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

source_text:
<!-- page 683 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum spes evacuetur per adventum gloriae.*

Secundo quaeritur de evacuatione spei, et quaeritur, utrum spes evacuetur per adventum gloriae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Romanos octavo[^1]: *Spes, quae videtur, non est spes*; Glossa: «Res sperata, quae videtur, non est spes, id est, non est subiecta spei-virtuti, quae non est nisi de non apparentibus»: si ergo per adventum gloriae quod erat latens efficitur patens: necesse est, habitum spei evacuari ad praesentiam praemii.

2. Item, «spes est exspectatio futurae beatitudinis», secundum quod dicitur in Glossa ad Romanos quinto[^2]; sed quando de futuro fit praesens, futurum desinit esse futurum: cum ergo in gloria semper habeatur beatitudo praesens, videtur, quod nullo modo contingat ibi esse spem.

3. Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^3]: *Nunc manent fides, spes, caritas, tria haec* etc.; Glossa: «Caritas, fide et spe discedentibus, permanebit aucta, cui fides et spes hic non possunt deesse»: si ergo deerunt sibi in patria, videtur, quod evacuentur per gloriam.

4. Item, sicut se habet fides respectu non visi, sic se habet spes respectu non habiti; sed fides necessario evacuatur, superveniente clara visione[^4]: ergo et spes, superveniente comprehensione sive certissima tentione.

**Sed contra:** 1. Sapientiae tertio[^5]: *Spes illorum immortalitate plena est*; Glossa: «id est indefectiva»: ergo si spes Beatorum non deficit, videtur, quod spes non habeat evacuari in Beatis. Si tu dicas, quod ibi accipitur spes pro ipsa re sperata; obiicitur tunc de ipso actu sperandi, qui fuit in Christo, secundum quod dicit Glossa super illud Psalmi[^6]: *In te, Domine, speravi*: si ergo Christus simul fuit comprehensor et viator, videtur, quod simul possit stare actus et habitus spei cum complemento praemii.

2. Item, ubicumque potest esse desiderium, ibi potest esse spes; sed in aeterna beatitudine est

<!-- page 684 -->

summum desiderium, secundum quod scribitur primae Petri primo[^7]: *In quem desiderant Angeli prospicere*: ergo videtur, quod in ipsa superna beatitudine contingat reperire spem quantum ad habitum et motum: ergo etc.

3. Item, animae beatae in patria exspectant ipsam stolam secundam[^8], et per consequens suam gloriam augendam et perficiendam; sed certa exspectatio gloriae procedens ab instinctu gratiae est ipsius spei-virtutis: ergo spes-virtus est in animabus beatis.

4. Item, sicut se habet desperatio ad damnatos, sic se habet spes ad Beatos per commutatam proportionem[^9], quia, sicut status damnatorum repugnat statui Beatorum, sic spes repugnat desperationi: ergo sicut necesse est ponere desperationem in damnatis, ita necesse videtur, quod sit ponere spem in Beatis.

5. Item, actus ipsius spei est confidere in Domino[^10]; sed Beati maxime habent istum actum, quia maxime confidunt in Domino et ei innituntur: ergo videtur, quod in eis potissime sit reperire ipsius spei habitum et usum.

6. Item, ad spem pertinet certitudo et exspectatio; sed constat, quod certitudo in gloria non tolletur, immo perficietur: ergo videtur, quod habitus spei secundum aliquid sui habeat in gloria salvari, videlicet quantum ad certitudinem; similiter videtur, quod quantum ad exspectationem, quia, sicut vult Anselmus[^11], ponere est durationem in participatione beatitudinis: ergo qui modo participant beatitudinem in A, nondum participant eam in B, et certitudinaliter eam exspectant. Si ergo spes quantum ad exspectationem manet et quantum ad certitudinem consummatur, videtur, quod nullo modo in gloria evacuetur.

### Conclusio.

> Habitus spei in patria simpliciter evacuatur.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sicut duplex est modus dicendi circa evacuationem fidei[^12], similiter et circa evacuationem spei. Nam et in ipso habitu spei est reperire aliquid imperfectionis et aliquid perfectionis et complementi. Ad imperfectionem enim spectat illud spei, quod est exspectatio quaedam et protensio ad ea quae realiter non habentur; ad complementum autem eius spectat confidentia et certitudo, qua[^13] facit confidere et inniti ipsi summae largitati. Et quantum ad primum tollitur ipsa spes et evacuatur; quantum vero ad secundum perficitur et salvatur. — Sed quoniam, sicut in praecedentibus[^14] dictum est, spes non diceretur evacuari, si solum quod est imperfectionis tolleretur ab ipsa, illo salvo, quod est in ea perfectionis et complementi — sicut patet, quia liberum arbitrium in patria non dicitur evacuari in gloria, quamvis tollatur sibi vertibilitas: et hoc quia vertibilitas potius spectat ad liberi arbitrii defectum quam ad complementum — si sic igitur esset in proposito reperire, nunquam deberet dici evacuari propter adventum gloriae.

