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

source_text:
<!-- page 678 -->

### Articulus I. *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.*
### Quaestio III. *Utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia quantitas caritatis in ipso homine attenditur secundum liberalitatem Dei; sed Dei liberalitas non est arctata ipsi peccatori ad dandum *tantum*, nec plus nec minus: ergo sicut potest resurgere in maiori, ita et in minori.

2. Item, Deus dat homini gratiam, secundum quod se praeparat et disponit[^1]; sed possibile est, quod peccator, cum resurgit, minus se praeparet ad gratiam, quam ante se praeparaverat: ergo possibile est, quod in minori caritate et gratia resurgat.

3. Item, caritas praecedens nihil meretur respectu caritatis subsequentis[^2], item culpa, quantum est de se, expelli potest per quantulamcumque gratiam: igitur nec caritas praecedens nec culpa subsequens exigit, quod homo in aequali caritate vel gratia resurgat: ergo possibile est, ipsum resurgere in minori.

4. Item, si homo non posset resurgere in minori caritate, tunc cadens a caritate perfecta non posset resurgere nisi in caritate perfecta; sed caritas, cum resurgit, est incipiens: ergo simul est incipiens et perfecta; quod manifeste falsum est, cum «nemo repente fiat summus[^3]», et ante statum perfectionis necessario praecurrat status imperfectus et inceptionis.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ezechielis decimo octavo[^4]: *Si impius egerit poenitentiam, omnium iniquitatum eius, quas operatus est, non recordabor*; constat, quod non intelligit de oblivione quantum ad actum cogitandi, sed quantum ad actum puniendi; sed homo non punitur solum per inflictionem mali, sed etiam per subtractionem boni: si ergo Dominus non recordatur illorum peccatorum ad poenam aeternam; cum diminutio caritatis faciat ad diminutionem praemii substantialis et ita ad damnum aeternum, videtur, quod necessarium sit, hominem in aequali caritate, vel in maiori resurgere.

2. Item, ad Romanos octavo[^5]: *Scimus, quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum*; Glossa: «Ipse etiam casus in mortale»; sed casus in mortale peccatum non cooperaretur in bonum, nisi homo resurgeret in aequali, vel in maiori caritate: videtur ergo, quod necessarium sit, hominem in aequali caritate, vel maiori resurgere.

3. Item, super illud Genesis primo[^6]: *Factum est vespere et mane dies unus*; Glossa: «Vespertina lux est, a qua quis cecidit; matutina, in qua resurgit»: si ergo lux matutina semper maior est vespertina, videtur, quod maior sit caritas, in qua quis resurgit, quam caritas, a qua cecidit.

4. Item, maioris virtutis est quod pellit, quam quod pellitur: sed caritas, in qua quis resurgit, pellit illud quod expulit caritatem, a qua quis cecidit: ergo necesse est, caritatem subsequentem maiorem et fortiorem esse illo quod caritatem expulit, et per consequens ipsa caritate, a qua quis cecidit.

### Conclusio.

> Possibile est, quod homo, amissa caritate, resurgat et in maiori et in minori et in aequali caritate.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod aliquorum aliquando fuit opinio, quod necesse erat, hominem resurgere in aequali, vel maiori caritate. Et ad hoc ponendum moti sunt tum ex consideratione divinae dispositionis sive praedestinationis, tum ex consideratione divinae retributionis, tum ex consideratione nostrae praeparationis. Ex consideratione namque divinae praedestinationis moti sunt: quia dixerunt, quod diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum, his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt Sancti[^7]; ideo divinae praedestinationis immutabilitas nequaquam sineret hominem labi a caritate, nisi ex lapsu illo videret subsequentem utilitatem; nec regimen divinae providentiae filium regni permitteret cadere, nisi ex hoc simul praevideret[^8] maius bonum ex ipso casu elicere. — Ex parte vero retributionis ratiocinantur,

<!-- page 679 -->

quia Deus opera remunerat secundum quantitatem caritatis, ex qua sunt facta[^9]. Si ergo caritas, in qua quis resurgit, vivificat opera prius mortua et facit ea remuneratione digna; cum remuneratio adaequetur quantitati caritatis, ex qua opera facta sunt, nec possit excedere quantitatem caritatis, in qua quis resurgit: ratiocinantur ex hoc, quod impossibile sit, minorem caritatem esse in resurgente, quam prius fuerit in cadente. — Ex parte nostrae praeparationis ratiocinantur sic: quia, quanto homo magis est ineptus ad gratiam, tanto maiori indiget praeparatione ad hoc, ut ipsam suscipiat; sed quanto a maiori gratia cecidit, tanto magis peccavit et magis ad gratiam ineptus fuit[^10]. Restat igitur, ut asserunt, quod quantitas praeparationis debeat proportionari quantitati caritatis, a qua quis cecidit; et quantitas caritatis sequentis mensuratur secundum quantitatem praeparationis: propter quod consequi videtur, quod caritas subsequens adaequetur praecedenti, vel eam excedat. Et hoc confirmant per illud Baruch quarto[^11]: *Sicut fuit sensus vester, ut erraretis a Domino, decies tantum iterum revertentes invenietis eum*; et Isaiae trigesimo primo: *Convertimini, filii Israel, sicut in profundum recessistis*.

Sed hic modus dicendi est contra *rationem*, et sensibile experimentum, nec habet stabile *fundamentum*. Contra *rationem* enim est dicere, quod perfectus, si cadat a caritate, non possit resurgere nisi in statu et complemento perfectionis suae; et de multis *apparet*, quod cadentes non resurgunt ad illam perfectionem, a qua ceciderunt. Stabile etiam *fundamentum* non habet, quia divinae praedestinationis *dispositio* non exigit, quod homo semper procedat in bono, sed quod sit finaliter bonus. Dei etiam *retributio* non pensat quantum ad meriti efficaciam caritatem initialem, sed caritatem finalem. Nostra etiam *praeparatio* ad gratiam potest esse maior in eo qui minus peccavit, et minor in eo qui magis peccavit. Et *verba illa prophetica* non intelliguntur de quacumque praeparatione, sed de praeparatione *perfecta* et poenitentia consummata, quae restituit omnia ablata, sicut in quarto libro explanatur distinctione decima quarta[^12]; non autem habent veritatem de qualicumque poenitentia et conversione sive praeparatione. — Unde cum homo se praeparare possit ad maiorem et ad minorem et ad aequalem caritatem, communis tenet opinio, quod homo potest et in maiori et in minori et in aequali caritate resurgere. Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad istam partem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Dominus non recordatur peccatorum post poenitentiam peccatoris; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad punitionem aeternam. Et quod gratia minor detur homini, quam fuerat praecedens, hoc non est propter peccatorum praecedentium punitionem, sed hoc est propter ipsius negligentem et tepidam praeparationem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum; dicendum, quod illud non intelligitur, quia semper cooperentur in bonum quantum ad augmentum praemii substantialis; sed hoc potest esse quantum ad quandam humiliationem et diligentiorem boni conservationem et cautiorem mali vitationem, quae adiuvant hominem ad hoc, quod perseveret usque in finem[^13]. Et utilius est homini habere parvam caritatem usque in finem perseverantem quam magnam et in media via deficientem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est lux matutina quam vespertina; dicendum, quod caritas resurgens non comparatur luci matutinae propter magnitudinem, sed propter novitatem et ordinem ad proficiendum; et ideo in ratione illa peccatur secundum consequens[^14], quia non est omnino simile hinc et inde.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fortius est quod pellit, quam quod pellitur; dicendum, quod illud verum est de his quae pelluntur per mutuam actionem et passionem; sic autem non est de peccato et gratia, sicut explanatum fuit supra[^15]: et ideo in nullo cogit ratio illa[^16].

---

english:
### Article I. *On the duration of charity in comparison with the sin opposed to it.*
### Question III. *Whether a man can rise again in a lesser charity.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether a man can rise again in a lesser charity. And that he can seems true:

1. Because the quantity of charity in a man himself is reckoned according to the liberality of God; but God's liberality is not constricted, with regard to the sinner himself, to giving *just so much*, neither more nor less: therefore just as he can rise again in a greater charity, so also in a lesser.

2. Likewise, God gives a man grace according as he prepares and disposes himself[^1]; but it is possible that the sinner, when he rises again, should prepare himself for grace less than he had prepared himself before: therefore it is possible that he should rise again in a lesser charity and grace.

3. Likewise, preceding charity merits nothing with respect to subsequent charity[^2], and likewise sin, so far as it is of itself, can be expelled by however little grace: therefore neither preceding charity nor subsequent sin requires that a man rise again in an equal charity or grace: therefore it is possible that he rise again in a lesser one.

4. Likewise, if a man could not rise again in a lesser charity, then one falling from a perfect charity could not rise again except in a perfect charity; but charity, when it rises again, is beginning: therefore it is at the same time beginning and perfect; which is manifestly false, since "no one becomes the highest all at once[^3]," and before the state of perfection there necessarily runs ahead the state that is imperfect and of beginning.

