul and raising it, that it may tend upward[^7]: since therefore the soul has been set on high through glory, it seems that it no longer has the habit of charity.

4. Likewise, the greater the union of the soul to God, the more perfectly the soul is beatified; but that is more united which is united immediately than that which is united through a medium: therefore if the soul is perfectly beatified in glory, it seems that between the soul and God there is not to be placed an intervening charity[^8]: it seems therefore that the habit of charity ceases when the completion of beatitude supervenes.

### Conclusion.

> The habit of charity in the fatherland is not emptied out, but consummated.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt charity in the fatherland is not emptied out, but consummated, according to what the Apostle expressly says[^9]. For the understanding of this it must be noted that one disposition has opposition with respect to that which is disposed, but another is one which simply disposes; and the first indeed is emptied out by the coming of that to which it disposes; but the second is perfected and consummated. And there is an evident example of this kind. For in the first way an intermediate color disposes to the extremes, and tepidity to coldness; and when the extreme supervenes, the intermediate color is taken away, on account of this

that the intermediate not only disposed to the extreme, but also was repugnant. In the second way transparency disposes to light. For when light supervenes, transparency and clearness are not taken away, but rather perfected and adorned.

In this way too it must be understood in the habits of the virtues themselves, which dispose to the completion of glory. For some dispose in such a way that they have in some manner opposition, like faith and hope, which bespeak the absence and lack of the very thing believed and hoped for, whose opposites are in glory, namely open vision and firm holding: and therefore it is necessary that these habits be taken away and emptied out by the coming of glory[^10]. — And there is another disposition, which has not the character of opposition, but only of disposition; and such a disposition is charity, which disposes to glory as the imperfect to the perfect, yet has no repugnance to it, but rather express conformity. And therefore as to habit it is not emptied out, but while the imperfection is taken away, the habit itself is perfected and consummated.

But if the reason of this be asked, why charity is conformed more to the completion of glory than another habit of a theological virtue; of this a threefold reason can be assigned, of which one is regarded with respect to the *quality* of the habits themselves, another with respect to the *dignity of the powers*, the third with respect to the *largesse of the divine gifts*. — As to the differing *quality of the habits* the reason is taken thus: because love is with respect to the absent and the present; but vision and holding are only with respect to what is had and present: but expectation and believing are only with respect to what is not had and absent: and therefore both the *act* and the *habit* of charity itself are common to the state of the fatherland and of the way: and through this the charity of the way is more conformed to the charity of the fatherland than the habit of believing to the habit of seeing, or than expectation to holding.

With respect to the *dignity* of the powers themselves the reason is regarded thus: because, as Bernard holds, *On the Love of God*[^11], "where the intellect fails, there affection profits." And Dionysius, in the seventh [chapter] of the *Divine Names*, in the chapter on wisdom[^12], says that our affection and the affective power ascends much higher than the cognitive power. For he says thus: "It must be acknowledged that our intellect has a certain power for understanding, by which it sees intelligibles, but a union exceeding the nature of the intellect, by which it is joined to those things which are beyond it." And because

the uniting power itself is raised higher in man, therefore it has a certain special excellence of dignity, and the habit perfecting it is greater and more excellent than the other habits, and through this more conformed to the state of glory.

With respect to the *largesse of the divine gifts* too the reason is taken: because to holy men the Lord in a certain manner communicates the largesse of His benignity and makes them foretaste the sweetness of the eternal refreshment, that in tribulations they may not succumb and in the wasteness of the desert they may not fail through the dryness and want of refreshment. Since therefore one cannot savor heavenly things unless the taste be disposed according to a disposition befitting that state; the gift of the divine largesse required this, that there should be given to our taste a habit and disposition according to which it should be conformed to the state of glory. And this disposition is the habit of charity, by which we are disposed to taste spiritual things, according to what Master Hugh holds[^13]. Therefore the habit of charity is not emptied out, but rather consummated in the fatherland. — And the reasons which are on this side are to be granted.

1. But to that which is objected first to the contrary, that the perfect empties out that which is in part; it must be said that something is said to be "in part" in two ways, according as something is said in two ways to be "in a certain respect." In one way something is said [to be] in a certain respect, which only falls short of that which is simply, as a man white as to the foot is white in a certain respect. In another way something is said [to be] in a certain respect, which not only falls short, but also is repugnant, as a dead man with respect to a man[^14]. So too something is said to be "in part" in two ways: in one way, according as it sounds toward imperfection; in another way, according as it sounds toward imperfection and opposition. And in the first way charity can be said [to be] in part; and that which is in part in this way is not emptied out, but consummated and in a certain manner integrated, so that the whole is as it were made up out of its parts. But in the second way the habit of faith and of hope is in part; and in this way the Apostle says that what is in part is to be emptied out, when that which is perfect shall come.

2. To that which is objected, that when the cause ceases, the effect ceases: it must be said that faith and hope are not said to be the cause of charity, except because they dispose to its act[^15], and this not simply, but according to the state of the way; for in the state of the fatherland vision itself disposes to loving perfectly. And therefore that reasoning does not hold, because it is neither properly a cause nor [a cause] according to every state.

3. To that which is objected, that what orders to something ceases when one has obtained that to which it disposed and inclined; it must be said that that is true of that which has only the character of the way; but charity is not only a disposition for tending and going into heaven, but also for resting. For just as a stone, by the same weight by which it is moved toward the earth, rests there when it has reached the earth; so too in its own manner it must be understood in the weight of love or in the habit of charity: and of that which in this manner orders and inclines something to an end, it is not necessary that it cease at the attainment of the end and term.

4. To that which is objected, that the beatification is greater where the union is more perfect; it must be said that this is true; but as to what it objects, that God would be more perfectly united to the soul if He were united without charity; it must be said that this is false: because the soul is not disposed for this, that it be united to God through glory, unless there intervene a habit by which it is conformed to Him and by which it is raised and in a certain manner strongly bound[^16]. For the union of beatitude is through cognition and love; whence just as the habit of loving does not make for a diminishing of love, but rather for perfection; so also it does not make for an imperfection of that union, but rather for perfection and completion. Whence as to what he says, that that which is united without a medium is more united than that which is with a medium; it must be said that that holds true of a medium which makes [things] stand apart, but not of that which makes [them] approach and renders [the soul] more apt for union, of which kind is the bond of charity.

la: Vers. 8. — Glossa habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum; est ordinaria.

en: Verse 8. — The Gloss is found in Strabo and Lyra; it is the Ordinary [Gloss].

la: Marc. 12, 30. — Inferius pro *statui glorioso* codd. A K aa *statui gloriae*.

en: Mark 12, 30. — Below, for *statui glorioso* codices A K aa read *statui gloriae*.

la: *De Div. Nom.* c. 4. § 15.

en: *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 15.

la: *De Arrha animae*; vide tom. II. pag. 1, nota 8. — Seq. testimonium est I. Ioan. 3, 2.

en: *On the Pledge of the Soul*; see vol. II, p. 1, note 8. — The following testimony is I John 3, 2.

la: Vers. 10. Cfr. Glossa supra a. 2. q. I. in corp. allata. — Seq. Scripturae locus est Isai. 31, 9. — In minori codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *viae*, quod e Vat. supplendum duximus; pro *viae* in *Supplemento* Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 75. a. 1. habetur *in via*.

en: Verse 10. Cf. the Gloss adduced above, a. 2, q. I, in the body. — The following Scripture passage is Isaiah 31, 9. — In the minor [premise] codices and editions 1, 2 omit *viae*, which we have thought should be supplied from the Vatican edition; for *viae* in the *Supplement* to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collation 75, a. 1, there is *in via*.

la: Hic a. 2. q. I. et 2. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., II. *Phys.* text. 37. (c. 3.), et supra pag. 22, nota 1. — De minori, quae reddit Glossam Paschasii Radberti super Matth. 1, 2, vide supra pag. 573, nota 1.

en: Here, a. 2, q. I and 2. — On the major [premise] cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 37 (c. 3.), and above p. 22, note 1. — On the minor, which renders the Gloss of Paschasius Radbertus on Matthew 1, 2, see above p. 573, note 1.

la: Vide supra pag. 639, nota 3. — Mox pro *per gloriam* codd. A X *per gratiam*.

en: See above, p. 639, note 3. — Presently, for *per gloriam* codices A X read *per gratiam*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. I. in corp. opinio 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, a. 1, q. I, in the body, opinion 1.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 13, 8. seqq. — Paulo superius pro *caritas* cod. S *habitus caritatis*; paulo inferius pro *respectu dispositi* Vat. *respectu eius, ad quod disponit*.

en: Epistle 1 Corinthians 13, 8 and following. — A little above, for *caritas* codex S reads *habitus caritatis*; a little below, for *respectu dispositi* the Vatican edition reads *respectu eius, ad quod disponit*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. I. et 2. — Aliquanto superius pro *virtutum habitibus, quae* cod. K habet *virtutum habitibus, qui*, et deinde post *oppositionem* Vat. addit *ei, ad quod disponunt*.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. I and 2. — Somewhat above, for *virtutum habitibus, quae* codex K has *virtutum habitibus, qui*, and then after *oppositionem* the Vatican edition adds *ei, ad quod disponunt*.

la: Sive *de Natura et dignitate amoris* (inter opera Bernardi), c. 8. n. 21: *Habet etiam ratio suos quosdam tramites certos et directas semitas, quibus incedit; amor autem suo defectu plus proficit, sui ignorantia plus apprehendit. Ratio ergo per id quod* [Deus] *non est, in id quod est videtur proficere; amor postponens quod non est, in id quod est gaudet deficere.*

en: Or *On the Nature and Dignity of Love* (among the works of Bernard), c. 8, n. 21: *Reason too has its own certain paths and direct ways by which it proceeds; but love by its own defect profits more, by its own ignorance apprehends more. Reason therefore through that which* [God] *is not seems to profit toward that which is; love, setting aside that which is not, rejoices to fail into that which is.*

la: Paragr. 1. — Mox ante *vis cognitiva* cod. J interserit *intellectus et*. Deinde in Dionysii sententia plurimi codd. *verum intellectum* pro *nostrum intellectum*, contradicente textu origin.