Et propterea communis modus dicendi est, et hunc innuit ipsa Glossa, quod habitus ipsius spei simpliciter evacuatur in gloria, et ei succedit habitus novus. Et ratio huius est: quia habitus spei habilitat ad confidendum et innitendum Deo cum quadam protensione et erectione et exspectatione; et quoniam statui gloriae repugnat exspectatio substantialis praemii, cum ibi habeatur[^15], et protensio et illa erectio et inhiatio, cum ibi affectus omnino quietetur: hinc est, quod habitus ipsius spei simpliciter

<!-- page 685 -->

evacuari dicitur, secundum quod spes nominat habitum virtutis theologicae, qui habilitat ipsam animam ad exspectandum substantiale praemium. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod spes Beatorum est immortalitate plena; dicendum, quod spes sumitur ibi pro re sperata. Et si obiiciat, quod Christus speravit actu secundum illud Psalmi[^16]: *In te, Domine, speravi*; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de Christo ratione membrorum; vel extenditur ibi nomen spei ad exspectationem cuiuscumque spiritualis beneficii.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ibi est spes, ubi est desiderium[^17]; dicendum, quod est desiderium de acquirendo, et est desiderium de continuando. Ubi autem est desiderium de acquirendo, ibi bene potest esse spes; sed ubi est desiderium de continuando bonum iam habitum, spes non est, quia non est ibi exspectatio non habiti. Et sic est in patria ponere desiderium, non per aliquam anhelationem ad obtinendum non habitum, sed propter infatigabilitatem et indeficientiam delectationis, quae nullo modo ibi parit fastidium.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod animae beatae exspectant stolam secundam; dicendum, quod in ratione illa est duplex defectus. Primus defectus est: quia non quaecumque exspectatio ponit virtutem spei, sed exspectatio summae beatitudinis sive summi boni et summe ardui assequendi[^18]. Praeterea, non exspectant certitudine spei, sed certitudine comprehensionis, quae non ponit protensionem nec inhiationem ad assequendum illud quod exspectatur; alioquin ex sua dilatione affligeret exspectantem, iuxta illud quod dicitur in Proverbiis[^19]: *Spes, quae differtur, affligit animam*; hoc autem nullo modo est ponere circa animam beatam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sic se habet spes ad Beatos, sicut[^20] desperatio ad damnatos; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia desperatio facit ad cumulum mali; sed spes de sua ratione oppositionem habet cum summa completione boni, quia dicit absentiam boni exspectati. Et ideo non sic se compatitur cum summa beatitudine habitus spei, sicut desperatio cum extrema calamitate.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod actus spei est confidere in Domino et eidem inniti; dicendum, quod non quaecumque confidentia est actus spei, sed ea quae est cum quadam protensione et inhiatione et erectione, quae omnia incompossibilia sunt statui gloriae; et ideo, quamvis in gloria sit quaedam confidentia, non tamen sequitur, quod ibi sit virtus spei, quia est alterius habitus et excellentioris, videlicet dotis succedentis ipsi virtuti spei[^21].

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ibi salvatur exspectatio et consummatur certitudo; dicendum, quod non est ibi exspectatio proprie, quia nihil novum augetur Beatis, respectu cuius sit exspectatio in eis. Praeterea, certitudo ista non completur, sed est ibi aliud genus certitudinis: ista enim est ex promissione, illa vero est ex rei exhibitione et perfectissima tentione. Ideo non sequitur, quod habitus spei habeat salvari in gloria, quin potius ipsa spes ex hoc magis ostenditur evacuanda[^22].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether hope is voided by the coming of glory.*

Secondly it is asked about the voiding of hope, and it is asked whether hope is voided by the coming of glory. And that it is seems true.

1. To the Romans 8[^1]: *Hope that is seen is not hope*; the Gloss: "A thing hoped for, that is seen, is not hope, that is, it is not subject to the virtue of hope, which is only of things not apparent": if therefore by the coming of glory that which was hidden becomes manifest: it is necessary that the habit of hope be voided at the presence of the reward.

2. Likewise, "hope is the expectation of future beatitude," according to what is said in the Gloss on Romans 5[^2]; but when out of the future something becomes present, the future ceases to be future: since therefore in glory beatitude is always had as present, it seems that in no way does it happen that hope be there.

3. Likewise, to the Corinthians, first, 13[^3]: *Now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three* etc.; the Gloss: "Charity, when faith and hope have departed, will remain increased, and to it faith and hope here cannot be lacking": if therefore they will be lacking to it in the fatherland, it seems that they are voided through glory.

4. Likewise, as faith stands with respect to the unseen, so hope stands with respect to the unpossessed; but faith is necessarily voided, when clear vision supervenes[^4]: therefore hope also, when comprehension or most certain holding supervenes.

**On the contrary:** 1. Wisdom 3[^5]: *Their hope is full of immortality*; the Gloss: "that is, indefectible": therefore if the hope of the Blessed does not fail, it seems that hope is not voided in the Blessed. If you say that hope is there taken for the very thing hoped for; then there is the objection from the very act of hoping, which was in Christ, according as the Gloss says on that text of the Psalm[^6]: *In thee, O Lord, have I hoped*: if therefore Christ was at the same time comprehensor and wayfarer, it seems that the act and habit of hope can stand at the same time with the completion of the reward.