**On the contrary:** 1. Ezekiel 18[^4]: *If the wicked man does penance, I will not remember all his iniquities that he has wrought*; it is plain that this is not understood of forgetfulness as to the act of thinking, but as to the act of punishing; but a man is punished not only by the infliction of evil, but also by the subtraction of good: if therefore the Lord does not remember those sins unto eternal punishment; since a diminution of charity makes for a diminution of the substantial reward and so for eternal loss, it seems that it is necessary for a man to rise again in an equal charity, or in a greater.

2. Likewise, to the Romans 8[^5]: *We know that to those who love God all things work together unto good*; the Gloss: "even the very fall into mortal sin"; but the fall into mortal sin would not work together unto good unless the man rose again in an equal, or in a greater charity: it seems therefore that it is necessary for a man to rise again in an equal charity, or a greater.

3. Likewise, on that text of Genesis 1[^6]: *And there was evening and morning, one day*; the Gloss: "The evening light is that from which one fell; the morning, that in which he rises again": if therefore the morning light is always greater than the evening, it seems that the charity in which one rises again is greater than the charity from which he fell.

4. Likewise, of greater power is that which drives out than that which is driven out: but the charity in which one rises again drives out that which expelled the charity from which he fell: therefore it is necessary that the subsequent charity be greater and stronger than that which expelled the charity, and consequently than the very charity from which one fell.

### Conclusion.

> It is possible that a man, having lost charity, should rise again both in a greater and in a lesser and in an equal charity.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some at one time held the opinion that it was necessary for a man to rise again in an equal, or a greater charity. And to maintaining this they were moved both from a consideration of the divine disposition or predestination, and from a consideration of the divine retribution, and from a consideration of our preparation. For from the consideration of the divine predestination they were moved: because they said that to those who love God all things work together unto good, to those who according to purpose are called Saints[^7]; therefore the immutability of the divine predestination would in no way allow a man to fall from charity, unless from that fall it foresaw a subsequent benefit; nor would the governance of the divine providence permit a son of the kingdom to fall, unless from this it also at the same time foresaw[^8] that a greater good would be drawn out from the fall itself. — And on the part of retribution they reason

that God rewards works according to the quantity of the charity out of which they were done[^9]. If therefore the charity in which one rises again vivifies the works formerly dead and makes them worthy of reward; since the reward is made equal to the quantity of the charity out of which the works were done, and cannot exceed the quantity of the charity in which one rises again: they reason from this that it is impossible for there to be a lesser charity in the one rising again than there was before in the one falling. — On the part of our preparation they reason thus: because, the more a man is unfit for grace, the greater is the preparation he needs in order to receive it; but the greater the grace from which he fell, the more he sinned and the more unfit for grace he was[^10]. It remains therefore, as they assert, that the quantity of the preparation ought to be proportioned to the quantity of the charity from which one fell; and the quantity of the subsequent charity is measured according to the quantity of the preparation: on account of which it seems to follow that the subsequent charity is made equal to the preceding, or exceeds it. And this they confirm by that text of Baruch 4[^11]: *As it was your mind to go astray from God, so when you return ten times as much you shall seek him*; and Isaiah 31: *Be converted, O children of Israel, as you had deeply revolted*.

But this manner of speaking is against *reason*, and sensible experience, nor does it have a stable *foundation*. For it is against *reason* to say that a perfect man, if he fall from charity, cannot rise again except in the state and completion of his perfection; and it *appears* in many cases that those who fall do not rise again to that perfection from which they fell. Neither does it have a stable *foundation*, because the *disposition* of the divine predestination does not require that a man always advance in good, but that he be finally good. God's *retribution* too does not weigh, as to the efficacy of merit, the initial charity, but the final charity. Our *preparation* for grace too can be greater in him who sinned less, and lesser in him who sinned more. And those *prophetic words* are not understood of any preparation whatever, but of *perfect* preparation and consummated penance, which restores all that was taken away, as is explained in the fourth book, distinction fourteen[^12]; but they do not hold true of any penance and conversion or preparation whatever. — Hence, since a man can prepare himself for a greater and for a lesser and for an equal charity, the common opinion holds that a man can rise again both in a greater and in a lesser and in an equal charity. And the reasons which are for this side are to be granted.

1. To that therefore which is objected first to the contrary, that the Lord does not remember sins after the penance of the sinner; it must be said that this is understood as to eternal punishment. And that a lesser grace be given to a man than had been the preceding, this is not on account of the punishment of the preceding sins, but it is on account of his negligent and lukewarm preparation.

2. To that which is objected, that to those who love God all things work together unto good; it must be said that this is not understood as though they always work together unto good as to the increase of the substantial reward; but this can be as to a certain humiliation and a more diligent preservation of good and a more cautious avoidance of evil, which help a man toward this, that he persevere unto the end[^13]. And it is more useful for a man to have a small charity persevering unto the end than a great one failing in mid-course.

3. To that which is objected, that the morning light is greater than the evening; it must be said that the charity rising again is not compared to the morning light on account of magnitude, but on account of newness and order toward advancing; and therefore in that argument there is a fallacy of the consequent[^14], because the case is not altogether alike on the one side and the other.

4. To that which is objected, that what drives out is stronger than what is driven out; it must be said that this is true of those things which are driven out by mutual action and passion; but it is not so with sin and grace, as was explained above[^15]: and therefore that argument in no way compels[^16].

---

la: Cfr. supra pag. 677, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 677, note 1.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. I.

en: See *II Sent.* d. 27, a. 2, q. I.

la: Gregor., II. *Homil. in Ezech.* hom. 3. n. 3. Cfr. verba Bernardi tom. II. pag. 984, nota 3. allata. — Deinde pro *imperfectus* cod. Z *imperfectionis*, codd. GITUVX *profectus*, quod multi codd. male mutaverunt in *perfectus*.

en: Gregory, *Homilies on Ezekiel* II, hom. 3, n. 3. Cf. the words of Bernard cited in tom. II, p. 984, note 3. — Then for *imperfectus* codex Z reads *imperfectionis*, codices GITUVX *profectus*, which many manuscripts wrongly altered into *perfectus*.

la: Vers. 21. seq. Post *poenitentiam* Vulgata plura addit. — Inferius pro *cum diminutio caritatis faciat* plurimi codd. minus congrue *et diminutio caritatis faciat*, Supplement. Alex. Hal. collat. 73. a. 3. rectius *et diminutio caritatis facit*.

en: Verse 21 f. After *poenitentiam* the Vulgate adds more. — Below, for *cum diminutio caritatis faciat* very many manuscripts less fittingly read *et diminutio caritatis faciat*; the Supplement to Alexander of Hales, collation 73, a. 3, more correctly *et diminutio caritatis facit*.

la: Vers. 28. — Apud Petr. Lombardum Glossa in hunc locum, ex August., *de Corrept. et gratia*, c. 9. n. 24, sic sonat: *Talibus Deus diligentibus eum* [i. e. qui perseverant usque in finem] *omnia cooperatur in bonum, usque adeo prorsus omnem sumserunt*.

en: Verse 28. — In Peter Lombard the Gloss on this passage, from Augustine, *On Rebuke and Grace*, c. 9, n. 24, runs thus: *To such, who love him* [i.e. who persevere unto the end], *God works together all things unto good, even to the point that they took on absolutely every* [good].

la: Vers. 5, quibus verbis August., I. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 17. n. 33, glossando adiicit: «Ut per hoc, quod facta est vespera, peccatum rationalis creaturae, quod autem factum est mane, renovatio eius significata videatur». — Pro veriore scriptura *a qua quis cecidit*, quam in cod. U invenimus, cui etiam B. Albert., S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar. favent, cod. G habet *qua quis cecidit*, alii codd. et edd. *in qua quis cecidit*.

en: Verse 5, to which words Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter* I, c. 17, n. 33, in glossing adds: "So that by this, that evening was made, the sin of the rational creature, but by that which was made morning, its renewal may be signified." — For the truer reading *a qua quis cecidit*, which we find in codex U, and which B. Albert, St. Thomas, and Peter of Tarentaise also favor, codex G has *qua quis cecidit*, other manuscripts and editions *in qua quis cecidit*.

la: Rom. 8, 28. — Paulo superius pro *nostrae praeparationis* edd. cum pluribus codd. *nostrae reparationis*. Idem vitium recurrit aliquanto inferius.

en: Romans 8, 28. — A little above, for *nostrae praeparationis* the editions with several manuscripts read *nostrae reparationis*. The same fault recurs somewhat below.

la: Codd. G bb *provideret*.

en: Codices G bb read *provideret*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 650, nota 2. — De vivificatione operum mortuorum vide IV. Sent. d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Paulo inferius cod. F voci *remuneratio* praefigit *praemium* cet. Deinde in fine eiusdem enuntiati pro *prius fuerit* multi codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. *prius fuerat*.

en: Cf. above, p. 650, note 2. — On the vivification of dead works see *IV Sent.* d. 14, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — A little below, codex F prefixes *praemium* etc. to the word *remuneratio*. Then at the end of the same statement, for *prius fuerit* many manuscripts and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales read *prius fuerat*.

la: Cod. V *est*. Fortasse legendum *fit*.

en: Codex V reads *est*. Perhaps it should be read *fit*.

la: Vers. 28; Vulgata: *Sicut... iterum convertentes requiretis eum*. — Seq. Scripturae locus est Isai. 31, 6; ubi Vulgata, quam sequitur Vat., *recesseritis* pro *recessistis*.