en: Paragraph 1. — Presently, before *vis cognitiva* codex J inserts *intellectus et*. Then in the saying of Dionysius very many codices [read] *verum intellectum* for *nostrum intellectum*, the original text contradicting.

la: *De Arrha animae*. — Mox pro *consummatur* cod. U *perficitur*.

en: *On the Pledge of the Soul*. — Presently, for *consummatur* codex U reads *perficitur*.

la: Vide supra pag. 258, nota 2.

en: See above, p. 258, note 2.

la: In plurimis codd. nec non in *Supplemento* Sum. Alex. Hal. deest *non*.

en: In very many codices, and also in the *Supplement* to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, *non* is lacking.

la: Vide supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro *nisi* codd. H I L aa *sed*.

en: See above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 3. — For *nisi* codices H I L aa read *sed*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In conclusione omnes consentiunt. Quaestionem connexam S. Bonav. confirmat 3 rationibus, quarum secunda est dignitas voluntatis. De controversia, utrum voluntas sit simpliciter nobilior intellectu, cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. I. q. 6, in scholio. Quod autem aliquid possit plus amari, «quam cognoscatur, quia potest perfecte amari, etiamsi non perfecte cognoscatur», disertis verbis docet etiam S. Thom. (S. I. II. q. 27. a. 2. ad 2; cfr. II. II. q. 27. a. 4.). De hac quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. I. II. q. 67. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seqq. qq. hic a. 3. q. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 8. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

**II.** De seq. (2.) quaestione alium non vidimus explicite tractantem. Apta autem adhibita distinctione, quaestio facile ab auctore determinatur.

**III.** In tertia quaestione solvenda Guliel. Antissiodorensis (S. p. III. tr. 6. c. 3. q. 1.) tenet primam opinionem, scilicet quod idem ordo caritatis sit in patria, qui est in via. Ipsi consentiunt alii plurimi antiqui doctores, saltem in hoc, quod volunt, quemlibet plus se quam proximum in patria diligere. «Sed de comparatione propinquorum ad extraneos credo, quod simpliciter loquendo, plus unusquisque diliget extraneum meliorem quam consanguineum minus bonum; quia plus attenditur ordo dilectionis quantum ad proximitatem ad Deum, quam quantum ad proximitatem ad seipsum, quamvis utrumque oportet quod attendatur. Unde de aequaliter bonis plus diligit proximiorem, sed de inaequalibus diligit meliorem» (ita S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.). Etiam in Sum. (II. II. q. 26. a. 13.) ipse docet, quod «non cessabunt ab animo Beati honestae dilectionis causae. Tamen omnibus istis rationibus praefertur incomparabiliter ratio dilectionis, quae sumitur ex propinquitate ad Deum». — Quoad ordinem tamen ipsius diligentis ad proximum, ibidem S. Doctor, distinctione adhibita, aliqualiter duas opiniones conciliat docens, quod Beatus secundum differentiam boni optati plus diliget meliores quam se ipsum, sed e converso secundum intensionem dilectionis, quae est a parte subiecti diligentis. Huic doctrinae favet etiam Richard. a Med. — S. Bonav. utramque sententiam censet esse probabilem et argumenta utrique opposita solvit; tamen satis apparet, quod ipse inclinet potius in secundam positionem, mysticam quidem, sed sublimem, quam praeclare explicat hic et in suo Soliloquio c. 4.

**IV.** Praeter S. Thomam: B. Albert., hic a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6, in fine.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In the conclusion all agree. The connected question St. Bonaventure confirms by 3 reasons, of which the second is the dignity of the will. On the controversy, whether the will is simply nobler than the intellect, cf. *II Sent.* d. 25, p. I, q. 6, in the scholion. But that something can be loved more "than it is known, because it can be perfectly loved, even if it be not perfectly known," St. Thomas too teaches in express words (*S.* I-II, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2; cf. II-II, q. 27, a. 4.). On this question: Scotus, in both Writings here a single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; *S.* I-II, q. 67, a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3, sub-question 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the following questions, here a. 3, q. 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

**II.** On the following (2nd) question we have not seen another treating it explicitly. But with an apt distinction applied, the question is easily determined by the author.

**III.** In solving the third question, William of Auxerre (*S.* p. III, tr. 6, c. 3, q. 1.) holds the first opinion, namely that the same order of charity is in the fatherland as is on the way. To him many other ancient doctors consent, at least in this, that they hold each one loves himself more than his neighbor in the fatherland. "But as to the comparison of kinsmen with strangers I believe that, simply speaking, each one will love a better stranger more than a less good kinsman; because the order of love is regarded more as to nearness to God than as to nearness to oneself, although both must be regarded. Hence of equally good ones he loves the nearer more, but of unequal ones he loves the better" (so St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3, sub-question 2.). Also in the *Summa* (II-II, q. 26, a. 13.) he himself teaches that "the causes of honorable love will not cease from the mind of the Blessed. Yet to all these reasons there is incomparably preferred the reason of love which is taken from nearness to God." — As to the order, however, of the lover himself toward his neighbor, in the same place the holy Doctor, with a distinction applied, in some manner reconciles the two opinions, teaching that the Blessed, according to the difference of the good desired, will love the better more than himself, but conversely according to the intensity of love, which is on the part of the loving subject. To this doctrine Richard of Mediavilla too is favorable. — St. Bonaventure judges each opinion to be probable and solves the arguments opposed to each; yet it appears sufficiently that he inclines rather to the second position, mystical indeed, but sublime, which he explains splendidly here and in his *Soliloquium*, c. 4.

**IV.** Besides St. Thomas: B. Albert, here a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3, sub-question 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6, at the end.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 47787–47961 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` (the ARTICULUS III opener at 47787 + TRACTATIO + QUAESTIO I body through scholion §IV). Latin re-set from the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{688,689,690}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.710–712; offset pdf = printed + 22, two-column PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/III override), authoritative for the Respondeo (the *duplex dispositio* / *triplex ratio* exposition), the *Solutio oppositorum* (Ad 1–4), the SCHOLION §I–§IV, and every page-footer NOTAE block (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters these two-column regions); the IA OCR was the base for the clean *Fundamenta* / *Sed contra* running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads in-span (trust running-head **text** + the +22 offset over OCR'd digits): `688 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.688 top, where ART III opens fresh); `DIST. XXXI. ART. III. QUAEST. I. 689` (p.689 top); `690 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.690 top).

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.688–690** (PDF 710–712), opening **fresh** on p.688 (no inbound seam from a2-q3, which closed on p.687). **p.688:** ARTICULUS III opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de duratione caritatis per comparationem ad ipsum praemium… quaeruntur tria*) + the three TRACTATIO members + QUAESTIO I header/title; then the affirmative *quod non videtur* arguments 1–4 (I Cor.13 *Caritas nunquam excidit*; *diligere Deum… ex tota mente*; Dionysius *unitiva vis*; Hugo *anima in imaginem transformatur*), the **Sed contra** arguments 1–4 (I Cor.13 *quod perfectum est*; *cessante causa*; *pondus… sursum*; *unio immediata*), the `CONCLUSIO` + Conclusio sentence + the start of the `Respondeo` (the *duplex dispositio* doctrine with the medius-color / transparentia examples). **p.689:** the Respondeo continues (the *triplex ratio* — *qualitas habituum* / *dignitas potentiarum* [Bernard + Dionysius] / *largitas munerum* [magister Hugo]), then the `Solutio oppositorum` Ad 1 (*ex parte* duplex) and Ad 2 (*cessante causa* — fides/spes only dispose). **p.690:** Ad 3 (*ordinans ad aliquid* — the lapis/pondus simile) and Ad 4 (*maior beatificatio* — the *vinculum caritatis*), then the article-master `SCHOLION` §I–§IV (two-column, filling the foot of p.690). The chunk **closes** at the end of scholion §IV (*…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6, in fine*, raw ~47961); QUAESTIO II opens fresh at raw 47964 on the **next** page (p.691).

**ARTICULUS III TRACTATIO (verbatim, the three questions).** *Primum est, utrum per gloriam contingat, caritatis habitum evacuari. / Secundum est, utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria dilatari. / Tertium est, utrum contingat, caritatis ordinem in patria immutari.* The hand-off's subtitle guesses were imprecise: the FIRST member (*per gloriam… evacuari*) is QUAESTIO I, whose printed title is the equivalent *Utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria evacuari* — `title_la` matches the article's first member and the q1 opener (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria evacuari*) 1:1.

**ARTICULUS III subtitle (confirmed eyes-on, p.688 band `vol3-p688-L/R-0`).** *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad **praemium*** — confirmed correct (the prompt's alternative *…ad statum futurae gloriae* is **wrong**; the printed band reads *ad praemium*, echoed by the opener *per comparationem ad ipsum praemium*).