2. Likewise, wherever there can be desire, there can be hope; but in eternal beatitude there is

the highest desire, according as it is written in the first of Peter, 1[^7]: *On whom the Angels desire to look*: therefore it seems that in supernal beatitude itself it happens that hope is found as to habit and motion: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the blessed souls in the fatherland await the second robe itself[^8], and consequently their glory to be increased and perfected; but the certain expectation of glory proceeding from the instinct of grace belongs to the virtue of hope itself: therefore the virtue of hope is in the blessed souls.

4. Likewise, as despair stands to the damned, so hope stands to the Blessed by a converse proportion[^9], because, just as the state of the damned is repugnant to the state of the Blessed, so hope is repugnant to despair: therefore just as it is necessary to posit despair in the damned, so it seems necessary that hope be posited in the Blessed.

5. Likewise, the act of hope itself is to trust in the Lord[^10]; but the Blessed most of all have that act, because they most of all trust in the Lord and lean upon him: therefore it seems that in them especially the habit and use of hope is to be found.

6. Likewise, to hope belong certitude and expectation; but it is established that certitude in glory is not taken away, but rather perfected: therefore it seems that the habit of hope as to something of itself is preserved in glory, namely as to certitude; likewise it seems that as to expectation, because, as Anselm[^11] holds, to posit a participation of beatitude is to posit a duration: therefore those who now participate beatitude in A, do not yet participate it in B, and with certitude await it. If therefore hope as to expectation remains and as to certitude is consummated, it seems that in no way is it voided in glory.

### Conclusion.

> The habit of hope is in the fatherland simply voided.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, just as there is a twofold manner of speaking about the voiding of faith[^12], so also about the voiding of hope. For in the very habit of hope too there is to be found something of imperfection and something of perfection and completion. For to imperfection belongs that of hope which is a certain expectation and a stretching-out toward those things which are not really possessed; but to its completion belongs the confidence and certitude by which[^13] it makes one trust and lean upon the supreme bounty itself. And as to the first, hope itself is removed and voided; but as to the second it is perfected and saved. — But since, as was said in the preceding[^14], hope would not be said to be voided if only that which is of imperfection were removed from it, that being saved which is in it of perfection and completion — as is plain, because free choice in the fatherland is not said to be voided in glory, although mutability is taken away from it: and this because mutability belongs rather to the defect of free choice than to its completion — if then it were to be found thus in the matter at hand, it ought never to be said to be voided on account of the coming of glory.

And therefore the common manner of speaking is, and the Gloss itself intimates this, that the habit of hope itself is simply voided in glory, and a new habit succeeds it. And the reason of this is: because the habit of hope fits one for trusting in and leaning upon God with a certain stretching-out and uplifting and expectation; and since to the state of glory the expectation of the substantial reward is repugnant, since it is there had[^15], and the stretching-out and that uplifting and longing, since there the affect is wholly at rest: hence it is that the habit of hope itself is simply

said to be voided, according as hope names the habit of the theological virtue which fits the soul itself for awaiting the substantial reward. — And the reasons which show this are to be granted.

1. But to that which is objected first to the contrary, that the hope of the Blessed is full of immortality; it must be said that hope is there taken for the thing hoped for. And if it be objected that Christ hoped in act according to that text of the Psalm[^16]: *In thee, O Lord, have I hoped*; it must be said that this is understood of Christ by reason of his members; or the name of hope is there extended to the expectation of any spiritual benefit whatever.

2. To that which is objected, that there is hope where there is desire[^17]; it must be said that there is a desire of acquiring, and there is a desire of continuing. But where there is a desire of acquiring, there hope can well be; but where there is a desire of continuing a good already possessed, there is no hope, because there is not there an expectation of the unpossessed. And so in the fatherland desire is to be posited, not through any panting after obtaining what is not possessed, but on account of the tirelessness and unfailingness of the delight, which in no way there gives rise to weariness.

3. To that which is objected, that the blessed souls await the second robe; it must be said that in that argument there is a twofold defect. The first defect is: because not just any expectation posits the virtue of hope, but the expectation of the highest beatitude or of the highest good and of what is to be attained with the highest difficulty[^18]. Furthermore, they do not await with the certitude of hope, but with the certitude of comprehension, which does not posit a stretching-out nor a longing for attaining that which is awaited; otherwise by its delay it would afflict the one awaiting, according to that which is said in Proverbs[^19]: *Hope that is deferred afflicts the soul*; but this is in no way to be posited concerning the blessed soul.

4. To that which is objected, that hope stands to the Blessed as[^20] despair to the damned; it must be said that the case is not alike: because despair makes for the heaping-up of evil; but hope, of its very nature, has an opposition with the supreme completion of the good, since it bespeaks the absence of the good awaited. And therefore the habit of hope is not so compatible with supreme beatitude as despair with extreme calamity.

5. To that which is objected, that the act of hope is to trust in the Lord and to lean upon him; it must be said that not just any confidence is the act of hope, but that which is with a certain stretching-out and longing and uplifting, all of which are incompatible with the state of glory; and therefore, although in glory there be a certain confidence, nevertheless it does not follow that there be the virtue of hope, because it is of another and more excellent habit, namely of the endowment succeeding the virtue of hope itself[^21].