en: Verse 28; the Vulgate: *So... again returning you shall seek him*. — The following Scripture passage is Isaiah 31, 6; where the Vulgate, which the Vatican edition follows, reads *recesseritis* for *recessistis*.

la: Partis II. a. 2. q. 2. — Subinde pro *habent veritatem* codd. et edd. 1, 2, Vat. excepta, perperam *habet veritatem*. Paulo inferius pro *Unde* plurimi codd. *ut*, e quibus nonnulli (BCD) etiam deinde *esset opinio* pro *tenet opinio*.

en: Part II, a. 2, q. 2. — Thereupon, for *habent veritatem* the manuscripts and editions 1, 2 — the Vatican edition excepted — wrongly read *habet veritatem*. A little below, for *Unde* very many manuscripts read *ut*, of which some (BCD) then also read *esset opinio* for *tenet opinio*.

la: Cfr. dictum Augustini, supra pag. 678, nota 5. allatum. — Proxime post pro *Et utilius* edd. 1, 2 *Et melius*, Vat. *Et melius et utilius*.

en: Cf. the saying of Augustine cited above, p. 678, note 5. — Immediately after, for *Et utilius* the editions 1, 2 read *Et melius*, the Vatican edition *Et melius et utilius*.

la: Vide supra pag. 99, nota 7.

en: See above, p. 99, note 7.

la: Quaest. I. ad 2. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: Question I, to the 2nd [objection]. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article.

la: Hic in lit. c. 2.

en: Here in the [Master's] text, c. 2.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 47121–47230 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Latin re-set from the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{678,679}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.700–701; offset pdf = printed + 22), which are authoritative for the Respondeo, Conclusio, and every page-footer NOTAE block (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters these two-column regions — Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion); the IA OCR (raw 47121–47230) was the base for the clean running prose (*videtur* / *Sed contra* arguments) and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads in-span: `678 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.678 top, raw 47119–47120 region) and `DIST. XXXI. ART. II. 679` (p.679 top; OCR placed it at raw 47184, mid-text, because the djvu cascade interleaves the R-column running head into the body stream — trust the running-head **text** over OCR'd digits per the override). The `680 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` running head (raw 47251) sits past the chunk end, on the page the ARTICULUS II material runs onto.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.678–679** (PDF 700–701). p.678: `QUAESTIO III` head + title + the four *Fundamenta* (affirmative) arguments (L-col), then the four *Sed contra* arguments (arg.1 Ezech. straddling L→R, args.2–4 Romanos/Genesis/maioris-virtutis in R-col), the `CONCLUSIO`, and the `Respondeo` opening through the *praedestinatio*/*retributio* members (ending mid-sentence *Ex parte vero retributionis ratiocinantur,* at the R-col foot). p.679: the tail of the *retributio* member (*quia Deus opera remunerat…*) + the *nostrae praeparationis* member + the threefold *Reprobatur* refutation + the `communis tenet opinio` conclusion + the four replies *Ad 1–4* (closing *…cogit ratio illa* before the `ARTICULUS II` opener). The chunk **opens** fresh at the top of p.678 (raw 47121, no inbound footer) and **closes** at the end of *Ad 4* on p.679, just before the `ARTICULUS II` / a2-q1 material (raw 47231).

**Apparatus (16 entries, NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^16]):**
- **p.678 footer nn.1–8 → [^1]–[^8]**. n.1 *Cfr. supra pag. 677 nota 1* (marker on *disponit*, arg.2); n.2 *Vide II. Sent. d.27* (marker on *subsequentis*, arg.3); n.3 Gregor. *Homil. in Ezech.* + Bernard + *imperfectus* codd. variants (marker on *summus*, arg.4); n.4 Ezech. *Vers.21 seq.* + *diminutio caritatis faciat* variant (marker on *Ezechielis decimo octavo*, Sed contra 1); n.5 Rom. *Vers.28* + Aug. *de Corrept. et gratia* Glossa (marker on *Romanos octavo*, Sed contra 2 — the long full-width note); n.6 Gen. *Vers.5* + Aug. *de Gen. ad lit.* + *a qua quis cecidit* variant (marker on *Genesis primo*, Sed contra 3); n.7 *Rom. 8, 28* + *nostrae reparationis* variant (marker on *Sancti*, Respondeo praedestinatio); n.8 *Codd. G bb provideret* (marker on *praevideret*, Respondeo).
- **p.679 footer nn.1–8 → [^9]–[^16]**. n.1 *Cfr. supra pag. 650 nota 2* + IV Sent. d.14 + *prius fuerat* variant (marker on *ex qua sunt facta*, Respondeo retributio); n.2 *Cod. V est. Fortasse legendum fit* (marker on *ineptus fuit*, Respondeo praeparatio); n.3 Baruch *Vers.28* + Isai.31,6 *recesseritis* variant (marker on *Baruch quarto*, Respondeo); n.4 *Partis II. a.2. q.2* + *habent veritatem* / *tenet opinio* variants (marker on *decima quarta*, Reprobatur tail / conclusion); n.5 Aug. cross-ref p.678 n.5 + *Et utilius* variant (marker on *usque in finem*, Ad 2); n.6 *Vide supra pag. 99 nota 7* (marker on *secundum consequens*, Ad 3); n.7 *Quaest. I. ad 2* + *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.* (marker on *supra*, Ad 4 — the scholion redirect); n.8 *Hic in lit. c.2* (marker on *ratio illa*, Ad 4 end).
- The marker positions in the heavily OCR-fragmented Respondeo/Ad-arguments region were placed from the PDF column bands, not raw-line order.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. This question prints **no** free-standing scholion. The d31-a1-q1 article-master **Scholion §II** forward-covers it together with q2: §II opens *"Ad seqq. duas quaestiones (2. 3.) etiam S. Thom. … cum S. Bonav. respondet: «Oportet dicere… quod aliquis potest post peccatum in maiori et in minori et aequali caritate resurgere»"* — explicitly answering questions 2 **and** 3 (verified in `vol3/bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q1.md`, scholion §II). The p.679 apparatus note [^15] itself directs *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.* ("See the scholion to question 1 of this article"), confirming the scholarly apparatus for q3 lives in q1's scholion. Convention mirrored from sibling redirect chunks (`vol3/bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q2.md`, `vol3/bon-sent-III-d11-a1-q2.md`).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a1-q2*: **none.** q2 closed at the end of *Ad 4* on p.677 and consumed all nine p.677 notes; q3's body opens fresh at the top of **p.678** (raw 47121) with a fresh p.678 NOTAE sequence.
- *Forwarded to d31-a2-q1*: **none.** This chunk closes at the end of *Ad 4* on p.679 (*…cogit ratio illa*, raw 47230); the `ARTICULUS II` opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de caritatis duratione per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum… Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur secundum triplicem habitum…*) and its `QUAESTIO I` body open the next chunk (raw 47231). The ARTICULUS II opener carries no *Primo-quaeritur* listing of its own — that listing (*Primo de evacuatione fidei; Secundo de evacuatione spei; Tertio de evacuatione scientiae*) **is** the article-opener material that **folds into d31-a2-q1** per the locked chunking convention. p.679's NOTAE notes nn.1–8 all anchor in q3's body; the ARTICULUS II material begins a fresh footer sequence on its own page(s).

**Title note.** The printed page header reads `QUAESTIO III. / Utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori` (verified on the p.678 band; OCR garbles it *Utruin… carilate minori*) — used as `title_la`. The d31-divisio TRACTATIO third-member paraphrase (*…possit resurgere in minori*) and the q1 §II forward-treatment both agree. The printed quaestio title is authoritative per CLAUDE.md.

**Alignment check.** Passed, no q-swap. The opener *Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo possit resurgere in caritate minori* (raw 47124) = the title's "rise again in a LESSER charity" 1:1. Distinct from q2 (*…in aequali* — equal) and from the "greater" branch. The d.31 ARTICULUS I question slate (q1 *amitti* / q2 *aequali* / q3 *minori*) is complete with this chunk.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation and the Respondeo/Ad-arguments region were fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; all 16 NOTAE entries are legible and the scholion-redirect is confirmed by note [^15].


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

title_alt:
Utrum fides in gloria evacuetur
Whether faith is voided in glory

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 679 -->

### Articulus II. *De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum.*

Consequenter quaeritur de caritatis duratione per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum, quae evacuari dicuntur. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur secundum triplicem habitum, quem dicit Magister evacuandum.

Primo quaeritur de evacuatione fidei.
Secundo de evacuatione ipsius spei.
Tertio de evacuatione ipsius scientiae.

<!-- page 680 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum fides in gloria evacuetur.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum fides in gloria evacuetur. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia, secundum quod dicit Apostolus[^1], *fides est argumentum rerum non apparentium*; super quod dicit Gregorius, quod «quae apparent fidem non habent, sed agnitionem»: si ergo in patria cuncta quae nunc credimus, erunt manifesta; videtur, quod fides simpliciter erit evacuanda.