**Apparatus (16 entries, NOTAE, per-page restart, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^16]):**
- **p.688 footer nn.1–9 → [^1]–[^9]** (page opens fresh, fresh footer sequence). n.1 *Vers. 8* + Glossa ordinaria (arg.1 *Caritas nunquam excidit*); n.2 *Marc. 12, 30* + *statui gloriae* variant (arg.2 *ex tota mente*); n.3 *De Div. Nom. c.4 §15* (arg.3 Dionysius); n.4 *De Arrha animae* + I Ioan.3,2 (arg.4 Hugo); n.5 *Vers. 10* + Isai.31,9 + *viae* recension (Sed contra 1); n.6 *Hic a.2 q.I et 2* + Aristot. *II Phys.* (Sed contra 2 *ut supra ostensum fuit*); n.7 *Vide supra pag.639 nota 3* + *per gratiam* variant (arg.3-R *tendat sursum*); n.8 *Cfr. supra d.14 a.1 q.I opinio 1* (arg.4-R *caritatem mediam*); n.9 *Epist. 1 Cor.13,8 seqq.* + *habitus caritatis* / *respectu eius* variants (Respondeo *Apostolus*).
- **p.689 footer nn.1–8 → [^10]–[^16]** — but **only seven anchor in this chunk's p.689 body**: the page prints 8 footers, with n.5 (*in plurimis codd… deest non*) anchoring on the Ad-2 *ad actum eius* clause and the rest distributed. Mapped: n.1 *Cfr. supra a.2 q.I et 2* + *virtutum habitibus* variant ([^10], Respondeo *per adventum gloriae*); n.3 Bernard *de Natura et dignitate amoris* c.8 n.21 ([^11], *de Amore Dei*); n.4 *Paragr.1* + Dionysius-sentence variants ([^12], *de sapientia*); n.6 *De Arrha animae* + *perficitur* variant ([^13], *magister Hugo*); n.7 *Vide supra pag.258 nota 2* ([^14], Ad-1 *homo mortuus respectu hominis*); n.5 *deest non* ([^15], Ad-2 *ad actum eius*); n.8 *Vide supra d.26 a.2 q.3* + *sed* variant ([^16], Ad-4 *alligetur*, printed on p.689 foot, anchoring on text that completes on p.690). p.689 n.2 (*Edd… consummatur*, an edd.-variant on *consummatur*) is a pure orthographic edition note with no distinct body marker and was folded; the 16 rendered markers cover every substantive footer. **p.690 carries NO footer apparatus** (body + scholion fill the page; verified on all six p.690 bands).
- The marker positions in the heavily OCR-fragmented Respondeo / *triplex-ratio* / Solutio / scholion regions were placed from the PDF column bands, not raw-line order.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. This is the **ARTICULUS-III article-master scholion** (§I–§IV), printed at the foot of p.690 after the Ad-4 solution, two-column. It sits under **q1** and **forward-covers q2 and q3**: §I treats q1 (the doxography of the connected question — Bonaventure's 3 reasons, the will-vs-intellect controversy, the parallel-citation register Scotus/Thomas/Albert/Peter of Tarentaise/Richard/Durandus/Dionysius Carth.); **§II explicitly forwards to q2** (*De seq. (2.) quaestione alium non vidimus explicite tractantem…*); **§III explicitly forwards to q3** (*In tertia quaestione solvenda Guliel. Antissiodorensis… tenet primam opinionem…* — the long Thomas/ordo-caritatis doxography); §IV is the parallel-citation register for q3 (Albert/Peter of Tarentaise/Richard/Dionysius Carth.). Therefore **q2 and q3, when promoted, should carry `has_scholion: false`** (their scholion content lives here, as the a2-q1 scholion forward-covered a2 q1+q2). Ordered body-then-scholion per the `extractLanguageBlock` parser rule (`### Scholion` LAST in each language block).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a2-q3*: **NONE.** a2-q3 closed at its scholion §II end on p.687; ARTICULUS III opens fresh at the top of p.688 with its own new footer sequence.
- *Forwarded to d31-a3-q2*: **NONE.** This chunk closes at the end of scholion §IV on p.690; p.690 carries no footnotes, and QUAESTIO II opens fresh on p.691 with its own new footer sequence (raw 47964: arg.1 marker `²` and footer `1 Cfr. supra d.14…` belong to q2). No shared-page seam carries into a3-q2.

**Alignment check.** **PASSED, no q-swap.** The TRACTATIO's first member (*Primum est, utrum per gloriam contingat, caritatis habitum evacuari*) = QUAESTIO I (printed title *Utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria evacuari*); the opener *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria evacuari* (raw 47800) is 1:1 with the title and the article's first member. This is the FIRST question of ARTICULUS III. No STOP.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation, the *duplex/triplex* Respondeo, the Solutio oppositorum, and the SCHOLION §I–§IV were resolved against the 450 dpi PDF column bands; all 16 NOTAE entries are legible and the article-master-scholion-forwarding-to-q2/q3 disposition is confirmed against the printed §II/§III forward references.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 31, Art. 3, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum contingat caritatis habitum in patria dilatari

title_alt: Whether it happens that the habit of charity is dilated in the fatherland

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 691 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum caritas habeat in patria dilatari.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum caritas habeat in patria dilatari. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. De perfectione caritatis est latitudo[^1]: si igitur caritas in patria efficietur perfectior, necessario sequitur, quod efficietur latior.

2. Item, quanto Deus magis habitat in corde, tanto magis cor hominis dilatatur ad bona[^2]; sed excellentiori modo habitabit Deus in homine in statu patriae quam in statu viae: igitur habitus caritatis in patria plus habet de latitudine.

3. Item, quanto virtus et bonitas est maior, tanto eius diffusio est amplior et liberalior[^3]; sed in patria crescet caritas secundum virtutem et bonitatem: igitur et per consequens crescet secundum communicationis amplitudinem.

4. Item, affectio sequitur cognitionem[^4]; sed in patria cognitio dilatabitur et ampliabitur: ergo necesse est, caritatis affectionem similiter dilatari.

**Sed contra:** 1. « Quanto virtus magis est unita, tanto magis est infinita[^5] »; sed in patria virtus caritatis erit potentissima: ergo erit unitissima. Sed quod maxime accedit ad unitatem maxime recedit a latitudine: si igitur caritas in patria habet magis uniri, videtur, quod potius ibi habeat arctari quam dilatari.

2. Item, in via diligimus praescitos et praedestinatos, in patria vero tantum praedestinatos[^6]: ergo ad plures se extendit dilectio viae quam dilectio patriae; sed dilectio, quae ad plures se extendit, est latior: ergo etc.

3. Item, latitudo caritatis maxime attenditur in dilectione inimicorum; sed in via non solum diligimus amicos, sed etiam inimicos, in gloria autem non diligentur inimici: ergo videtur, quod caritas in patria potius habeat arctari quam dilatari.

4. Item, caritas viae diligit omne diligibile, et quod *supra* est, et quod *infra* est, et quod *iuxta* est, et quod *intra* est, secundum quod dicit Augustinus in libro *de Doctrina christiana*[^7]: sed non possunt esse plura diligibilia, nec magis ab invicem distantia: si ergo latitudo caritatis attenditur penes diligendorum multitudinem et distantiam, videtur, quod caritas non possit esse magis ampla in patria, quam sit in via.

### Conclusio.

> Caritas in patria dilatabitur quoad liberalitatis magnitudinem, non quoad diligendorum multitudinem, quae quadam ratione restringetur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod latitudo caritatis dupliciter habet attendi, videlicet in *liberalitatis magnitudine* et *diligendorum multitudine*. Prima latitudo est caritati essentialis, sed *secunda* est eidem accidentalis. Quantum ad *primam* latitudinem concedendum est, caritatem in patria dilatari, quia crescit eius bonitas et communicationis liberalitas et virtuositatis laudabilitas. Quantum autem ad *secundam* latitudinem caritas in patria non dilatabitur, quin potius restringetur, non ratione ipsius caritatis secundum se, sed[^8] ex parte diligibilium; pauciora enim erunt diligibilia. Nunc enim ex caritate diligendi sunt sive qui sunt in statu *patriae*, sive qui sunt in statu *viae*, qui ordinati sunt, ut possint ad illum statum pervenire; sed post consummationem numeri electorum solum illi ex caritate diligendi erunt, qui erunt in statu *patriae*, quia alii non erunt potentes pervenire ad illius summi Boni participationem.

Concedendum est igitur, quod caritas in patria dilatabitur quantum ad liberalitatis magnitudinem. Ampliori enim affectu diligetur Deus in se et in creaturis suis, adeo ut ille qui modo videtur esse remotus, in patria sit amantissimus[^9]; et amplius inviscerabit sibi tunc caritas omnes Beatos, quam modo possit homo etiam unum amicissimum sibi affectuose diligere. Et quia hoc ostendunt rationes ad primam partem, ideo sunt concedendae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod virtus magis unita plus est infinita; dicendum, quod diligere multa est dupliciter: aut multa ut *multa*, aut multa *relata ad unum*. Quoniam igitur in patria Deus erit *omnia in omnibus*[^10], et in omnibus diligetur Deus; hinc est, quod caritas ex conversione sui ad multa et dilatatione non dispergetur, sed potius colligetur. Unde talis dilatatio et virtutis unio non habent repugnantiam, immo potius una istarum conditionum sequitur ad reliquam.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nunc diligimus praescitos et praedestinatos, in patria tantum praedestinatos; iam patet responsio: quia loquitur de latitudine ex parte *numerositatis diligibilium*. *Praeterea*, cum erit completus numerus electorum et collectus in unum, ita quod quilibet eorum notus erit cuilibet, plures habebit tunc caritas, erga quos possit et habeat affici *specialiter* et distincte, quam habeat in statu viae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de inimicis, similiter respondendum est. Hoc enim accidit, quia illi qui sunt in patria, inimicos non habent, quin sint beatificabiles; vel non habebunt post diem iudicii alios <!-- page 692 -->inimicos quam damnatos; si tamen haberent, amplius eos diligerent, quam faciebant, cum essent in statu viae.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de numero diligendorum, iam responsum est; quia non dicimus, caritatem dilatari propter diligendorum numerositatem, sed propter maiorem affectus liberalitatem. *Praeterea*, ratio illa non cogit, quia, quamvis non sint plura diligenda in *generalitate* quam quatuor[^11], in *speciali* tamen et in particulari nihil impedit, diligendorum numerum augmentari; ad quae omnia, cum caritas familiariter et intense convertitur, non immerito dicitur dilatari[^12].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether charity is dilated in the fatherland.*

Secondly it is asked, whether charity is to be dilated in the fatherland. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. Breadth belongs to the perfection of charity[^1]: if therefore charity in the fatherland is made more perfect, it necessarily follows that it is made broader.

2. Likewise, the more God dwells in the heart, the more the heart of man is dilated unto good things[^2]; but God will dwell in man in a more excellent manner in the state of the fatherland than in the state of the way: therefore the habit of charity in the fatherland has more of breadth.

3. Likewise, the greater the virtue and goodness is, the more ample and more liberal is its diffusion[^3]; but in the fatherland charity will grow according to virtue and goodness: therefore, and consequently, it will grow according to the amplitude of its communication.

4. Likewise, affection follows cognition[^4]; but in the fatherland cognition will be dilated and amplified: therefore it is necessary that the affection of charity be likewise dilated.

**On the contrary:** 1. "The more a virtue is united, the more it is infinite[^5]"; but in the fatherland the virtue of charity will be most powerful: therefore it will be most united. But what most approaches unity most recedes from breadth: if therefore charity in the fatherland is the more united, it seems that there it rather is to be straitened than dilated.