6. To that which is objected, that there expectation is saved and certitude is consummated; it must be said that there is not there expectation properly, because nothing new is increased to the Blessed, with respect to which there should be expectation in them. Furthermore, that certitude is not completed, but there is there another genus of certitude: for the former is from promise, but the latter is from the exhibition of the thing and a most perfect holding. Therefore it does not follow that the habit of hope be saved in glory, but rather hope is from this the more shown to be voided[^22].

---

la: Vers. 21. — Glossa habetur apud Petr. Lombard. et apud Lyranum; est interlinearis.

en: Verse 21. — The Gloss is found in Peter Lombard and in Lyra; it is interlinear.

la: Vers. 4. — Quoad Glossam cfr. supra pag. 566, nota 8. et pag. 583, nota 3.

en: Verse 4. — As to the Gloss cf. above, p. 566, note 8, and p. 583, note 3.

la: Vers. 13. — Glossa invenitur integra apud Petr. Lombard. (in hunc loc.), ex parte etiam apud Strabum et Lyranum (ut *ordinaria*); sumpta est ex August., I. *de Doctr. christ.* c. 39. n. 43. — In conclus. cod. A omittit *sibi* et pro *deerunt* atque *evacuentur* substituit *deerit* atque *evacuetur*.

en: Verse 13. — The Gloss is found entire in Peter Lombard (on this passage), in part also in Strabo and Lyra (as the *ordinary* gloss); it is taken from Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* I, c. 39, n. 43. — In the conclusion codex A omits *sibi* and for *deerunt* and *evacuentur* substitutes *deerit* and *evacuetur*.

la: Vide quaest. praeced.

en: See the preceding question.

la: Vers. 4. — In Glossa cit., quae est *interlinearis* et apud Lyranum, cod. F *Beatorum indefectiva*, et pro *id est* Vat. exhibet *prima*.

en: Verse 4. — In the cited Gloss, which is *interlinear* and in Lyra, codex F reads *Beatorum indefectiva*, and for *id est* the Vatican edition presents *prima*.

la: Psalm. 30, 1. — De Glossa cfr. supra pag. 585, nota 5. — Mox pro *viator* non pauci codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 74. a. 2. *beatus*. Subinde verbo *videtur* cod. K praemittit *ex hoc*.

en: Psalm 30, 1. — On the Gloss cf. above, p. 585, note 5. — Presently, for *viator* not a few manuscripts and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collation 74, a. 2, read *beatus*. Then to the word *videtur* codex K prefixes *ex hoc*.

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 390, nota 4. et pag. 585, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, p. 390, note 4, and p. 585, note 8.

la: Boeth., II. *de Differ. topic.*, de proportione ait: *Hic autem locus distat ab eo qui a similibus ducitur. Ibi enim una res unicuilibet alii comparatur; in proportione vero non est similitudo rerum, sed quaedam habitudinis comparatio... Maxima propositio: quod in unaquaque re evenit, id in eius proportionali evenire necesse est.* Cfr. Aristot., I. *Poster.* c. 5. et II. c. 17. (c. 14.).

en: Boethius, *On Topical Differences* II, says of proportion: *But this place differs from that which is drawn from likes. For there one thing is compared to each single other; but in proportion there is not a likeness of things, but a certain comparison of relation... The maximal proposition: what occurs in each single thing, it is necessary that it occur in its proportional.* Cf. Aristotle, *Posterior* [Analytics] I, c. 5, and II, c. 17 (c. 14).

la: Cfr. supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.; q. 2. ad 1. — Cod. A omittit *ipsius* ante *spei*.

en: Cf. above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 1, in the body; q. 2, to the 1st. — Codex A omits *ipsius* before *spei*.

la: *Proslog.* 20: *An hoc quoque modo transis omnia, etiam aeterna, quia tua et illorum aeternitas tota tibi praesens est, cum illa nondum habeant de sua aeternitate quod venturum est, sicut iam non habent quod praeteritum est?* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 2. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 2, ubi S. Bonav. ad idem Anselmi dictum provocat. B. Albert., hic a. 3, ex *Proslog.* c. 25. haec affert: *Si Deum sic diligent toto corde, tota mente, tota anima, ut tamen totum cor, tota mens, tota anima non sufficiat dignitati dilectionis, profecto sic gaudebunt toto corde, tota mente, tota anima, ut totum cor, tota mens, tota anima non sufficiat plenitudini gaudii.* Vat. ad marg. allegat Anselm. *de Similitudinibus*, c. 58. (inter opera Anselmi). Cfr. tamen melius ibi c. 59, pag. 686, nota 3. citatum. — De *maiori* vide supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 5. — Pro *similiter videtur, quod quantum* codd. K bb *similiter quantum*. In fine arg. pro *evacuetur* multi codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. *evacuatur*.

en: *Proslogion* 20: *Or do you in this way too pass beyond all things, even eternal ones, because your eternity and theirs is wholly present to you, since they do not yet have of their eternity what is to come, just as they no longer have what is past?* Cf. *II Sent.* d. 2, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, fundamentum 2, where St. Bonaventure appeals to the same saying of Anselm. B. Albert, here a. 3, from the *Proslogion* c. 25, adduces this: *If they shall so love God with whole heart, whole mind, whole soul, that nevertheless the whole heart, whole mind, whole soul does not suffice for the dignity of the love, assuredly they shall so rejoice with whole heart, whole mind, whole soul, that the whole heart, whole mind, whole soul does not suffice for the fullness of the joy.* The Vatican edition in the margin cites Anselm, *On Likenesses*, c. 58 (among the works of Anselm). Cf. however better there c. 59, cited p. 686, note 3. — On *greater* see above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 5. — For *similiter videtur, quod quantum* codices K bb read *similiter quantum*. At the end of the argument, for *evacuetur* many manuscripts and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales read *evacuatur*.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. in corp.

en: See the preceding question, in the body.