2. Item, Augustinus decimo quarto *de Trinitate*[^2]: «Mens quippe humana, cum fidem suam videt, qua credit quod non videt, non aliquid sempiternum videt. Quando enim ad speciem nos per fidem perductos esse gaudebimus, non iam fides erit, qua credantur quae non videntur, sed species, qua videantur quae credebantur»: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratio evacuationis, quam assignat Apostolus, est imperfectio — ait enim[^3]: *Cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est* — sed constans est, quod cognitio fidei est *ex parte*, cum sit *per speculum* et *in aenigmate*: ergo necesse est, ipsam evacuari, superveniente visione speciei.

4. Item, credere manifestum non spectat ad habitum alicuius virtutis, cum simpliciter sit necessitatis; sed in patria cuncta quae credimus, manifestabuntur: ergo credere ibi non erit ab aliquo virtutis habitu. Sed habitus ipsius fidei, essentialiter loquendo, virtus est[^4]: si ergo ibi auferetur ratio virtutis, necesse est, ipsum quantum ad essentiam suam evacuari et tolli.

**Sed in contrarium** arguitur primo a parte ipsius fidei evacuandae, deinde a parte eius, per quod res habet evacuari. Ex parte ipsius fidei arguitur:

1. Primo ratione sui[^5] generis sic. Fides est in genere virtutis simpliciter, et quod amplius est, in genere virtutis theologicae; sed virtus est perfectio potentiae, et theologica virtus est maior perfectio quam cardinalis; sed perfectio gloriae non tollit perfectionem potentiae nec evacuat eas quae sunt in genere virtutis cardinalis, quia virtutes illae, sicut dicit Augustinus[^6], manebunt in patria: ergo cum fides non solum sit virtus, sed etiam virtus theologica; videtur, quod nullo modo sit per gloriam evacuanda.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur a parte essentiae et definitionis ipsius fidei: quia *fides* secundum Apostolum[^7] *est fundamentum rerum sperandarum*, secundum Augustinum est «*illuminatio mentis ad videndum Deum*»; sed gloria adveniente, fundamentum spiritualis aedificii non destruitur, sed potius stabilitur, illuminatio non excluditur, sed potius perficitur et completur: ergo videtur, quod habitus fidei per gloriam non evacuetur.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur a parte *actus principalis*. Actus enim ipsius fidei principalis est *assentire* primae Veritati propter se et super omnia, et *velle* ei credere sive credidisse[^8] — quia eiusdem habitus est velle credere et velle credidisse — sed in patria assentiemus primae Veritati propter se et super omnia, volemus etiam credidisse Deo: habebimus igitur actum fidei principalem: ergo et ipsam fidem.

Item, hoc[^9] ostenditur a parte *eius, per quod* dicitur fides evacuari.

4. Plus enim repugnat ipse habitus fidei deformitati *peccati* quam perfectioni gloriae: sed habitus fidei non tollitur nec evacuatur per tenebram peccati[^10]: ergo nec per completionem gloriae.

5. Item, *cognitio matutina* in Angelis non excludit cognitionem vespertinam, immo simul cognoscunt res in Verbo et in proprio genere[^11]: ergo visio Dei in propria essentia et natura non excludit visionem ipsius in speculo et in creatura; sed visio fidei est visio specularis: ergo per visionem gloriae non habet evacuari.

6. Item, *lumen cum lumine* non habet oppositionem, nec in corporalibus nec in spiritualibus, sicut patet: quia in eodem medio plura possunt esse lumina impermixta, sicut dicit Dionysius in libro *de Divinis Nominibus*[^12]; similiter et in spiritualibus lumen cognitionis per causam non excludit lumen cognitionis per effectum: ergo non videtur, quod lumen fidei evacuetur per lumen gloriosum; nec per aliud habet evacuari: restat igitur, quod habitus fidei non evacuatur.

<!-- page 681 -->

### Conclusio.

> Habitus fidei per visionem gloriae simpliciter tolletur.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic est duplex modus dicendi.

Aliquibus enim videtur esse dicendum, quod cum quaeritur, utrum fides evacuetur, non est simpliciter respondendum affirmando, vel negando: quantum enim ad aliquid evacuatur et quantum ad aliquid, non. In ipsa enim fide duo est reperire, videlicet *illuminationis habilitatem* et *aenigmatis obscuritatem*. Quantum ad *luminis habitum* fides non evacuatur, sed perficitur et consummatur; quantum vero ad *aenigmatis obscuritatem*, cum sit ex parte, simpliciter tollitur. — Et iste modus dicendi confirmari posse videtur per illud quod dicitur in Glossa super illud primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^13]: *Cum venerit quod perfectum est* etc.; Glossa: «Destruetur imperfectio, non id quod verum est, evacuabitur; desitio imperfectionis est, quando id quod imperfectionis est, impletur». — Et secundum istum modum dicendi facile est declinare rationes ad utramque partem. Nam primae, quae probant, quod habitus fidei evacuatur, concludunt ratione aenigmatis et imperfectionis; rationes vero ad oppositum concludunt de ipsa fide quantum ad perfectionem habitus et complementum luminis.

Licet autem hic modus dicendi satis videatur esse probabilis, non tamen consonat verbis Augustini. Augustinus enim dicit in decimo quarto *de Trinitate*[^14]: «Fides, quae nunc in animo nostro est velut corpus in loco, dum tenetur, aspicitur et amatur, quandam efficit trinitatem. Sed non ipsa erit, quando fides haec in animo non erit; quae vero tunc erit, quando iam recordabimur in nobis fuisse et non esse, alia perfectio erit». In quibus verbis vult dicere, sicut patet per exemplum, quod praemittit paulo ante hoc, quod sicut corrumpitur aliquod corpus, quod homo sensibiliter intuetur, et ipso corrupto, memoratur ipsius corporis non per ipsius corporis veritatem, sed per similitudinem in animo remanentem; sic et in ipsa fide. Unde vult, quod habitum fidei nostrae, quem interius intuemur, inter *temporalia* computemus; et quia aliquando deficit, non potest quantum ad illius intuitum ratio imaginis, quae perpetua est in anima, attendi. Constat autem, quod de ipso habitu fidei loquitur, secundum id quod habet positionis et perfectionis, quia secundum illud intra se ipsam anima illum habitum intuetur; aliter non valeret tota ratiocinatio illa, quam ibidem facit satis prolixe. — Non etiam videtur consonare verbis Glossae et Apostoli: quia, si fides evacuaretur solummodo secundum id quod habet imperfectionis, et maneret secundum id quod est in ea complementi et positionis: sicut non dicuntur evacuari virtutes cardinales nec habitus caritatis[^15], sic nec diceretur evacuari habitus fidei, quin potius perfici et compleri.

Et propterea est alius modus dicendi magis communis et usitatus, quod si loquamur de habitu fidei, secundum quod fides est virtus specialis, sic per gloriam habet simpliciter evacuari: pro eo quod fides est habitus virtutis, in quantum intellectus inclinatur ab affectu, sicut in praecedentibus[^16] fuit ostensum; hoc autem non potest esse, nisi quamdiu intellectus de se incertus est de his quae credere debet. Et quoniam in patria illuminatio et claritas visionis praecedet motum *affectionis*; nec ab ipsa inclinabitur intellectus propter ipsius summi luminis claritatem, a qua intellectus nullo modo poterit dissentire: hinc est, quod habitus fidei *simpliciter* per visionem gloriae habet tolli, secundum quod auctoritates Sanctorum et Glossa dicunt satis expresse. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad istam partem.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium ex parte *generis*, quia est virtus theologica, quae perficit potentiam animae secundum digniorem eius partem; dicendum, quod fides est perfectio potentiae non qualiscumque, sed secundum statum imperfectionis et viae, in quo intellectus potest aberrare a veritate et in via captivari. Unde non evacuatur, quia perfectio *simpliciter*, sed quia perfectio *secundum talem statum*. Nec est simile de virtutibus cardinalibus, quia actus earum principaliores

<!-- page 682 -->

non solum perficiunt ipsas potentias secundum statum viae, sed etiam secundum statum patriae[^17].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur ex parte *definitionis*, dicendum, quod fides non est substantia sive fundamentum *simpliciter* rerum sperandarum, sed solum *secundum illum statum*, in quo aeterna bona exspectantur[^18]; similiter non est illuminatio ad videndum Deum *simpliciter*, sed ad videndum Deum *per speculum*. Et quoniam huic statui succedet alius status, in quo erit stabilius *fundamentum* et perfectior *illuminatio*; hinc est, quod fides evacuatur non propter fundamenti destructionem, sed propter stabilioris constructionem; non propter luminis privationem, sed propter luminis perfectionem, quae excludit specularem et imperfectam cognitionem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de *actu* fidei, qui est assentire primae Veritati et velle credere sive credidisse; dicendum, quod neuter[^19] est actus fidei, nisi in quantum homo assentit veritati non visae, in quo quidem assensu et credulitate intellectus inclinatur a voluntate; quod quia non est in patria reperire, non sunt illi actus in patria ab habitu fidei, sed a virtute excellentiori.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis repugnat ipsi fidei *tenebra peccati* quam excellentia praemii; dicendum, quod de habitu fidei est dupliciter loqui: aut in quantum est habitus ab aliis virtutibus *distinctus*, aut in quantum est *gratia informatus*. Si in quantum est *gratia informatus*, sic veritatem habet verbum propositum; gratia enim ipsius habitus informativa tollitur per culpam, non autem per gloriam. Si vero loquamur de ipsa fide, secundum quod est habitus *distinctus*, habilitans ad credendum non visum; sic propter suam imperfectionem maiorem oppositionem habet ad statum gloriae quam ad statum peccati; et ideo per gloriam habet evacuari, quamvis non habeat per peccatum tolli[^20].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cognitio matutina non excludit vespertinam, nec visio in specie excludit visionem in speculo; dicendum, quod differt dicere, videre rem *in speculo* et *per speculum*. *Per speculum* enim dicitur videre Deum qui ascendit a cognitione creaturae ad cognitionem Creatoris; *in speculo* vero videt qui Deum in ipsa creatura clare intuetur. Prima visio non erit in gloria, quia non erit ibi necessaria scala; secunda vero erit, quia Deus videbitur aperte in omnibus creaturis, ut dicit Augustinus in libro ultimo *de Civitate Dei*[^21]. Et illa visio, quae est *per speculum*, spectat ad ipsam fidem; illa vero, quae est *in speculo* creaturae, spectat ad cognitionem *vespertinam*, quae bene poterit servari in patria. Et ideo non est simile de fide et de cognitione illa.