2. Likewise, on the way we love the foreknown and the predestined, but in the fatherland the predestined only[^6]: therefore the love of the way extends itself to more than the love of the fatherland; but the love which extends itself to more is broader: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the breadth of charity is most of all regarded in the love of enemies; but on the way we love not only friends but also enemies, whereas in glory enemies will not be loved: therefore it seems that charity in the fatherland rather is to be straitened than dilated.

4. Likewise, the charity of the way loves every lovable thing — both what is *above*, and what is *below*, and what is *beside*, and what is *within* — according to what Augustine says in the book *On Christian Doctrine*[^7]: but there cannot be more lovable things, nor more distant from one another: if therefore the breadth of charity is regarded with respect to the multitude and distance of the things to be loved, it seems that charity cannot be more ample in the fatherland than it is on the way.

### Conclusion.

> Charity in the fatherland will be dilated as to the magnitude of its liberality, not as to the multitude of the things to be loved, which in a certain manner will be restricted.

**I respond:** It must be said that the breadth of charity is to be regarded in two ways, namely in the *magnitude of liberality* and in the *multitude of the things to be loved*. The first breadth is essential to charity, but the *second* is accidental to it. As to the *first* breadth it must be conceded that charity is dilated in the fatherland, because its goodness and the liberality of its communication and the praiseworthiness of its power grow. But as to the *second* breadth charity in the fatherland will not be dilated, but rather will be restricted — not by reason of charity itself in itself, but[^8] on the part of the lovable things; for the lovable things will be fewer. For now there are to be loved out of charity both those who are in the state of the *fatherland* and those who are in the state of the *way*, who are ordered so that they may be able to arrive at that state; but after the consummation of the number of the elect, only those will be loved out of charity who will be in the state of the *fatherland*, because the others will not be able to arrive at participation in that highest Good.

It must be conceded therefore that charity in the fatherland will be dilated as to the magnitude of liberality. For God will be loved with a more ample affection in himself and in his creatures, so much so that he who now seems to be remote, in the fatherland is most beloved[^9]; and charity will then enfold within itself all the Blessed more than now a man can affectionately love even one most-loved friend. And because the reasons for the first part show this, therefore they are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected on the contrary, that virtue more united is more infinite; it must be said that to love many things is twofold: either many things as *many*, or many things *related to one*. Since therefore in the fatherland God will be *all in all*[^10], and in all God will be loved; hence it is that charity, from its conversion to many things and its dilation, will not be dispersed, but rather gathered together. Hence such dilation and the union of virtue have no repugnance; nay rather, one of these conditions follows upon the other.

2. To that which is objected, that now we love the foreknown and the predestined, in the fatherland the predestined only; the response is already clear: because it speaks of breadth on the part of the *numerousness of the lovable things*. *Moreover*, when the number of the elect will be complete and gathered into one, so that each of them will be known to each, charity will then have more toward whom it can and may be affected *specially* and distinctly, than it has in the state of the way.

3. To that which is objected concerning enemies, it must be answered in like manner. For this happens because those who are in the fatherland have no enemies, but [only such as] are capable of beatitude; or they will not have, after the day of judgment, any other enemies than the damned; yet if they did have them, they would love them more than they did when they were in the state of the way.

4. To that which is lastly objected concerning the number of the things to be loved, the answer has already been given; because we do not say that charity is dilated on account of the numerousness of the things to be loved, but on account of the greater liberality of affection. *Moreover*, that reason does not compel, because, although there are not more things to be loved in *generality* than four[^11], yet in the *special* and in the particular nothing prevents the number of the things to be loved from being increased; and when charity is converted familiarly and intensely to all these things, it is not without reason said to be dilated[^12].

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. 1. et q. 3. ad 6. — In principio solut. pro *beatificatio* cod. Z *beatitudo*; deinde inferius cod. Y ante *conformetur* repetit *Deo*. Circa finem solut. pro *approximare* Vat. *proximare*, cod. Z *appropinquare*.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, a. 1, q. 1, and q. 3, ad 6. — At the beginning of the solution, for *beatificatio* cod. Z [reads] *beatitudo*; then further below cod. Y before *conformetur* repeats *Deo*. Near the end of the solution, for *approximare* the Vatican [edition reads] *proximare*, cod. Z *appropinquare*.

la: August., *Serm.* 358. (alias 36. ex Sirmond.) n. 4: *Audi Apostolum, quam latum est mandatum caritatis: Caritas autem Dei diffusa est in cordibus vestris* (Rom. 5, 5.). *Non dixit inclusa, sed diffusa. Verbum enim, quod est inclusa, quasi angustias sonat; quod est diffusa, latitudinem insinuat. Latum ergo mandatum tuum valde* (Ps. 118, 96.). Cfr. supra pag. 664, nota 5. — In conclus. pro ultimo *efficietur* codd. AU *efficiatur*: edd. bis *efficitur* pro *efficietur*.

en: Augustine, *Sermon* 358 (alias 36, from Sirmond), n. 4: "Hear the Apostle, how broad is the commandment of charity: *But the charity of God is diffused in your hearts* (Rom. 5:5). He did not say *enclosed*, but *diffused*. For the word *enclosed* sounds, as it were, of straits; *diffused* suggests breadth. *Broad therefore is thy commandment exceedingly* (Ps. 118:96)." Cf. above, p. 664, note 5. — In the conclusion, for the last *efficietur* codd. AU [read] *efficiatur*: the editions twice [read] *efficitur* for *efficietur*.

la: Colligitur ex illo axiomate Dionysii: *bonum est diffusivum sui*; de quo videsis tom. I. pag. 804, nota 6.

en: It is gathered from that axiom of Dionysius: *the good is diffusive of itself*; concerning which see vol. I, p. 804, note 6.

la: Gregor., II. *Homil. in Ezech.* homil. 9. n. 10, ubi loquens de dilectione Dei in terra ait: *Mensura amoris minor est, ubi adhuc mensura minor est cognitionis.* — In *minori* pro *aliqua* complures codd. et edd. 1, 2 perperam *affectio*; in cod. K scriptum est *cognitio ampliatur, affectio dilatabitur* etc.

en: Gregory, II *Homilies on Ezechiel*, homily 9, n. 10, where, speaking of the love of God on earth, he says: *The measure of love is less, where as yet the measure of cognition is less.* — In *minori* for *aliqua* several codd. and edd. 1, 2 wrongly [read] *affectio*; in cod. K it is written *cognitio ampliatur, affectio dilatabitur*, etc.

la: Liber *de Causis*, propos. 17: *Omnis virtus unita plus est infinita quam virtus multiplicata.* — Pro *infinita* Vat. hic et infra in solut. *intensa*.

en: The book *On Causes*, prop. 17: *Every united virtue is more infinite than a multiplied virtue.* — For *infinita* the Vatican [edition reads] here and below in the solution *intensa*.

la: Cfr. verba Gregorii, tom. II. pag. 288, nota 1. allata.

en: Cf. the words of Gregory adduced in vol. II, p. 288, note 1.

la: Libr. I. c. 23. n. 22. Vide supra III. Magistri, d. XXVIII. c. 1.

en: Book I, c. 23, n. 22. See above, [Lombard,] III [Sent.] of the Master, d. XXVIII, c. 1.

la: Cod. A adiicit *potius*. Mox pro *pauciora enim non pauci* codd. *pauciora autem*. Aliquanto inferius pro *diligendi erunt* codd. F K N T U V aa bb *diligendi sunt*.

en: Cod. A adds *potius*. Shortly, for *pauciora enim non pauci* the codd. [read] *pauciora autem*. Somewhat below, for *diligendi erunt* codd. F K N T U V aa bb [read] *diligendi sunt*.

la: Cod. L *amantissimus*. Pro *sit* cod. K *erit*.

en: Cod. L [reads] *amantissimus*. For *sit* cod. K [reads] *erit*.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 28. — Paulo superius ante *est dupliciter* codd. F G K T U Z inserunt *hoc*, et deinde ante *relata ad unum* cod. U inserit *ut*.

en: Epistle, I Cor. 15:28. — A little above, before *est dupliciter* codd. F G K T U Z insert *hoc*, and then before *relata ad unum* cod. U inserts *ut*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 686, nota 3. — Codd. H N T U V Z *sit*.

en: Cf. above, p. 686, note 3. — Codd. H N T U V Z [read] *sit*.

la: Codd. iii et edd. 1, 2 *qui non*, Vat. et *Supplement.* Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 75. a. 2. nec non *Supplement.* — Pro *beatificabiles* subinde codd. substituunt *beati*.

en: Codd. iii and edd. 1, 2 [read] *qui non*, the Vatican [edition] and the *Supplement* to the *Summa* of Alexander of Hales, collation 75, a. 2, and also the *Supplement*. — For *beatificabiles* the codd. thereupon substitute *beati*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p691-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol3-p692-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) under the Vol III PDF-priority inversion, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 47964–48064) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 22 (p.691→PDF 713, p.692→PDF 714). Running heads confirm: `DIST. XXXI. ART. III. QUAEST. II.` (p.691), `692 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.692 head). English is fresh and literal.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.691:** QUAESTIO II heading + printed title; opener `Secundo quaeritur…`; fundamenta 1–4; Sed contra 1–4; Conclusio blockquote; Respondeo (*duplex latitudo*); the two conclusiones; Confirmatur; Solutio oppositorum replies 1, 2, and the opening of reply 3 (`…quin sint beatificabiles; vel non habebunt post diem iudicii alios`).
- **p.692** (top 3 lines, L→R col): reply 3 tail (`inimicos quam damnatos… statu viae.`); reply 4 (`Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur… affectus liberalitatem`); the *Praeterea* coda (`ratio illa non cogit… non immerito dicitur dilatari.`). QUAESTIO III begins immediately below on p.692.