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *quae*.

en: The Vatican edition, with several manuscripts, reads *quae*.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Paulo inferius pro *in gloria* cod. Z *a gloria*, et mox pro *tollatur sibi* cod. K *tollatur sua*; cod. A omittit *sibi*. Deinde pro *si sic igitur esset* edd. *si sic igitur possibile esset*; cod. K *si igitur sic in proposito reperitur* (etiam codd. F G I T V Z exhibent *reperitur* pro *reperire*).

en: The preceding question. — A little below, for *in gloria* codex Z reads *a gloria*, and presently for *tollatur sibi* codex K *tollatur sua*; codex A omits *sibi*. Then for *si sic igitur esset* the editions read *si sic igitur possibile esset*; codex K *si igitur sic in proposito reperitur* (codices F G I T V Z too present *reperitur* for *reperire*).

la: Scil. praemium. Vat. omittit *cum ibi habeatur*, refragantibus codd., quorum tamen plures cum edd. 1, 2, habent perperam *igitur* pro *ibi*; in Supplemento Sum. Alex. Hal. legitur (post *praemii*): *cum igitur cesset protensio illa et erectio* etc. Paulo inferius pro *theologicae* codd. A G H I L N U V bb et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. *theologicum*.

en: That is, the reward. The Vatican edition omits *cum ibi habeatur*, against the manuscripts, of which however most, with editions 1, 2, wrongly have *igitur* for *ibi*; in the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales is read (after *praemii*): *since therefore that stretching-out and uplifting cease* etc. A little below, for *theologicae* codices A G H I L N U V bb and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales read *theologicum*.

la: Psalm. 30, 1. — De hac nec non de duabus seqq. solut. vide supra d. 26. dub. 5.

en: Psalm 30, 1. — On this and likewise on the two following solutions see above, d. 26, dub. 5.

la: Cod. U supplet *bonum*. In principio solut. pro *ibi est spes, ubi est desiderium*, quam lect. a cod. Z accepimus, alii codd. et edd. incongrue *ubi est spes, ibi est desiderium*.

en: Codex U supplies *bonum*. At the beginning of the solution, for *there is hope where there is desire*, which reading we have taken from codex Z, other manuscripts and editions read incongruously *where there is hope, there is desire*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 26. a. 2. q. 4. — Pro *summe ardui* codd. cum aliquot codd. *summi ardui*, et mox bis *certitudinem* pro *certitudine*; perperam.

en: Cf. above, d. 26, a. 2, q. 4. — For *summe ardui* the manuscripts with some codices read *summi ardui*, and presently twice *certitudinem* for *certitudine*; wrongly.

en: Chapter 13, 12.

la: Edd. *quod sicut se habet... sic.* In fine solut. pro *extrema* cod. K *aeterna*.

en: The editions read *quod sicut se habet... sic.* At the end of the solution, for *extrema* codex K reads *aeterna*.

la: Scil. tentionis. Cfr. supra d. 26. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.

en: That is, of holding. Cf. above, d. 26, a. 1, q. 3, in the body.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 47479–47622 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. **NEW chunk** — the auto-chunker skipped it: ARTICULUS II's quaestio inventory jumps q1→q3 (a skeleton `d31-a2-q3` exists, no `d31-a2-q2`), and the *spes* body (raw 47479+) was over-included into the a2-q1 skeleton, then dropped when a2-q1 was promoted (commit `ed723ac`). Re-grepped raw 47479–47622 fresh. Latin re-set from the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{683,684,685}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.705–707; offset pdf = printed + 22), authoritative for the Respondeo, two *modi dicendi*, Solutio (Ad 1–6), 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 (*Fundamenta* / *Sed contra* arguments) and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads in-span: `QUAESTIO II.` (printed `•QUAIiSTH) H.`, OCR digit-mangled, raw 47479), `684 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.684 top, raw 47516), `DIST. XXXI. ART. II. QUAEST. [III.] 685` (p.685 top, raw 47582–47584). Trusted running-head text + the +22 offset over OCR'd digits per the override.