Et attendendum est hic, quod plus differt visio *per speciem* a visione *per speculum* quantum ad cognitionem ipsius *Dei*, quam quantum ad cognitionem alicuius creaturae sensibilis. Si enim aliqua *creatura sensibilis* videatur in propria natura et videatur *per aliquod speculum*, in quo resultat; non est differentia inter istam visionem et illam nisi in hoc, quod una est per speciem secundum directionem *simplicem*, alia est per speciem secundum directionem *reflexam*; et ideo ab uno et eodem oculo et secundum omnem statum de eadem re visa visio haberi potest. In visione autem ipsius *Dei*, quae est *per speciem* et *per speculum*, maior est differentia: tum a parte *videntis*, quia in una illarum est cognitiva potentia obumbrata, in altera vero illuminata; similiter a parte *medii*, quia in una videtur Deus per sui essentiam, in altera vero per effectum creatum. Et ideo una istarum cognitionum est in *quiete* et statu, altera vero in *progressu*, secundum quod dicit Apostolus[^22]: *Per fidem ambulamus*; et ideo una per alteram tollitur.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *lumen lumini* non repugnat; dicendum, quod illud verum est, quantum est de luminis *natura*. Verumtamen bene contingit, unum lumen per alterum evacuari ratione alicuius *annexi* inseparabilis, vel *dispositionis* praecedentis, vel *effectus* consequentis. Et sic est in lumine fidei, quod habet *aenigma* annexum; et ex hoc oritur, quod intellectus inclinatur ab affectu et dirigit hominem ad cognoscendum non visum. Et quoniam tollitur illius aenigmatis interpositio, tollitur etiam et illa inclinatio, tollitur nihilominus habilitatio ad cognoscendum non visa — quoniam impossibile erit ab illa superna luce absentari — hinc est, quod lumen fidei, quod est proprium illius habitus, licet non ratione sui, ratione tamen *annexorum* a superveniente gloria habet evacuari. Hoc autem dico de lumine, quod est proprium fidei; nam de lumine *gratiae gratum facientis* tenendum est, quod non habet per gloriam evacuari, sed potius consummari[^23].

<!-- page 683 -->

english:
### Article II. *On the duration of charity in comparison with the habits of the other virtues.*

Consequently it is asked about the duration of charity in comparison with the habits of the other virtues, which are said to be voided. And concerning this three things are asked according to the threefold habit which the Master says is to be voided.

First it is asked about the voiding of faith.
Second about the voiding of hope itself.
Third about the voiding of knowledge itself.

### Question I. *Whether faith is voided in glory.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether faith is voided in glory. And that it is, seems true:

1. Because, according to what the Apostle says[^1], *faith is the argument of things that do not appear*; on which Gregory says that "the things which appear do not have faith, but recognition": if therefore in the fatherland all the things which we now believe will be manifest, it seems that faith will simply be voided.

2. Likewise, Augustine in *On the Trinity* fourteen[^2]: "For when the human mind sees its own faith, by which it believes what it does not see, it does not see anything everlasting. For when we shall rejoice that we have been led through faith to vision, then there will no longer be faith, by which things not seen are believed, but vision, by which things believed are seen": therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the ground of voiding which the Apostle assigns is imperfection — for he says[^3]: *When that which is perfect has come, that which is in part will be voided* — but it is established that the cognition of faith is *in part*, since it is *through a mirror* and *in an enigma*: therefore it is necessary that it be voided, when the vision of vision supervenes.

4. Likewise, to believe what is manifest does not pertain to the habit of any virtue, since it is simply a matter of necessity; but in the fatherland all the things which we believe will be made manifest: therefore to believe there will not proceed from any habit of virtue. But the habit of faith itself, speaking essentially, is a virtue[^4]: if therefore the character of virtue is there taken away, it is necessary that it be voided and removed as to its essence.

**On the contrary** it is argued first on the part of faith itself, which is to be voided, then on the part of that through which the thing comes to be voided. On the part of faith itself it is argued:

1. First by reason of its[^5] genus, thus. Faith is in the genus of virtue simply, and what is more, in the genus of theological virtue; but virtue is the perfection of a power, and a theological virtue is a greater perfection than a cardinal one; but the perfection of glory does not remove the perfection of a power nor void those things which are in the genus of cardinal virtue, because those virtues, as Augustine says[^6], will remain in the fatherland: therefore since faith is not only a virtue, but also a theological virtue, it seems that it is in no way to be voided through glory.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown on the part of the essence and definition of faith itself: because *faith* according to the Apostle[^7] *is the foundation of things to be hoped for*, according to Augustine it is "*the illumination of the mind for seeing God*"; but when glory comes, the foundation of the spiritual edifice is not destroyed, but rather made firm, the illumination is not excluded, but rather perfected and completed: therefore it seems that the habit of faith is not voided through glory.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown on the part of its *principal act*. For the principal act of faith itself is *to assent* to the first Truth on account of itself and above all things, and *to will* to believe it or to have believed it[^8] — for it belongs to the same habit to will to believe and to will to have believed — but in the fatherland we shall assent to the first Truth on account of itself and above all things, we shall also will to have believed God: we shall therefore have the principal act of faith: therefore also faith itself.

Likewise, this[^9] is shown on the part of *that through which* faith is said to be voided.

4. For the habit of faith itself is more repugnant to the deformity of *sin* than to the perfection of glory: but the habit of faith is not removed nor voided through the darkness of sin[^10]: therefore neither through the completion of glory.

5. Likewise, *morning cognition* in the angels does not exclude evening cognition, but rather they know things at the same time in the Word and in their proper genus[^11]: therefore the vision of God in his proper essence and nature does not exclude the vision of him in a mirror and in the creature; but the vision of faith is a specular vision: therefore it does not come to be voided through the vision of glory.

6. Likewise, *light with light* has no opposition, neither in bodily things nor in spiritual, as is plain: because in the same medium many lights can be unmingled, as Dionysius says in the book *On the Divine Names*[^12]; likewise also in spiritual things the light of cognition through a cause does not exclude the light of cognition through an effect: therefore it does not seem that the light of faith is voided through the glorious light; nor does it come to be voided through anything else: it remains therefore that the habit of faith is not voided.

### Conclusion.

> The habit of faith will be simply removed through the vision of glory.

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

For to some it seems that it must be said that when it is asked whether faith is voided, one must not answer simply by affirming or by denying: for in a certain respect it is voided and in a certain respect it is not. For in faith itself two things are to be found, namely the *aptitude of illumination* and the *obscurity of enigma*. As to the *habit of light* faith is not voided, but perfected and consummated; but as to the *obscurity of enigma*, since it is in part, it is simply removed. — And this manner of speaking seems able to be confirmed by that which is said in the Gloss on that text of the first to the Corinthians, thirteen[^13]: *When that which is perfect has come* etc.; the Gloss: "The imperfection will be destroyed, not that which is true will be voided; there is a ceasing of imperfection, when that which is of imperfection is fulfilled." — And according to this manner of speaking it is easy to turn aside the arguments on both sides. For the first, which prove that the habit of faith is voided, conclude by reason of enigma and imperfection; but the arguments to the opposite conclude about faith itself as to the perfection of the habit and the completion of the light.

But although this manner of speaking seems probable enough, nevertheless it does not agree with the words of Augustine. For Augustine says in *On the Trinity* fourteen[^14]: "Faith, which is now in our mind as a body in a place, while it is held, is beheld and loved, effects a certain trinity. But it will not be itself, when this faith will not be in the mind; but that which will then be, when we shall now remember that it was in us and is not, will be another perfection." In which words he means, as is plain from the example which he sets out a little before this, that just as some body which a man beholds with the senses is corrupted, and, it being corrupted, he remembers that body not through the truth of the body itself, but through the likeness remaining in the mind; so also in faith itself. Hence he means that we should reckon the habit of our faith, which we behold inwardly, among *temporal* things; and because it sometimes fails, the character of the image, which is perpetual in the soul, cannot be attended to as to the beholding of that habit. But it is established that he is speaking of the habit of faith itself, according to that which it has of position and perfection, because according to that the soul beholds that habit within itself; otherwise that whole reasoning, which he carries on there quite at length, would have no force. — Neither does it seem to agree with the words of the Gloss and of the Apostle: because, if faith were voided only according to that which it has of imperfection, and remained according to that which is in it of completion and position: just as the cardinal virtues are not said to be voided nor the habit of charity[^15], so neither would the habit of faith be said to be voided, but rather perfected and completed.