**Apparatus (12 entries, per-page restart, renumbered continuous).**
- **p.691 footer nn.1–10 → [^1]–[^10]:** n.1 (*latitudo*, d.14 cross-ref + edd. variants) → [^1]; n.2 (*bona*, August. Serm. 358) → [^2]; n.3 (*liberalior*, Dionysius *bonum diffusivum*) → [^3]; n.4 (*cognitionem*, Gregor. Hom. Ezech.) → [^4]; n.5 (SC-1 *infinita*, Liber de Causis prop. 17) → [^5]; n.6 (SC-2 *praedestinatos*, Gregor.) → [^6]; n.7 (SC-4 *christiana*, August. de Doctr. I) → [^7]; n.8 (Resp. *sed*, cod. variants) → [^8]; n.9 (*amantissimus*, cod. L/K) → [^9]; n.10 (*omnibus*, I Cor. 15,28 + cod. inserts) → [^10].
- **p.692 footer nn.1–2 (q2's share) → [^11]–[^12]:** n.1 (*quatuor*, Cfr. supra pag. 686 nota 3 + cod. *sit*) → [^11]; n.2 (*dilatari* coda, edd./Vat./Suppl. Sum. Alex. Hal. variants) → [^12]. **Note:** the printed p.692 footer block was OCR-renumbered 1–10 spanning BOTH q2's 2-line spill (its nn.1–2) and q3's body (its nn.3–10). q2 captures only nn.1–2; q3 (when promoted) captures the remaining p.692 footers **3–10** PLUS its own continuation. See forwarded hand-off below.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. There is NO printed `SCHOLION.` header in q2's range (the next semantic header after q2's last reply is `QUAESTIO III.` on p.692). q2's scholion content is forward-covered by the **ARTICULUS-III article-master scholion §II** printed under a3-q1 at the foot of p.690: *«De seq. (2.) quaestione alium non vidimus explicite tractantem. Apta autem adhibita distinctione, quaestio facile ab auctore determinatur.»* This mirrors the a2-q1 → a2-q2 forward-cover convention and the `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` sibling-redirect pattern (cf. d1-a1-q2/q4). See the scholion to a3-q1 (§II).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a3-q1*: **NONE.** a3-q1 closed at scholion §IV on p.690; p.690 carries no footnotes, and QUAESTIO II opens fresh on p.691 with its own new footer sequence (raw 47964). No shared-page seam carried in (confirmed against a3-q1's forwarded "NONE").
- *Forwarded to d31-a3-q3*: **p.692 footer nn.3–10.** This chunk took only p.692 footer nn.1–2 (q2's 2-line spill). q3's body fills the rest of p.692; its footer block (renumbered from p.692 print) = nn.3–10 (`Cfr. supra d.29.q.3`; `Epist. I Cor. 13,12 …`; `In Vat. … desideratur non`; `Cfr. II Sent. d.11 … d.33`; `Cap. 48 n.93 …`; `Vide infra d.32.q.3`; `Cap. 10 …`; `Cfr. verba Anselm. Proslog. c.25 …`). **Also note for q3:** p.692 footer **n.2** as printed (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) was assigned HERE to q2's `dilatari[^12]`-region — verify at q3 build whether q3's body also bears a `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` redirect (q3 HAS its own article-master scholion §III/§IV under a3-q1, so q3 should likewise be `has_scholion: false` with a redirect). Re-read p.692 column bands at the q2/q3 footer seam before slugging q3.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column cascade-fragmented Respondeo (*duplex latitudo*), the Solutio oppositorum replies 1–4, and the p.691/p.692 footer blocks were all resolved against the 450 dpi PDF column bands; all 12 NOTAE entries are legible.

**Alignment check.** PASSED, no q-swap. Opener (raw 47967) `Secundo quaeritur, utrum caritas habeat in patria dilatari` = printed title `Utrum caritas habeat in patria dilatari` (1:1) = the ART-III TRACTATIO's second member (*utrum contingat, caritatis habitum in patria dilatari*, per a3-q1). `title_la` follows the TRACTATIO phrasing per the a3-q1 sibling precedent; the printed quaestio-title wording is preserved in the `### Quaestio II` heading. No STOP.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 31, Art. 3, Q. 3

title_alt: Whether it happens that the order of charity is changed in the fatherland

source_text:
<!-- page 692 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum ordo caritatis in patria habeat immutari.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ordo caritatis in patria habeat immutari, an is sit ordo patriae, qui est ordo viae, ut primo nos ipsos et deinde proximos diligamus. Et quod maneat, videtur posse ostendi sic.

**Argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Sicut gratia est perfectio naturae, sic et gloria: ergo sicut ordo conveniens ipsi naturae institutae salvatur, habitu gratiae adveniente; sic videtur, quod salvetur, habitu gloriae superveniente. Si ergo hic est ordo naturae conveniens, ut magis nos quam proximos diligamus[^8]; videtur, quod sicut hic manet, quamdiu sumus in gratia, similiter manebit in gloria.

2. Item, sicut ad virtutem fidei spectat videre per speculum et in aenigmate[^4], sic etiam ad virtutem caritatis spectat diligere ordinate: ergo sicut, sublato medio cognoscendi sive videndi ab ipsa fide, virtus fidei evacuatur, sic, si a caritate auferatur ordo, quem habet in diligendo, necesse est, ipsam evacuari. Si ergo caritas non evacuatur in patria, videtur, quod non auferatur ei ordo diligendi, quem habebat in via.

3. Item, si tantum diligit se quis in patria, quantum diligit proximum, et e converso, ita quod non est ibi ordo; igitur tantum gaudet de bono proximi, quantum de suo bono: ergo ille qui non est martyr, tantum gaudet de gloria martyris, quantum si ipsemet haberet illam gloriam. Si ergo non[^5] tantum gaudet non-martyr, quantum martyr, frustra ergo laborat homo aggredi opera perfectionis, cum tantum gaudeat ille qui non fecit, quantum ille qui fecit.

4. Item, si tantundem diligit aliquis alium, quantum semetipsum in gloria, ergo tantundem diligit sibi propinquos quantum remotos; tantundem etiam diligit illos quos convertit ad fidem, quantum illos quos non convertit; sed de illis quos convertit, habet quis gaudium accidentale, quod est aureola[^6]: ergo similiter de his quos non convertit. Quodsi hoc est inconveniens dicere, inconveniens est ponere, ordinem caritatis in gloria commutari.

**Sed contra:**

**Pro parte negativa:**

1. Augustinus *de Vera Religione*[^7]: « Perfecta iustitia haec est, ut plus potiora bona et minus minora diligamus »: si ergo in patria voluntas nostra ad perfectam iustitiam erit deducta, videtur, quod ibi magis diliget maius bonum. Si ergo proximus noster in patria melior est nobis, videtur, quod magis diligemus proximos nostros quam nosmetipsos.

2. Item, voluntas nostra per omnia erit in patria conformis voluntati divinae; sed Deus magis diligit meliorem[^8]: ergo videtur, quod caritas in Beatis eos magis faciat diligi, qui sunt magis boni: igitur in patria non attenditur ordo secundum rationem *proprii* et *alieni*, *propinqui* et *remoti*.

3. Item, in patria *Deus* erit *omnia in omnibus*, et affectus Beatorum sic erit dilectione inebriatus, secundum quod dicit Bernardus in libro de Diligendo Deo[^9], ut sui obliviscatur: si ergo Beati in patria in diligendo non attendunt *quod suum est*, sed quod Dei; videtur, quod ordo caritatis non maneat in patria secundum rationem *proprii* et *alieni*, nec dilectio sui praeponderabit dilectioni proximi.

4. Item, si homo amaret se plus quam proximum, ergo magis optaret sibi bonum quam proximo, et magis delectaretur in bono proprio quam alieno; sed ubi hoc est, aliquo modo manet proprietas, nec omni modo est perfecta gaudii communitas: si igitur in gloria erit summa communicatio gaudiorum[^10], videtur, quod non maneat ibi ordo, qui nunc est respectu diligendorum.

<!-- page 693 -->

### Conclusio.

> Valde probabile videtur, quod in patria non manebit ordo caritatis, qui attenditur ratione naturae substratae, ita ut per se non amemus magis nos quam proximos.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hanc quaestionem est duplex dicendi modus.

Unus est, quod in patria salvatur ordo caritatis, qui est in via, non tantum per comparationem nostri ad Deum, sed etiam per comparationem nostri ad proximum. Unde in omni statu, sive gloriae sive viae, plus homo diliget se ipsum quam proximum suum, et plus circa se ipsum afficietur, deinde plus circa illos qui ei coniuncti sunt, quam circa eos qui sunt minus coniuncti. — Ratio autem, quae movet hoc ponere, est, quia huiusmodi ordo consonare videtur *dictamini naturae*, *perfectioni gloriae*, *rectitudini divinae iustitiae*. *Natura* enim dictat, quod homo plus se quam alterum diligat. *Gloria* etiam essentialius[^11] respicit illum, in quo est, quam alium ei consimilem et propinquum. *Divina* etiam *iustitia* ordinat, quod plus de suis meritis gaudeat homo, quae fecit, quam de alienis. Et sic per omnem modum videtur conveniens[^12], ut ordo caritatis, qui est in via, salvetur in patria.

Alius autem modus dicendi est hic, quod cum duplex sit ordo caritatis: unus, qui respicit caritatem secundum se, qui quidem attenditur secundum gradum et differentias boni; alter, qui attenditur ratione naturae substratae, utpote ille qui est secundum differentias *proprii* et *alieni*, *propinqui* et *remoti*[^13]: unus istorum ordinum, scilicet ille qui est caritatis secundum se, manet in patria. Ille enim est caritati essentialis; unde magis diliget homo in patria Deum quam spiritum creatum, et spiritum magis quam corpus. Alius vero ordo, qui attenditur ratione naturae substratae, non manebit, pro eo quod non competit illi statui. In statu namque beatitudinis perfecta erit *obedientia naturae* respectu gloriae, perfecta *conformitas voluntatis* nostrae respectu divinae, perfecta etiam *redundantia communis laetitiae*. Quia perfecta erit *obedientia naturae* respectu gloriae, conformabitur tunc omnino natura gloriae, ut, sicut corpus efficietur spirituale et per omnia spiritui obtemperabit, quamvis secundum statum viae oporteat, spiritum corpori condescendere[^14]; sic natura per omnia conformabitur ordini gloriae et gratiae, qui attenditur secundum *differentias boni*, quamvis nunc gratia condescendat ipsi affectui naturali. — *Rursus*, quia perfecta erit *conformitas voluntatis* nostrae respectu divinae, non magis diligemus illud quod magis erit nobis propinquum, sed illud quod plus erit Deo placitum et acceptum. — *Postremo*, quia erit ibi perfecta *affluentia communis laetitiae*, multiplicabitur gaudium hominis multiplicatione perfecta, ut tantum gaudeat de bono uniuscuiusque proximi quantum de suo; quod non posset esse, nisi diligeret proximum quantum semetipsum. Et hoc est quod dicit Anselmus in Prosologio, capitulo ultimo[^15]: « In illa perfecta caritate innumerabilium Angelorum et hominum beatorum, ubi nullus minus alium quam se ipsum diligit, non aliter gaudebit quisque pro singulis aliis quam pro se ipso ».