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.683–685** (PDF 705–707). p.683 (foot, after q1's article-master scholion which prints at the top): `QUAESTIO II` head + title + the four affirmative *Fundamenta* (L-col), then *Sed contra* args 1 (Sap.3 + Christ-Psalm objection, L→R) and 2 (*ubicumque desiderium*, R-col foot, straddling onto p.684). p.684: tail of *Sed contra* 2 + args 3–6 (Petri/stola-secunda/commutata-proportio/confidere/Anselmus, L-col), the `CONCLUSIO` + Conclusio sentence + `Respondeo` (the two *modi dicendi*: opinio 1 imperfectio/perfectio with the liberum-arbitrium parallel, then opinio 2 the *communis* view + *Ratio*, ending mid-sentence *…habitus ipsius spei simpliciter* at the R-col foot). p.685: *…evacuari dicitur* tail + the conclusion *concedendae sunt rationes* + the six replies *Ad 1–6* (Solutio oppositorum: Ad 1 Resp. duplex, Ad 2 duplex desiderium, Ad 3 duplex defectus + Prov.13,12, Ad 4 desperatio-disanalogy, Ad 5 *Notandum* non-quaecumque-confidentia, Ad 6 closing *…magis ostenditur evacuanda*). The chunk **opens** fresh at `QUAESTIO II` on p.683 (raw 47479) and **closes** at the end of *Ad 6* on p.685 (*…evacuanda*, raw 47621), just before `QUAESTIO III` / a2-q3 (raw 47623).

**Apparatus (22 entries, NOTAE, per-page restart, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^22]):**
- **p.683 footer nn.1–6 → [^1]–[^6]**. n.1 Rom.8 *Vers.21* Gloss (marker *Ad Romanos octavo*, fund.1); n.2 Rom.5 *Vers.4* Gloss cross-ref (marker *Romanos quinto*, fund.2); n.3 I Cor.13 *Vers.13* Gloss + Aug. *de Doctr. christ.* + cod. A variant (marker *Corinthios decimo tertio*, fund.3); n.4 *Vide quaest. praeced.* (marker *clara visione*, fund.4); n.5 Sap.3 *Vers.4* Gloss + cod. F / Vat. variants (marker *Sapientiae tertio*, Sed contra 1); n.6 Psalm.30,1 + *viator/beatus* variant (marker *Psalmi* "In te Domine", Sed contra 1 cont.).
- **p.684 footer nn.1–9 → [^7]–[^15]**. n.1 I Petri *Vers.12* (marker *Petri primo*, contra-arg 2 tail); n.2 *Cfr. supra pag. 390/585* (marker *stolam secundam*, arg.3); n.3 Boeth. *de Differ. topic.* proportio + Aristot. (marker *commutatam proportionem*, arg.4); n.4 *d.26 a.1 q.1* + cod. A *ipsius* (marker *confidere in Domino*, arg.5); n.5 Anselm *Proslog.20* + Albert *Proslog.25* + *de Similitudinibus* + *evacuatur* variant (marker *Anselmus*, arg.6 — long note); n.6 *Vide quaest. praeced. in corp.* (marker *evacuationem fidei*, Respondeo); n.7 Vat. *quae* (marker *qua facit confidere*, Respondeo); n.8 *Quaest. praeced.* + *a gloria*/*tollatur sua*/*reperitur* variants (marker *praecedentibus*, opinio 2 / Improbatur); n.9 *Scil. praemium* + Vat. omits *cum ibi habeatur* + *theologicum* variant (marker *cum ibi habeatur*, Ratio).
- **p.685 footer nn.1–7 → [^16]–[^22]**. n.1 Psalm.30,1 + *d.26 dub.5* (marker *Psalmi* "In te Domine", Ad 1); n.2 cod. U *bonum* + *ubi est spes / ibi est desiderium* word-order variant (marker *desiderium*, Ad 2); n.3 *d.26 a.2 q.4* + *summi ardui* / *certitudine* variants (marker *summe ardui assequendi*, Ad 3); n.4 *Cap. 13, 12* = Prov.13,12 (marker *Proverbiis*, Ad 3 tail); n.5 Edd. *quod sicut se habet* + *extrema/aeterna* variant (marker *sicut*, Ad 4); n.6 *Scil. tentionis* + *d.26 a.1 q.3* (marker *virtuti spei*, Ad 5 end); n.7 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — the scholion redirect (marker *evacuanda*, Ad 6 end).
- The marker positions in the heavily OCR-fragmented Respondeo / two-*modi-dicendi* / Solutio 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-a2-q1 article-master **Scholion §I–§II** (printed at the top of p.683, *above* this q2 body, and held under a2-q1 per the body-then-scholion parser rule) forward-covers it: §I opens *"Circa hanc et seq. quaestionem…"* and §II *"De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione…"* — both explicitly answering q1 (fides) **and** this q2 (spes). The p.685 apparatus note [^22] itself directs *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion to the preceding question"), confirming the scholarly apparatus for q2 lives in q1's scholion. Convention mirrored from sibling redirect chunks (`vol3/bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q3.md`, `vol3/bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q2.md`).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a2-q1*: **NONE** — as forwarded by a2-q1's report. The article-master scholion (top of p.683) carries no page footer of its own; p.683's footer notes nn.1–6 all anchor in **this** q2 *spes* body, which opens lower on p.683. So this chunk owns its p.683 footers from the start (claimed [^1]–[^6]).
- *Forwarded to d31-a2-q3*: **p.685 footer nn.8–10.** p.685 prints ten footer notes; nn.1–7 anchor in this q2's body (claimed [^16]–[^22]); nn.8 (*Vers. 8*), n.9 (*Sive Erudit. didascalicae lib. I. c. 6*), n.10 (*Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. 3.* + *concenit*/*est-esset* variants) all anchor in the **next** question's body (`QUAESTIO III. Utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria`, raw 47623, which begins in the p.685 L-col foot). a2-q3 must claim p.685 nn.8–10 as its inbound hand-off, then continue onto p.686.