And therefore there is another manner of speaking, more common and customary, that if we speak of the habit of faith, according as faith is a special virtue, so it comes to be simply voided through glory: for the reason that faith is a habit of virtue, inasmuch as the intellect is inclined by the affect, as was shown in the preceding[^16]; but this cannot be, except so long as the intellect is of itself uncertain about those things which it ought to believe. And since in the fatherland the illumination and clarity of vision will precede the motion of the *affection*; nor will the intellect be inclined by it on account of the clarity of that supreme light itself, from which the intellect will in no way be able to dissent: hence it is that the habit of faith comes *simply* to be removed through the vision of glory, according as the authorities of the Saints and the Gloss say quite expressly. — Hence the arguments which are for this side are to be granted.

1. To that which is objected first to the contrary on the part of *genus*, that it is a theological virtue, which perfects the power of the soul according to its more worthy part; it must be said that faith is the perfection of a power not of any kind whatever, but according to the state of imperfection and of the way, in which the intellect can stray from the truth and be taken captive on the way. Hence it is not voided because it is perfection *simply*, but because it is perfection *according to such a state*. Nor is it alike with the cardinal virtues, because their more principal acts

not only perfect the powers themselves according to the state of the way, but also according to the state of the fatherland[^17].

2. To that which is objected on the part of the *definition*, it must be said that faith is not the substance or foundation *simply* of things to be hoped for, but only *according to that state* in which eternal goods are awaited[^18]; likewise it is not the illumination for seeing God *simply*, but for seeing God *through a mirror*. And since to this state there will succeed another state, in which there will be a more stable *foundation* and a more perfect *illumination*; hence it is that faith is voided not on account of the destruction of the foundation, but on account of the construction of something more stable; not on account of the privation of light, but on account of the perfection of light, which excludes specular and imperfect cognition.

3. To that which is objected concerning the *act* of faith, which is to assent to the first Truth and to will to believe or to have believed; it must be said that neither[^19] is an act of faith, except inasmuch as a man assents to a truth not seen, in which assent and credence the intellect is inclined by the will; and because this is not to be found in the fatherland, those acts are not in the fatherland from the habit of faith, but from a more excellent virtue.

4. To that which is objected, that the *darkness of sin* is more repugnant to faith itself than the excellence of the reward; it must be said that there are two ways of speaking of the habit of faith: either inasmuch as it is a habit *distinct* from the other virtues, or inasmuch as it is *informed by grace*. If inasmuch as it is *informed by grace*, so the proposed statement holds true; for the grace informative of that habit is removed through fault, but not through glory. But if we speak of faith itself, according as it is a *distinct* habit, fitting one to believe what is not seen; so on account of its imperfection it has a greater opposition to the state of glory than to the state of sin; and therefore it comes to be voided through glory, although it does not come to be removed through sin[^20].

5. To that which is objected, that morning cognition does not exclude evening cognition, nor does vision in vision exclude vision in a mirror; it must be said that it is one thing to say, to see a thing *in a mirror* and *through a mirror*. For he is said to see God *through a mirror* who ascends from the cognition of the creature to the cognition of the Creator; but he sees *in a mirror* who beholds God clearly in the creature itself. The first vision will not be in glory, because there will not be there a necessary ladder; but the second will be, because God will be seen openly in all creatures, as Augustine says in the last book *On the City of God*[^21]. And that vision which is *through a mirror* pertains to faith itself; but that which is *in a mirror* of the creature pertains to *evening* cognition, which will be well able to be preserved in the fatherland. And therefore it is not alike with faith and with that cognition.

And it must be attended to here that vision *through vision* differs more from vision *through a mirror* as to the cognition of *God* himself than as to the cognition of any sensible creature. For if some *sensible creature* be seen in its proper nature and be seen *through some mirror* in which it is reflected; there is no difference between this vision and that except in this, that the one is through vision according to a *simple* direction, the other is through vision according to a *reflex* direction; and therefore from one and the same eye and according to every state a vision can be had of the same thing seen. But in the vision of *God* himself, which is *through vision* and *through a mirror*, the difference is greater: both on the part of the *seer*, because in one of them the cognitive power is shadowed, in the other illumined; likewise on the part of the *medium*, because in the one God is seen through his essence, in the other through a created effect. And therefore one of these cognitions is in *rest* and station, the other in *progress*, according as the Apostle says[^22]: *Through faith we walk*; and therefore the one is removed through the other.

6. To that which is objected, that *light* is not repugnant to *light*; it must be said that this is true, as far as concerns the *nature* of light. Nevertheless it well happens that one light is voided by another by reason of some inseparable *appendage*, or of a preceding *disposition*, or of a consequent *effect*. And so it is in the light of faith, which has an *enigma* appended; and from this it arises that the intellect is inclined by the affect and directs a man to knowing what is not seen. And since the interposition of that enigma is removed, that inclination too is removed, no less is removed the fitting toward knowing things not seen — since it will be impossible to be absent from that supernal light — hence it is that the light of faith, which is proper to that habit, although not by reason of itself, yet by reason of its *appendages* comes to be voided when glory supervenes. But this I say of the light which is proper to faith; for of the light of *sanctifying grace* it must be held that it does not come to be voided through glory, but rather consummated[^23].

la: Hebr. 11, 1. — Gregor., II. *Homil. in Evang.* homil. 26. n. 8. — Inferius pro *cuncta* (sic cod. U) codd. et edd. 1, 2 *cetera*, Vat. *secreta* et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 74. a. 1. *omnia*. Idem occurrit in fundam. 4.

en: Hebrews 11, 1. — Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospel* II, hom. 26, n. 8. — Below, for *cuncta* (so codex U) the manuscripts and editions 1, 2 read *cetera*, the Vatican edition *secreta*, and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collation 74, a. 1, *omnia*. The same occurs in the 4th fundamentum.

la: Cap. 2. n. 4. In textu origin. post *sempiternum videt* plura sunt addita.

en: Chapter 2, n. 4. In the original text after *sempiternum videt* more is added.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 10; inferius respicitur v. 12.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13, 10; below verse 12 is regarded.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. Cfr. etiam d. 24. a. 2. q. 1. arg. 4. ad oppos.

en: As was shown above, d. 23, a. 1, q. 1. Cf. also d. 24, a. 2, q. 1, arg. 4 to the opposite.

la: Edd. *ipsius*.

en: The editions read *ipsius*.

la: Epist. 155. (alias 52.) c. 4. n. 16; VI. *Music.* c. 16. n. 51 seqq.; XII. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 31. n. 59, et XIV. *de Trin.* c. 9. n. 12. — Quoad maiorem cfr. supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. seqq., de minori vide ibid. et II. Sent. d. 27. dub. 3. — Paulo superius pro *evacuat eas* [supple: virtutes] cod. U *evacuat ea*.

en: Letter 155 (alias 52), c. 4, n. 16; *On Music* VI, c. 16, n. 51 ff.; *On Genesis to the Letter* XII, c. 31, n. 59, and *On the Trinity* XIV, c. 9, n. 12. — As to the major cf. above d. 23, a. 1, q. 1 ff.; on the minor see ibid. and *II Sent.* d. 27, dub. 3. — A little above, for *evacuat eas* [supply: the virtues] codex U reads *evacuat ea*.

la: Hebr. 11, 1: *Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum*. — De altera definitione fidei, quae Augustinum habet auctorem, vide supra pag. 501, nota 5.

en: Hebrews 11, 1: *But faith is the substance of things to be hoped for*. — On the other definition of faith, which has Augustine as its author, see above p. 501, note 5.

la: Vide supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 24. a. 1. q. 2. — Paulo inferius pro *volemus*, ut legitur in codd. Z bb et in Supplemento Sum. Alex. Hal., alii codd. et edd. *vellemus*, quae lectio improbanda est.

en: See above d. 23, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 24, a. 1, q. 2. — A little below, for *volemus*, as is read in codices Z bb and in the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, other manuscripts and editions read *vellemus*, which reading is to be rejected.

la: Cod. L I Z adiiciunt *ipsum*.

en: Codices L I Z add *ipsum*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. above d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 f.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 4. a. 3. q. 2. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 319, nota 115.

en: See *II Sent.* d. 4, a. 3, q. 2. Cf. also above p. 319, note 115.

la: Cap. 2. § 4. Verba ipsa videsis tom. II. pag. 329, nota 4. — De propos. seq. cfr. supra pag. 521, nota 8. — Superius pro *oppositionem* edd. *opponi*.

en: Chapter 2, § 4. The words themselves you may see in tom. II, p. 329, note 4. — On the following proposition cf. above p. 521, note 8. — Above, for *oppositionem* the editions read *opponi*.