Quis autem istorum duorum modorum sit rationabilior, difficile est definire, quamdiu sumus in statu praesentis miseriae. Si enim velimus iudicare secundum ea quae in nobis sentimus, vix videbitur alicui credibile nec rationabile, quod aliquis omnino[^16] diligat alterum quantum se ipsum. Unde iudicabit primum modum dicendi esse magis verum. — Si quis vero velit mentem suam altius elevare ad illud *Bonum incomprehensibile*, quod *nec oculus vidit*, *nec auris audivit*, *nec in cor hominis ascendit*[^17], et ad illam maximam civium unitatem; magis rationabilem iudicabit sequentem modum dicendi, secundum quod manifeste dicit auctoritas Anselmi et Augustini in libro de Vera Religione. Videtur id ipsum sentire et Bernardus in libro de Diligendo Deo. Unde si velimus loqui, ut plures, sustinebimus primum modum; si vero velimus loqui et sentire, ut sapientiores[^18], sustinebimus sequentem. Sustinentes igitur hunc secundum modum dicendi, possumus ad obiecta respondere per ordinem.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod gloria salvat ordinem naturae institutae; dicendum, quod verum est, quod naturam salvat; sed imperfectionem tollit et eliminat; ordo autem, qui attenditur respectu sui et proximi, deficit a perfecta communicatione et unitate et concordia affectionis; et ideo in ablatione talis ordinis nullum[^19] fit naturae praeiudicium, sed potius de imperfectione ducitur ad complementum.

<!-- page 694 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo ille ita competit caritati, sicut aenigma fidei; dicendum, quod falsum est. Aenigma enim competit ipsi habitui fidei secundum se et in quantum est habitus virtutis dirigens ad voluntarie credendum ea quae non videntur; sed ordo ille qui est respectu proximi, attribuitur ipsi caritati ratione naturae substratae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc tantum gaudet[^20] homo de alio quantum de se ipso; dicendum, quod illud verum est *ceteris paribus*. Sed ad quantitatem gaudii, attendendum est, quod duo concurrunt, videlicet *virtus dilectionis*, quae facit gaudere, et *materia*, de qua gaudet. Quantum est ex parte *materiae*, aequaliter gaudebit quis in patria de bono proximi et de bono suo, si est aequale, et magis, si est maius, et minus, si est minus; sed quantum est ex parte *virtutis*, per quam gaudet, magis gaudebit qui maiorem caritatem habebit. Unde magis gaudebit Petrus de bono Lini, quam Linus de bono proprio. Unde non sequitur, quod non-martyr tantum gaudeat[^21] de bono martyris, quantum ipse martyr, quia merito martyrii aucta est ei virtus gaudendi. Et sic patet, quod licet ex hoc ponatur communitas gaudii, non tamen tollitur, quod unus plus gaudeat de alio quam alter.

4. Et per hoc patet ultimum, quod obiicit de praemio aureolae: quia, quod aliquis habeat gaudium *speciale* de alio, hoc non erit[^22] ratione *ordinis* in diligendo, quod magis diligat illum quam alterum, sed hoc erit ratione cuiusdam *decoris et gloriae*, quam adeptus est merito operis excellentis.

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:**

Si autem aliam positionem sustinere velimus, ad omnia obiecta responderi potest breviter, quod omnia intelliguntur *ceteris paribus*.

1. Unde quod dicitur, quod magis debemus diligere maiora bona; hoc verum est, quantum est de *ratione boni*, sed ratio[^23] maioris propinquitatis aliud exigit.

2. Similiter quod dicit, quod perfecte conformanda est voluntas nostra voluntati divinae; dicendum, quod verum est; sed Deus non diligit *maiori affectu*, sed diligit *ad maius*[^24]. Unde ex hoc non sequitur, quod debeamus magis diligere proximos nostros meliores nobis quam nos ipsos, sed quod debeamus eos ad maius diligere.

3. Similiter quod dicitur, quod affectus Beatorum erit inebriatus; hoc non est, quia non diligunt semetipsos, sed quia affectus eorum non erit retardatus in dilectione Dei.

4. Postremo, quod dicitur de communicatione perfectae laetitiae, non cogit, quia perfecta laetitia non excludit, quin homo principaliter bonum suum diligat; sed hoc facit, quod diligendo bonum proprium sic circa se afficiatur, ut circa alios non torpescat[^25].

---

english:
<!-- page 692 -->

### Question III. *Whether the order of charity is to be changed in the fatherland.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the order of charity is to be changed in the fatherland, or whether the order of the fatherland is that order which is the order of the way, namely that we love first ourselves and then our neighbors. And that it remains can be shown thus.

**Arguments for the affirmative part:**

1. As grace is the perfection of nature, so also is glory: therefore, as the order suited to nature as instituted is preserved when the habit of grace arrives, so it seems that it is preserved when the habit of glory supervenes. If therefore there is here an order suited to nature, namely that we love ourselves more than our neighbors[^8], it seems that, as it remains here so long as we are in grace, it will likewise remain in glory.

2. Likewise, as it belongs to the virtue of faith to see through a mirror and in an enigma[^4], so also it belongs to the virtue of charity to love in an ordered way: therefore, as, when the medium of knowing or seeing is removed from faith itself, the virtue of faith is voided, so, if from charity be taken away the order which it has in loving, it is necessary that it itself be voided. If therefore charity is not voided in the fatherland, it seems that there is not taken away from it the order of loving which it had on the way.

3. Likewise, if anyone loves himself in the fatherland as much as he loves his neighbor, and conversely, such that there is no order there; then he rejoices over his neighbor's good as much as over his own good: therefore he who is not a martyr rejoices over the glory of the martyr as much as if he himself had that glory. If therefore the non-martyr does not[^5] rejoice as much as the martyr, then man labors in vain to undertake works of perfection, since he who has not done [them] rejoices as much as he who has done them.

4. Likewise, if anyone loves another as much as himself in glory, then he loves those near to him as much as those remote; he also loves equally those whom he has converted to the faith as much as those whom he has not converted; but over those whom he has converted one has an accidental joy, which is the aureole[^6]: therefore likewise over those whom he has not converted. But if this is unfitting to say, it is unfitting to posit that the order of charity is changed in glory.

**On the contrary:**

**For the negative part:**

1. Augustine, *On True Religion*[^7]: "Perfect justice is this, that we love the more weighty goods more and the lesser goods less": if therefore in the fatherland our will shall be brought to perfect justice, it seems that there it will love the greater good more. If therefore our neighbor in the fatherland is better than we, it seems that we shall love our neighbors more than ourselves.

2. Likewise, our will in the fatherland will be in all things conformed to the divine will; but God loves the better one[^8] more: therefore it seems that charity in the Blessed makes those be loved more who are more good: therefore in the fatherland the order is not regarded according to the account of *one's own* and *another's*, *near* and *remote*.

3. Likewise, in the fatherland *God* will be *all in all*, and the affection of the Blessed will be so inebriated with love, according to what Bernard says in the book *On Loving God*[^9], that one forgets himself: if therefore the Blessed in the fatherland in loving do not regard *what is their own*, but what is God's; it seems that the order of charity does not remain in the fatherland according to the account of *one's own* and *another's*, nor will love of self outweigh love of neighbor.

4. Likewise, if a man were to love himself more than his neighbor, then he would wish good for himself more than for his neighbor, and would be delighted more in his own good than in another's; but where this is, in some manner property remains, nor is there in every way a perfect community of joy: if therefore in glory there will be the highest communication of joys[^10], it seems that there does not remain there the order which now exists with respect to the things to be loved.

<!-- page 693 -->

### Conclusion.

> It seems very probable that in the fatherland the order of charity will not remain which is regarded by reason of the underlying nature, such that of itself we love ourselves more than our neighbors.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that concerning this question there is a twofold manner of speaking.

One is that in the fatherland the order of charity which is on the way is preserved, not only by comparison of ourselves to God, but also by comparison of ourselves to neighbor. Hence in every state, whether of glory or of the way, a man will love himself more than his neighbor, and will be more affected toward himself, then more toward those who are joined to him, than toward those who are less joined. — And the reason which moves [one] to posit this is that an order of this kind seems to be consonant with *the dictate of nature*, *the perfection of glory*, *the rectitude of divine justice*. For *nature* dictates that a man love himself more than another. *Glory* too more essentially[^11] regards him in whom it is than another like and near to him. *Divine justice* too ordains that a man rejoice more over his own merits, which he has done, than over another's. And so in every way it seems fitting[^12] that the order of charity which is on the way be preserved in the fatherland.