**Alignment check.** **PASSED, no q-swap.** The opener *Secundo quaeritur de evacuatione spei… utrum spes evacuetur per adventum gloriae* (raw 47483–47484) = `title_la` *Utrum spes evacuetur per adventum gloriae* 1:1; the ARTICULUS II TRACTATIO (in a2-q1) lists *Primo… fidei; Secundo… spei; Tertio… scientiae*, and this is the **second** member (*spes*). Distinct from q1 (*fides*) and q3 (*scientiae*). No STOP.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation and the Respondeo / two-*modi-dicendi* / Solutio regions were fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF column bands; all 22 NOTAE entries are legible and the scholion-redirect is confirmed by note [^22].


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 685 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria.*

Tertio quaeritur de evacuatione scientiae, et est quaestio, utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per auctoritatem Apostoli primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^1]: *Sive prophetiae evacuabuntur, sive linguae cessabunt, sive scientia destruetur*; sed quod destruitur simpliciter evacuatur: ergo etc.

2. Item, secundum quod vult Magister Hugo de sancto Victore in Didascaleo[^2]: «Scientiae inventae sunt propter indigentias et necessitates supplendas ex parte animae, vel ex parte corporis»; si ergo in patria tolletur omnis indigentia, videtur, quod evacuetur omnis scientia.

3. Item, anima beata omnia cognoscit in Verbo et aperte et continue, ita quod ab illo aspectu non potest separari[^3]: ergo videtur, quod nullus alius habitus cognitionis, vel aspectus beatae animae conveniat: videtur ergo, quod habitus cognitionis, qui est in via, simpliciter tollatur in patria, alioquin erit ibi frustra.

4. Item, quod plus habet de lumine et veritate minus est evacuabile; sed in habitu fidei plus est de ratione veritatis et luminis quam in habitu scientiae acquisitae — ipsa enim fides innititur primae Veritati propter se, et in ipsa etiam est lumen gratiae divinitus ei datae et infusae — ergo multo

<!-- page 686 -->

minus est evacuabilis habitus fidei quam habitus scientiae. Si ergo habitus fidei evacuabitur in statu patriae[^4], videtur similiter, quod et habitus scientiae.

5. Item, habitus scientiae est per collationem causae ad effectum et per quandam ratiocinationem et decursum[^5]; sed impossibile est in patria huiusmodi decursum reperire: ergo necesse est, habitum scientiae simpliciter tolli et evacuari.

**Sed contra:** 1. Anselmus in libro de Similitudinibus[^6]: «Tunc iusti cuncta scient, quae Deus fecit scienda; ibi a singulis omnes, ibi ab omnibus singuli cognoscentur, nec unquam omnino latebit, qua patria, qua gente, qua stirpe quis editus sit»: si ergo notitia talium manebit, multo fortius manebit scientia, quae est habitus cognitivus universalium: ergo non videtur, quod scientia philosophica habeat evacuari in patria.

2. Item, sicut dicit Philosophus[^7]: «Scientia non destruitur nisi aut propter corruptionem a parte scibilis, aut ex parte medii, aut propter oblivionem a parte scientis»; sed nullum horum erit in patria: ergo nullo modo videtur, quod ibi destruatur et evacuetur scientia.

3. Item, Christus erat comprehensor, et tamen nihilominus habuit scientiam competentem statui viae[^8]; Angeli etiam sunt comprehensores, et tamen nihilominus habent habitum scientiae, quo cognoscunt res in proprio genere: ergo gloria secum compatitur scientiam: ergo nec destruit nec evacuat ipsam.

4. Item, maioris dignitatis est scire syllogizare et aliquid demonstrare, quam posse localiter moveri atque discurrere; sed ab ipsis Beatis non tolletur agilitas ad motum[^9]: igitur nec habitus disponens ad syllogizandum et demonstrative aliquid cognoscendum: ergo non videtur, quod scientia evacuetur.

5. Item, si scientia evacuaretur et tolleretur in transitu de hac vita, igitur esset computanda inter bona transitoria: igitur sicut reprehensibiles sunt et stulti qui laborant esse divites[^10], sic videntur omnes esse stulti, qui laborant esse scientes, cum aequalis conditionis sit vetula et unus rusticellus, sicut est unus magnus clericus; quodsi hoc minus convenienter dicitur, videtur, quod scientia non evacuetur.

### Conclusio.

> Scientia in patria quoad habitum non perditur, sed completur; quoad usum vero mutatur et quoad modum omnino tollitur.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic est triplex modus dicendi. — Quibusdam enim videtur, quod habitus harum scientiarum acquisitarum, sive liberalium sive aliarum, omnino evacuentur et simpliciter destruantur. Hic enim habitus habet imperfectionem sibi iunctam inseparabiliter; et ideo ei alius habitus longe perfectior succedet, non solum ille quo quis cognoscet omnia in Verbo limpide et aperte, sed etiam habitus, qui erit per species et similitudines universi ordinis causarum mundi; qui datus fuit ipsis spiritibus angelicis et dabitur omnibus glorificatis[^11], per quem cetera cognoscent, etiam eadem ipsa, quae modo cognoscunt, multo excellentius atque nobilius. Alioquin si non daretur eis alius habitus novus ab isto, non esset in Beatis rerum creatarum secundum proprium genus perfecta cognitio; quod contra veritatem est et contra Anselmum. Et sic concedunt, in patria tolli istum habitum scientiae propter nobiliorem habitum supervenientem. — Et licet haec scientia destruatur, non tamen frustra laborat qui eam acquirit, quoniam per ipsam manuducitur homo ad cognitionem Dei et ad promotionem fidei, et ita ad augmentum meriti et per consequens ad complementum praemii. Et propterea, sicut non frustra credit aliquis, licet fides evacuetur in patria; sic etiam non frustra addiscit, licet ibi, ut dicunt, simpliciter evacuetur ista scientia.