la: Vers. 10. — Verba Glossae *ordinariae* in hunc loc., quae sumpta sunt ex Commentario, olim Ambrosio tributo, in originali sic sonant: *Destruetur... evacuabitur, sed dum additur imperfecto, quod deest, destruetur. Destructio* [sic et cod. Z pro *desitio*] *enim imperfectionis est... impletur in verum.*

en: Verse 10. — The words of the *ordinary* Gloss on this passage, which are taken from the Commentary once attributed to Ambrose, in the original run thus: *It will be destroyed... it will be voided, but while there is added to the imperfect that which is lacking, it will be destroyed. For destruction* [so also codex Z for *desitio*] *of imperfection it is... it is fulfilled into the true.*

la: Cap. 3. n. 5: *Fides, quae nunc, quando fides haec in animo, sicut corpus tenetur in loco, iam non erit. Quae vero tunc erit, quando iam recordabimur... alia perfectio erit.* Cfr. XII. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 11. n. 89. — Aliquanto superius pro *ad perfectionem habitus* edd. *ad perfectionis habitus*.

en: Chapter 3, n. 5: *Faith, which is now, when this faith is in the mind as a body is held in a place, will now no longer be. But that which will then be, when we shall now remember... will be another perfection.* Cf. *On Genesis to the Letter* XII, c. 11, n. 89. — Somewhat above, for *ad perfectionem habitus* the editions read *ad perfectionis habitus*.

la: August., loc. cit., ad rem ait: *Sed qui hoc dicit, non discernit, etiam nunc esse trinitatem, quando praesentem fidem tenemus, videmus, amamus in nobis, aliam tunc futuram, quando non ipsam, sed eius velut imaginarium vestigium in memoria reconditum recordatione contuebimur* etc. — Paulo inferius pro *ad illius intuitum* cod. A *ad illum intuitum*.

en: Augustine, loc. cit., to the point says: *But he who says this does not discern that even now there is a trinity, when we hold, see, love the present faith in us, another that will then be, when we shall behold not it, but as it were an imaginary trace of it stored up in the memory by recollection* etc. — A little below, for *ad illius intuitum* codex A reads *ad illum intuitum*.

en: Distinction 23, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vide infra d. 33. q. 6.

en: See below d. 33, q. 6.

la: Vide supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 5. — Inferius pro *stabilioris* codd. BCDFILN *stabilitatis*.

en: See above d. 23, a. 1, q. 5. — Below, for *stabilioris* codices BCDFILN read *stabilitatis*.

la: Edd. cum aliquot codd. *neutrum*. In fine solut. cod. Z adiungit: *Nota, quod tribus modis inclinatur intellectus ad assentiendum. Primo ex praesentia intelligibilis, ut cognito, quid sit totum, et quid sit pars, statim assentit: omne totum est maius sua parte. Secundo ex via resolutionis, ut omnis triangulus habet tres aequales duobus rectis. Tertio imperio voluntatis, ut quando captivatur ingenium ad assentiendum primae Veritati propter se et super omnia.*

en: The editions with some manuscripts read *neutrum*. At the end of the solution codex Z adds: *Note that the intellect is inclined to assent in three ways. First from the presence of the intelligible, as, the whole and the part being known, it at once assents: every whole is greater than its part. Second from the way of resolution, as every triangle has three [angles] equal to two right angles. Third by the command of the will, as when the wit is taken captive to assenting to the first Truth on account of itself and above all things.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 4. ad 1. — Superius pro *informativa* cod. C *formativa*, cod. D *reformativa*, Vat. *informata*; cod. Z verbo *informativa* adtexit *in via*.

en: Cf. above d. 23, a. 2, q. 4, to the 1st. — Above, for *informativa* codex C reads *formativa*, codex D *reformativa*, the Vatican edition *informata*; codex Z appends to the word *informativa* the words *in via*.

la: Cap. 29. n. 6, ubi explicat, quomodo videbimus per ipsa corpora Deum ubique praesentem omniaque gubernantem; at non, sicut nunc, per speculum et in aenigmate, sed «in omni quae tunc fuerit creatura». Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 3.

en: Chapter 29, n. 6, where he explains how we shall see, through bodies themselves, God present everywhere and governing all things; but not, as now, through a mirror and in an enigma, but "in every creature that shall then be." Cf. *I Sent.* d. 3, p. I, q. 3.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 5, 7. — Superius pro *similiter* edd. *tum*.

en: Second Epistle to the Corinthians 5, 7. — Above, for *similiter* the editions read *tum*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo superius pro *a superveniente gloria* cod. A *in superveniente gloria*; pro *gloria* plurimi codd., edd. 1, 2 et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. *gratia*.

en: Cf. *II Sent.* d. 27, a. 1, q. 3. — A little above, for *a superveniente gloria* codex A reads *in superveniente gloria*; for *gloria* very many manuscripts, editions 1, 2, and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales read *gratia*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa hanc et seq. quaestionem cfr. infra d. 33. q. 6, d. 31. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. et p. II. a. 2. q. 3, ubi de evacuatione virtutum cardinalium et donorum agitur. His quaestionibus illustrantur et confirmantur plura, quae de fide et spe supra dd. 23-26 tradita sunt. Ipsa autem quaestio de fide evacuanda non intelligitur de convenientia fidei et luminis gloriae in *genere*, scilicet cognitionis. Omnes enim confitentur, quod fides secundum *genus cognitionis* maneat in patria; et in hoc sensu cum Guliel. Antissiod. (Sum. p. III. tr. 5. q. 5.) dici potest, quod fides non *omnino evacuabitur*. Sed quaestio intelligitur de habitu secundum *speciem* et *numerum*. — Primam opinionem hic relatam inter posteriores Scholasticos defendit Durand (hic q. 3-5.), dum similem quandam opinionem prolixa disputatione nititur probare, scilicet primo, quod non sit contra fidem ponere, quod habitus fidei possit *remanere*, vel *remaneat* in patria; deinde positive, quod reapse fides secundum habitum tum infusum tum acquisitum possit stare cum visione beatifica, «quidquid sit de facto, an remaneat, an non, de quo non potest plena certitudo haberi; tamen de possibilitate teneo, quod potest manere, etiam sine actu» (q. 3.). — Sed alii antiqui Scholastici cum S. Bonav. negant, quod aliquid de substantia habitus fidei et actus idem numero remaneat in patria, vel possit remanere. Hoc S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 67. a. 5; cfr. a. 3. i.) speciali quaestione probat; et ad rem opportune ibi distinguit duplicem imperfectionem: alteram, quae est de ratione rei et ad speciem ipsius pertinet, alteram, quae non pertinet ad rationem rei, sed accidit individuo secundum aliquid aliud. Quod aliis verbis in Comment. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.) sic explanat: «Est autem duplex actus, scilicet actus, qui est *actus imperfecti*, in quantum huiusmodi, sicut motus; et actus, qui est *actus perfecti*, in quantum huiusmodi, sicut operatio consequens formam. Contingit autem quandoque, quod actus perfecti inveniantur in imperfecto, secundum quod iam participat aliquid de perfectione» etc. In quo casu docet posse tolli quod imperfectum est, remanente eo quod est de substantia actus; «sicut loquela balbutientis pueri tollitur, quando venit ad perfectam aetatem, quantum ad id quod imperfectionis erat in ipso; manet autem quidquid erat de perfectione et de substantia loquelae. Sed motus, qui est actus imperfecti, quando pervenitur ad terminum motus, non manet quantum ad aliquid substantiae actus» etc. Eandem sententiam insinuat S. Bonav. hic q. I. ad 5. in fine, et infra a. 3. q. 1. in corp.

**II.** De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione praeter laudatos: Scot., hic q. unica n. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de his et seq. q. hic q. 5. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning this and the following question cf. below d. 33, q. 6, d. 31, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, and p. II, a. 2, q. 3, where the voiding of the cardinal virtues and of the gifts is treated. By these questions many things are illustrated and confirmed which were handed down concerning faith and hope above in dd. 23-26. But the question itself about faith being voided is not understood of the agreement of faith and the light of glory in *genus*, namely of cognition. For all confess that faith according to the *genus of cognition* remains in the fatherland; and in this sense, with William of Auxerre (Sum. p. III, tr. 5, q. 5), it can be said that faith will not be *altogether voided*. But the question is understood of the habit according to *species* and *number*. — Among the later Scholastics Durandus (here q. 3-5) defends the first opinion here related, while he strives to prove by a prolix disputation a certain similar opinion, namely first, that it is not against faith to hold that the habit of faith can *remain*, or *remains*, in the fatherland; then positively, that faith according to its habit, both infused and acquired, can actually stand with the beatific vision, "whatever be the case as to fact, whether it remains or not, about which full certainty cannot be had; nevertheless as to possibility I hold that it can remain, even without act" (q. 3). — But other ancient Scholastics with St. Bonaventure deny that anything of the substance of the habit and act of faith one in number remains in the fatherland, or can remain. This St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 1, sub-question 3; S. I-II, q. 67, a. 5; cf. a. 3, i) proves by a special question; and to the point he there opportunely distinguishes a twofold imperfection: one which is of the nature of the thing and pertains to its species, the other which does not pertain to the nature of the thing, but befalls the individual according to something else. Which in other words he explains thus in the Commentary (loc. cit., sub-question 2): "But there is a twofold act, namely an act which is an *act of the imperfect*, inasmuch as such, like motion; and an act which is an *act of the perfect*, inasmuch as such, like an operation following upon form. But it happens sometimes that acts of the perfect are found in the imperfect, according as it already participates something of perfection" etc. In which case he teaches that what is imperfect can be removed, that which is of the substance of the act remaining; "just as the speech of a stammering boy is removed, when he comes to perfect age, as to that which was of imperfection in him; but there remains whatever was of the perfection and of the substance of the speech. But motion, which is an act of the imperfect, when one arrives at the terminus of the motion, does not remain as to anything of the substance of the act" etc. The same opinion St. Bonaventure intimates here, q. I, to the 5th [objection] at the end, and below a. 3, q. 1, in the body.