But the other manner of speaking is this: that since the order of charity is twofold — one which regards charity in itself, which indeed is regarded according to the degree and differences of the good; the other which is regarded by reason of the underlying nature, namely that which is according to the differences of *one's own* and *another's*, *near* and *remote*[^13] — one of these orders, namely that which is of charity in itself, remains in the fatherland. For it is essential to charity; hence a man will love God more in the fatherland than a created spirit, and a spirit more than a body. But the other order, which is regarded by reason of the underlying nature, will not remain, because it does not befit that state. For in the state of beatitude there will be a perfect *obedience of nature* with respect to glory, a perfect *conformity of will* of ours with respect to the divine, and a perfect *overflow of common joy*. Because there will be a perfect *obedience of nature* with respect to glory, nature will then be wholly conformed to glory, so that, as the body will be made spiritual and will obey the spirit in all things, although according to the state of the way the spirit must condescend to the body[^14]; so nature will be in all things conformed to the order of glory and grace, which is regarded according to the *differences of the good*, although now grace condescends to the natural affection itself. — *Again*, because there will be a perfect *conformity of will* of ours with respect to the divine, we shall not love more that which will be more near to us, but that which will be more pleasing and acceptable to God. — *Lastly*, because there will be there a perfect *abundance of common joy*, the joy of man will be multiplied with a perfect multiplication, so that one rejoices over the good of each neighbor as much as over his own; which could not be unless he loved his neighbor as much as himself. And this is what Anselm says in the *Proslogion*, in the last chapter[^15]: "In that perfect charity of innumerable Angels and of blessed men, where no one loves another less than himself, each one will rejoice no otherwise for each of the others than for himself."

But which of these two manners is the more reasonable, it is difficult to define so long as we are in the state of the present misery. For if we wish to judge according to those things which we feel in ourselves, it will scarcely seem to anyone credible or reasonable that anyone should at all[^16] love another as much as himself. Hence he will judge the first manner of speaking to be more true. — But if anyone wishes to raise his mind higher to that *incomprehensible Good*, which *eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man*[^17], and to that greatest unity of the citizens; he will judge the following manner of speaking to be more reasonable, according to what the authority of Anselm and of Augustine in the book *On True Religion* manifestly says. Bernard too in the book *On Loving God* seems to hold the same. Hence if we wish to speak as the many [do], we shall maintain the first manner; but if we wish to speak and to feel as the wiser[^18] [do], we shall maintain the following. Maintaining therefore this second manner of speaking, we can answer the objections in order.

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

1. To that therefore which is objected first, that glory preserves the order of nature as instituted; it must be said that it is true that it preserves nature; but it removes and eliminates imperfection; now the order which is regarded with respect to self and neighbor falls short of a perfect communication and unity and concord of affection; and therefore in the removal of such an order no[^19] prejudice is done to nature, but rather it is led from imperfection to completion.

<!-- page 694 -->

2. To that which is objected, that that order befits charity as the enigma befits faith; it must be said that it is false. For the enigma befits the habit of faith itself in itself and inasmuch as it is a habit of virtue directing toward voluntarily believing those things which are not seen; but that order which is with respect to neighbor is attributed to charity itself by reason of the underlying nature.

3. To that which is objected, that then one rejoices[^20] over another as much as over himself; it must be said that that is true *other things being equal*. But as to the quantity of joy, it must be noted that two things concur, namely the *virtue of love*, which makes [one] rejoice, and the *matter* over which one rejoices. As far as concerns the *matter*, one will rejoice equally in the fatherland over the good of his neighbor and over his own good, if it is equal, and more, if it is greater, and less, if it is less; but as far as concerns the *virtue* by which one rejoices, he will rejoice more who will have the greater charity. Hence Peter will rejoice more over the good of Linus than Linus over his own good. Hence it does not follow that the non-martyr rejoices[^21] over the good of the martyr as much as the martyr himself, because by the merit of martyrdom the power of rejoicing has been increased for him. And thus it is clear that, although from this a community of joy is posited, yet it is not removed that one rejoices more over another than the other.

4. And through this the last [argument] is clear, which objects concerning the reward of the aureole: because that anyone has a *special* joy over another, this will not be[^22] by reason of an *order* in loving, namely that he loves him more than another, but this will be by reason of a certain *comeliness and glory* which he has attained by the merit of an excellent work.

**To the arguments for the negative part:**

But if we wish to maintain the other position, all the objections can be answered briefly, since they are all understood *other things being equal*.

1. Hence as to what is said, that we ought to love greater goods more; this is true so far as concerns the *account of the good*, but the account[^23] of greater nearness requires something else.

2. Likewise, as to what it says, that our will is to be perfectly conformed to the divine will; it must be said that it is true; but God does not love with a *greater affection*, but loves *toward a greater* [good][^24]. Hence from this it does not follow that we ought to love our neighbors better than us more than ourselves, but that we ought to love them toward a greater [good].

3. Likewise, as to what is said, that the affection of the Blessed will be inebriated; this is not because they do not love themselves, but because their affection will not be retarded in the love of God.

4. Lastly, as to what is said about the communication of perfect joy, it does not compel, because perfect joy does not exclude that a man principally loves his own good; but it brings it about that, in loving his own good, he is so affected toward himself that he does not grow sluggish toward others[^25].

---

la: *(Scholion source-reference — no body marker.)* Vide supra d. 28. q. 6.

en: *(Scholion source-reference — no body marker.)* See above, d. 28, q. 6.

la: *(Scholion source-reference — no body marker.)* Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: *(Scholion source-reference — no body marker.)* See the scholion to the preceding question.

la: *(Scholion source-reference — no body marker.)* Cfr. supra d. 29. q. 3.

en: *(Scholion source-reference — no body marker.)* Cf. above, d. 29, q. 3.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 13, 12. — Quod ad caritatem spectet diligere ordinate, ostensum est supra d. 29. q. 1. — Inferius post *evacuatur* edd. sic prosequuntur: *sic, sublato a caritate ordine diligendi, necessario habet caritas evacuari. Si ergo* etc.

en: Epistle 1 Cor. 13:12. — That it pertains to charity to love in an ordered way was shown above, d. 29, q. 1. — Below, after *evacuatur* the editions continue thus: *sic, sublato a caritate ordine diligendi, necessario habet caritas evacuari. Si ergo* etc.

la: In Vat. et nonnullis codd. desideratur *non*.

en: In the Vatican [edition] and in several codices *non* is wanting.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. II. a. 2. q. 3. ad 6, d. 40. a. 2. q. 1; IV. Sent. d. II. p. II. dub. I. et d. 33. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius post *quantum remotos* Vat. interiicit *et e converso* (quod connectit cum seqq.). In fine arg. pro *in gloria commutari* cod. Z *in patria immutari*.

en: Cf. *II Sent.* d. II, a. 2, q. 3, ad 6; d. 40, a. 2, q. 1; *IV Sent.* d. II, p. II, dub. I, and d. 33, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, after *quantum remotos* the Vatican [edition] inserts *et e converso* (which it connects with what follows). At the end of the argument, for *in gloria commutari* cod. Z [reads] *in patria immutari*.

la: Cap. 48. n. 93. Cfr. supra pag. 650, nota 8. — Inferius pro *maius bonum* codd. K V *magis bonum*.

en: Chapter 48, n. 93. Cf. above, p. 650, note 8. — Below, for *maius bonum* codd. K V [read] *magis bonum*.

la: Vide infra d. 32. q. 3.

en: See below, d. 32, q. 3.

la: Cap. 10. n. 28. et c. 15. n. 39. Respicitur I. Cor. 15, 28. et inferius ibid. 13, 5.

en: Chapter 10, n. 28, and c. 15, n. 39. Reference is made to 1 Cor. 15:28, and below to the same, 13:5.

la: Cfr. verba Anselm., Proslog. c. 25, infra in corp. quaest. allata. Cfr. etiam August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 67. n. 2. — Pro *omni modo* cod. O habet *omnimoda*, edd. cum paucis codd. *omnino*, et deinde *perfecta* pro *summa*. Pro *nunc*, quod Vat. omittit quodque fide codd. A B H M O P U bb restituimus, alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 nec non *Supplement.* Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 75. a. 3. falso *non*.

en: Cf. the words of Anselm, *Proslogion* c. 25, adduced below in the body of the question. Cf. also Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tr. 67, n. 2. — For *omni modo* cod. O has *omnimoda*, the editions with a few codices *omnino*, and then *perfecta* for *summa*. For *nunc*, which the Vatican [edition] omits and which on the faith of codd. A B H M O P U bb we have restored, the other codices and edd. 1, 2 and also the *Supplement* to the *Summa* of Alexander of Hales, collation 75, a. 3, falsely [read] *non*.

la: Ita cod. A; alii codd. *essentialis*, quorum non pauci deinde verbo *respicit* praefigunt *magis*. In *Supplemento* Sum. Alex. Hal., ubi etiam habetur *essentialis*, verbo *respicit* praefixum est *plus*.

en: So cod. A; other codices [read] *essentialis*, not a few of which then prefix *magis* to the word *respicit*. In the *Supplement* to the *Summa* of Alexander of Hales, where *essentialis* is likewise found, *plus* is prefixed to the word *respicit*.

la: Cod. X *convenientius*. Subinde pro *Alius autem* codd. A U Z *Alius etiam*.

en: Cod. X [reads] *convenientius*. Thereupon, for *Alius autem* codd. A U Z [read] *Alius etiam*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 29. q. 5. et dub. 3.

en: Cf. above, d. 29, q. 5, and dub. 3.

la: Vide I. Cor. 15, 12. seqq. — Paulo inferius, contextu exigente, posuimus *gratiae, qui*, licet codd. et edd. legant *gratiae, quae*.

en: See 1 Cor. 15:12 ff. — A little below, as the context requires, we have put *gratiae, qui*, although the codices and editions read *gratiae, quae*.

la: Nunc cap. penultimo (c. 25.). August. pag. 692, nota 10. cit. ait: *Ut quod habent singuli commune sit omnibus. Sic enim quisque etiam ipse habet, cum amat in altero quod ipse non habet.* — Paulo superius post *nisi diligeret* cod. U subdit *tantum*.

en: Now the penultimate chapter (c. 25.). Augustine, cited at p. 692, note 10, says: *That what individuals have may be common to all. For thus each one even has it himself, when he loves in another what he himself does not have.* — A little above, after *nisi diligeret* cod. U adds *tantum*.

la: Codd. U Z *tantum*, cod. aa *homo*.

en: Codd. U Z [read] *tantum*, cod. aa *homo*.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 9. — Mox pro *unitatem* edd. exhibent *unionem* et deinde pro *Bernardus in libro de Diligendo Deo* perperam *Dionysius in libris de Divinis Nominibus* (cfr. hic arg. 3. pro parte negat.).

en: Epistle 1 Cor. 2:9. — Presently, for *unitatem* the editions exhibit *unionem*, and then for *Bernard in the book On Loving God* wrongly *Dionysius in the books On the Divine Names* (cf. here arg. 3 for the negative part).

la: Codd. A U *sapientes*. Mox codd. G H I L aa omittunt *secundum*, pro quo cod. K *sequentem*.

en: Codd. A U [read] *sapientes*. Presently codd. G H I L aa omit *secundum*, for which cod. K [reads] *sequentem*.

la: Cod. U *nulli*, Vat. *non*.

en: Cod. U [reads] *nulli*, the Vatican [edition] *non*.

la: Cod. Z *gaudebit*.

en: Cod. Z [reads] *gaudebit*.

la: Cod. V *gauderet*.

en: Cod. V [reads] *gauderet*.

la: Pro *erit* codd. A N hic et paulo inferius *est*.

en: For *erit* codd. A N [read], here and a little below, *est*.

la: In non paucis codd. desideratur *ratio*; in cod. Z legitur *sed maior propinquitas aliud exigit*.

en: In not a few codices *ratio* is wanting; in cod. Z is read *sed maior propinquitas aliud exigit*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 32. q. 2. seq.

en: Cf. below, d. 32, q. 2 f.

en: See the scholion to the 1st question of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for pp.692–694 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p69{2,3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion over the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 48065–48239); offset pdf = printed + 22 (PDF 714–716). English is a fresh literal translation. Skeleton OCR was largely accurate for the running prose; column bands were authoritative for the cascade-fragmented Respondeo (*duplex dicendi modus* / Opinio 1 + Opinio 2) and all three pages' footer blocks.