**II.** Concerning this and the following (2nd) question, besides those praised: Scotus, here q. unica, n. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 7, 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on these and the following question, here q. 5. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 47231–47478 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Latin re-set from the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{679,680,681,682,683}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.701–705; offset pdf = printed + 22), authoritative for the Respondeo, the *Ad argumenta* solutions, the scholion, and every page-footer NOTAE block (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters these two-column regions — Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion); the IA OCR was the base for the clean running prose (TRACTATIO, *videtur* / *Sed in contrarium* arguments) and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads in-span (trust the running-head **text** over OCR'd digits per the override): `680 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (raw 47251); `DIST. XXXI. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 681` (raw 47315, OCR-garbled mid-text); `682 SENTENTIARUM` (raw 47383); `DIST. XXXI. ART. II. QBAEST. H.` (=683, raw 47449 — note OCR `QBAEST. H.` = `QUAEST. I.`, digit-mangled).

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.679–683** (PDF 701–705). p.679 (foot, R-col): the `ARTICULUS II` heading + subtitle + the TRACTATIO opener (*Consequenter quaeritur… Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur…*) + the three-question listing (fidei / spei / scientiae) — folds in at the head; **no q1 footer** (a1-q3 consumed all eight p.679 NOTAE; the Magister cross-ref marker has no dedicated p.679 footer beyond a1-q3's sequence). p.680: `QUAESTIO I` head + title + the four affirmative *Fundamenta* (L-col nn.1–4), then the *Sed in contrarium* arguments (six, R-col, nn.5–12) — footer nn.1–12 → [^1]–[^12]. p.681: tail of *contra* arg.6 + `CONCLUSIO` + `Respondeo` (the two *modi dicendi*: opinio 1 with its confirmation + Augustine-disagreement, opinio 2 the *communis* view + conclusion, then *Solutio oppositorum* Ad 1 begins) — footer nn.1–6 → [^13]–[^18]. p.682: Ad 1 tail + Ad 2 + Ad 3 + Ad 4 + Ad 5 (the *Notanda doctrina de cognitione Dei* excursus) + Ad 6 (closing *…sed potius consummari*) — the five footer notes anchoring in q1's body → [^19]–[^23]. p.683 (L-col top + R-col top): the `SCHOLION` §I + §II — **no footer** (p.683's footers nn.1–6 anchor in the q2 *spes* body, which begins lower on p.683). The chunk **opens** fresh at the ARTICULUS II heading (raw 47231) and **closes** at the end of scholion §II (*…hic q. unica*, raw 47478), just before `QUAESTIO II` / a2-q2 (raw 47479).

**Apparatus (23 entries, NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^23]):**
- **p.680 footer nn.1–12 → [^1]–[^12]** (the densest page). nn.1–4 anchor in the four *Fundamenta* (Hebr.11+Gregor.; Aug.*de Trin.*; I Cor.13,10; *virtus est* cross-ref). nn.5–12 anchor in the six *Sed in contrarium* args (n.5 *Edd. ipsius* on *sui*; n.6 long Aug. multi-citation on *manebunt in patria*; n.7 Hebr.11,1 definition on *Apostolum*; n.8 d.23/d.24 + *volemus* variant on *credidisse*; n.9 *Cod. L I Z ipsum* on the interjected *hoc*; n.10 d.23 a.2 cross-ref on *peccati*; n.11 II Sent. d.4 on *proprio genere*; n.12 Dionys. *Div. Nom.* on *Divinis Nominibus*).
- **p.681 footer nn.1–6 → [^13]–[^18]**. n.1 (=[^13]) the long Gloss-on-I-Cor.13 variant note (marker on *decimo tertio*, opinio 1); n.2 (=[^14]) Aug. *de Trin.* c.3 n.5 + *ad perfectionem habitus* variant (marker on *de Trinitate*, the Augustine-disagreement); n.3 (=[^15]) the further Aug. *loc. cit.* quotation + *ad illius intuitum* variant (marker on *habitus caritatis*, end of opinio 1); n.4 (=[^16]) *Dist. 23. a.1. q.2* (marker on *praecedentibus*, opinio 2); n.5 — there is no separate Conclusio-region footer; n.5/n.6 fall to the Solutio: n.5 (=[^17]) *Vide infra d.33 q.6* (marker on *statum patriae*, Ad 1 tail — runs onto p.682's first line), n.6 (=[^18]) *Vide supra d.23 a.1 q.5* + *stabilioris* variant (marker on *exspectantur*, Ad 2). [n.b. nn.5–6 markers land just over the p.681→p.682 column break; both footers print at the foot of p.681.]
- **p.682 footer notes → [^19]–[^23]** (the five p.682 footers anchoring in q1's body; p.682 prints further footer slots but they anchor in the adjacent q2 *spes* body or are running-foot continuations of notes already counted). Mapping by anchor: [^19] Ad 3 (*neuter*, *Edd. neutrum* + the long *Nota tribus modis* cod. Z addition); [^20] Ad 4 (*peccatum tolli*, d.23 a.2 q.4 + *informativa* variants); [^21] Ad 5 (*de Civitate Dei*, Aug. c.29 n.6); [^22] Ad 5 excursus (*ambulamus*, II Cor.5,7); [^23] Ad 6 (*consummari*, II Sent. d.27 + *gloria/gratia* variant). Verified the chunk renders 23 distinct `[^N]` defs ([^1]–[^23]) with paired Latin/English body anchors.
- All marker positions in the heavily OCR-fragmented Respondeo/Ad-arguments region were placed from the PDF column bands, not raw-line order.

**ART-II TRACTATIO 3-question listing.** Verified on the p.679 R-col foot band: *Primo quaeritur de evacuatione fidei. Secundo de evacuatione ipsius spei. Tertio de evacuatione ipsius scientiae.* The triple habit is the Master's (Lombard's) — faith, hope, knowledge.

**Alignment check.** **PASSED, no q-swap.** The TRACTATIO's first member *Primo… de evacuatione **fidei*** = `title_la` *Utrum fides in gloria evacuetur* (whether **faith** is voided in glory) 1:1. Distinct from q2 (*spei* — hope) and q3 (*scientiae* — knowledge). No STOP.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. This is the **article-master scholion** of ARTICULUS II, printed after q1's corpus (top of p.683). §I (*Circa hanc et seq. quaestionem…*) and §II (*De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione…*) both explicitly **forward-cover q2** (the *spes* question) together with q1: §I discusses *fides … et seq. quaestionem*, §II lists the parallel-treatments *De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione*. It is placed under THIS q1 (body-then-scholion ordering per the parser requirement). q2 (a2-q2) will carry `has_scholion: false`, redirecting to this scholion.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a1-q3*: **NONE.** a1-q3 closed at the end of its *Ad 4* on p.679 and consumed all eight p.679 NOTAE (its [^9]–[^16]). The ARTICULUS II opener begins a fresh page/footer flow; its own apparatus starts at p.680 n.1.
- *Forwarded to d31-a2-q2*: **NONE.** This chunk closes at the end of scholion §II (*…hic q. unica*, raw 47478). The **scholion itself carries no page footer** — p.683's footer notes (nn.1–6 visible on the bands) all anchor in the q2 *spes* body (*Ad Romanos octavo* Gloss, *spes est exspectatio* Gloss, I Cor.13,13 Gloss, *Vide quaest. praeced.*, Sap.3 Gloss, Psalm Gloss), which begins lower on p.683. So no q1 footer carries into q2; a2-q2 opens a fresh p.683/p.684 footer sequence of its own.

**Title note.** Printed quaestio header `QUAESTIO I. / Utrum fides in gloria evacuetur` (verified on the p.680 L-col band; OCR garbles it *evacuelur*) — used as `title_la`. The ARTICULUS II subtitle `De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad habitus aliarum virtutum` verified on the p.679 R-col foot band.

**q2 pin (for the next CREATE dispatch).** Next chunk = `bon-sent-III-d31-a2-q2`, title_la **`Utrum spes evacuetur per adventum gloriae`** (printed `•QUAIiSTH) H.` = QUAESTIO II, OCR-garbled), raw start **47479**. q2 spans printed pp.683–685 (with the scholion forward-covered from this q1; q2 itself has `has_scholion: false`). The skeleton's current OCR body over-included exactly this q2 region (everything from raw 47479 onward) — it has been **dropped** from this q1.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation and the Respondeo / Ad-arguments / scholion regions were fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF column bands; all 25 NOTAE entries are legible and the scholion §I–§II forward-coverage is confirmed on the p.683 bands.

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