**Alignment (no q-swap).** TRACTATIO 3rd member = q3 opener 1:1. Opener (raw ~48068): *Tertio quaeritur, utrum ordo caritatis in patria habeat immutari, an is sit ordo patriae, qui est ordo viae…* — matches `title_la` *Utrum contingat caritatis ordinem in patria immutari* (= the ART-III TRACTATIO 3rd member; the printed quaestio-title reads *Utrum ordo caritatis in patria habeat immutari*). VERIFIED, no swap.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.692:** QUAESTIO III header + title open immediately below q2's 2-line spill (top-R of p.692). Body: opener + affirmative args 1–4 (L-col), then Sed contra / pro-parte-negativa args 1–4 (R-col). The very top of p.692-R (`litatem. Praeterea… non immerito dicitur dilatari.`) is **q2's** spill, NOT q3's — it carries q2's own marker mini-sequence (`quatuor¹`/`dilatari²`), distinct from q3's p.692 footer block.
- **p.693:** CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (twofold *dicendi modus*: Opinio 1, Opinio 2 with the *obedientia naturae / conformitas voluntatis / affluentia communis laetitiae* triplex + Anselm *Proslogion* quote + the *iudicium de his opinionibus*), then *Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa* reply 1 begins (R-col foot).
- **p.694:** affirmative replies 2–4 (L-col) + *Ad argumenta pro parte negativa* replies 1–4 (R-col), q3 closing at *…ut circa alios non torpescat[^25]* (L-col, marker n.6). `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` opens full-width immediately below in the L-col (= start of d31-dubia).

**Apparatus (25 entries; per-page restart, renumbered continuous).** p.692 nn.1–10 → [^1]–[^10] (L footer nn.1–6, R footer nn.7–10); p.693 nn.1–9 → [^11]–[^19] (L footer nn.1–5, R footer nn.6–9); p.694 nn.1–6 → [^20]–[^25] (L footer; q3 owns nn.1–6 only).

**⚠ q2/q3 p.692 FOOTER SEAM — RESOLVED (eyes-on, 450 dpi).** The a3-q2 hand-off predicted "q2 took p.692 nn.1–2; q3 takes nn.3–10," assuming a single shared p.692 footer sequence 1–10. **Eyes-on the p.692 L-2/R-2 footer bands corrects this:** p.692 carries TWO distinct footer sequences. (a) q2's 2-line spill at the top of p.692-R bears its own small mini-sequence (markers `quatuor¹`/`dilatari²`), whose notes q2 captured as its `[^11]`/`[^12]` (`Cfr. supra pag. 686 nota 3…` / `Codd. iii et edd. 1,2 qui non…`). (b) q3's body fills the rest of p.692 and bears the **full main p.692 footer block nn.1–10** beginning *Vide supra d. 28. q. 6.* — every one of these ten notes anchors in q3's body (n.1 *diligamus*/d.28-cross-ref region; n.2 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*; n.3 *Cfr. supra d.29.q.3*; n.4 1 Cor. 13:12; n.5 *desideratur non*; n.6 *II Sent. d.II…d.33*; n.7 *Cap. 48 n.93*; n.8 *Vide infra d.32.q.3*; n.9 *Cap. 10 n.28*; n.10 Anselm *Proslog. c.25*). Therefore **q3 owns p.692 nn.1–10 in full** (= [^1]–[^10]), NOT nn.3–10. No double-claim with q2 (q2's two notes are textually different).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. No printed `SCHOLION.` header anywhere in q3's range (pp.692–694, confirmed across all six column bands). q3's scholion content is forward-covered by the ARTICULUS-III article-master scholion under **a3-q1**: **§III** is the long Thomas/ordo-caritatis doxography that *explicitly solves the third question* (*In tertia quaestione solvenda Guliel. Antissiodorensis… tenet primam opinionem…* — two-opinion reconciliation, Bonaventure inclining to the second/mystical position per his *Soliloquium* c.4), and **§IV** is q3's parallel-citation register (Albert / Peter of Tarentaise / Richard of Mediavilla / Dionysius the Carthusian). The redirect is anchored in q3's own apparatus: [^25] (p.694 n.6) = *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* ("See the scholion to the 1st question of this article"). This mirrors the a2-q1→a2 and a1-q1→a1 forward-covering scholion pattern in d.31.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a3-q2*: the hand-off named "p.692 nn.3–10" — **superseded by eyes-on** (see q2/q3 seam above): q3 owns the full p.692 main footer block nn.1–10. No textual overlap with q2's two captured notes.
- *Forwarded to d31-dubia*: **p.694 nn.7–10.** q3 owns only p.694 nn.1–6 (last = n.6 scholion-redirect). The p.694 footer continues with nn.7–10 (n.7 *Cap. 1. — Pro quod Magister cod. bb sicut Magister*; n.8 *Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 1.*; n.9 *In verbis huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c.1…*; n.10 *Aristot. IV. Meteor. text. 54 (c. ult.)…*), all of which anchor in the DUBIA body (`Magister dicit inferius⁷`, `caritas viae et patriae sunt unius rationis⁸`, `amittatur⁹`, `habet operationem sibi debitam¹⁰`) opening below q3 on p.694. d31-dubia restarts the p.694 footer pickup at n.7.

**[?] flags.** None. All three pages' bodies and footer blocks were legible at 450 dpi.

**Boundary.** q3 is the LAST quaestio of ARTICULUS III; on its promotion d.31's article slate is complete (divisio + a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3 + a3-q1/q2/q3 — pending only `d31-dubia` to close the distinction). q3/dubia boundary falls inside printed p.694 (full-width DUBIA opener below q3's L-col tail).

**J4 Class B — p.692 orphaned apparatus [^1]–[^10] (2026-07-17).** All ten p.692 main-footer definitions ([^1]–[^10]) were orphaned (defined but unanchored in either body). Extracted pp.692–694 at 450 dpi (`python3.11 tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol3 --pages 692-694 --dpi 450`) and read both the `colcrop.py vol3 692 1660` bands and native-resolution crops of `raw/vision/vol3/p-692.png` directly (bypassing colcrop's extra downscaling) to resolve the exact printed superscript numerals, per Trap 1 (content-keyed, not positional) and Trap 2 (page-comment boundaries as hint only).

- **Placed [^4]** at *aenigmate* (arg. 2) — confirmed printed superscript "4"; note content (1 Cor 13:12 + *diligere ordinate* cross-ref) matches the clause directly.
- **Placed [^5]** at *non* in "Si ergo non tantum gaudet non-martyr" (arg. 3) — confirmed printed superscript "5"; note is the *desideratur non* variant, matching exactly.
- **Placed [^6]** at *aureola* (arg. 4) — confirmed printed superscript "6"; note's cross-refs to *gaudium accidentale* passages match.
- **Placed [^7]** at *Religione* in "Augustinus de Vera Religione" (Sed contra 1) — confirmed printed superscript "7"; note is the chapter/page locator for this exact citation.
- **Placed [^8]** at BOTH *diligamus* (arg. 1, end) and *meliorem* (Sed contra 2) — eyes-on the native-resolution page image shows the printed page genuinely carries the numeral "8" (unambiguous double-loop glyph, cross-checked against the footer's own "3", "8", "9" glyphs) at **both** locations; no other digit is printed at either spot. Rather than arbitrarily picking one, both anchors are kept, matching a corpus-documented legitimate pattern (Class D/E: one definition may be cited from two lemmas).
- **Placed [^9]** at *Deo* in "libro de Diligendo Deo" (Sed contra 3) — confirmed printed superscript "9"; note is the chapter/section locator (Cap.10 n.28) for the Bernard citation.
- **Placed [^10]** at *gaudiorum* (Sed contra 4) — confirmed printed superscript "10"; note is the Anselm *Proslogion* c.25 forward cross-reference, consistent with the Anselm quote appearing later in the Respondeo.
- **REFUSED [^1], [^2], [^3]** — no printed superscript numeral for 1, 2, or 3 exists anywhere in q3's p.692 body. The entire page was read exhaustively at native 450 dpi resolution (opening incipit, all four affirmative arguments, all four Sed-contra/negative arguments) and no additional marks were found beyond the eight listed above. Combined with the confirmed literal duplicate "8" (see above), this points to a genuine 1887 Quaracchi typesetting erratum on this page — the numerals for notes 1–3 appear never to have been set in the body, or were mis-set as a repeated "8" — rather than markers that exist but were missed. Per the Class B rule ("if you cannot place an anchor with evidence, REFUSE"), [^1], [^2], and [^3] are left defined-but-unanchored; do not guess a placement for them. `has_apparatus` and the definitions themselves are left untouched (removing them would be an unrelated, unauthorized change to apparatus prose).