Aliis autem aliter videtur dicendum esse, videlicet quod scientia non omnino evacuetur. Est enim ibi considerare habitum et usum. In patria autem tollitur quantum ad usum, qui imperfectionis est, et manet quantum ad habitum, qui facit ad ipsius animae decorem et pulcritudinem. Si enim manebunt ibi cicatrices vulnerum et notae cogitationum[^12] ad commendationem meriti et decorationem merentium; magis rationabile videtur, quod maneant ibi habitus scientiarum, quae faciunt ad ipsius animae decorem et ornatum.

<!-- page 687 -->

Tertius autem aliter videtur esse dicendum, quod cum tria sit considerare in ipsa scientia, videlicet habitum et usum et modum; scientia quantum ad habitum manet et completur; quantum vero ad usum mutatur, sed non tollitur; quantum autem ad modum simpliciter evacuatur et destruitur. — Habitus enim non tollitur, quia perfectioni non repugnat. Non enim repugnant ista duo: Deum videre, et scire propositiones et conclusiones et principia geometriae et alicuius alterius scientiae. — Usus vero non tollitur omnino, quia, si esset habitus absque usu et actu, esset incompletus sive minus completus, quod nequaquam competit secundum statum illum perfectissimum et completissimum; mutatur tamen propter annexam imperfectionem. — Modus vero, qui attenditur in decursu et inquisitione et quadam successiva ratiocinatione et collatione, simpliciter destruitur, pro eo quod in patria modus cognoscendi erit per simplicem aspectum, cum ibi habeatur deiformis intellectus per gloriae complementum[^18]. Et sic secundum istam opinionem scientia quodam modo salvatur, et quodam modo mutatur, et quodam modo destruitur et evacuatur. — Hic autem tertius modus dicendi magis consonat ipsi Glossae, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^19], et auctoritati Magistri, magis etiam consonat rectae rationi; ideo magis debet poni et communius sustineri. — Igitur iuxta hunc modum dicendi concedi possunt rationes, quae ostendunt, quod scientia non omnino evacuetur. Manet enim, sicut ostendunt, quantum ad habitum secundum statum magis perfectum, manet etiam quantum ad actum, videlicet quantum ad simplicem aspectum.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de auctoritate Apostoli, iam patet responsio: quia dicitur scientia destrui, non quia habitus destruatur et evacuetur, sed quia tollitur et destruitur iste sciendi modus, qui, ut dictum est, habet fieri per decursum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hugone, quod scientiae inventae sunt propter indigentiam; dicendum, quod Hugo non assignat totam causam, sed assignat causam, quae movit homines secundum statum praesentis vitae ad inventionem scientiae. Quamvis enim homines moti fuerint propter indigentias amovendas, huiusmodi[^13] habitus magis ordinari habent ad intelligentias nostras perficiendas; quod quidem non tantum competit statui viae, sed etiam patriae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima omnia cognoscit in Verbo actu etc.; dicendum, quod sicut fuit dictum[^14] de Christo, quod anima Christi non solummodo habuit cognitionem rerum in Verbo, sed etiam secundum se per habitum sibi innatum; et beatis Angelis convenit idem propter perfectionem cognitionis, non solum respectu diversitatis cognoscibilium, sed etiam quantum ad varium cognoscendi modum: ita etiam in Beatis intelligendum est esse, quia cognitio rerum in Verbo et in proprio genere simul se compati possunt quantum ad habitum et quantum ad actum, quia una ad alteram ordinatur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides plus habet de veritate et lumine quam habitus scientiae; dicendum, quod etsi illud possit concedi, tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod habeat evacuari, quia lumen fidei, in quantum huiusmodi est, habet sibi inseparabiliter adiunctum aliquid, quod non est compossibile cum statu gloriae, sicut in praecedentibus[^15] ostensum fuit. Non sic autem est de habitu scientiae, qui, quantum est de sua ratione, tanto perfectior est, quanto certior et clarior; ideo non sic habet tolli quantum ad habitum, sicut fides ad praesentiam gloriae.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod scientia est per collationem causae ad effectum et per quendam decursum collativum; dicendum, quod ipse arguit de scientia quantum ad modum, quem in praesenti habet, de quo dictum est[^16], ratione cuius concessum est, scientiam evacuari, et ratione cuius Apostolus eam in futuro asserit destruendam.

english:
### Question III. *Whether the habit of knowledge is voided in the fatherland.*

Thirdly it is asked about the voiding of knowledge, and the question is whether the habit of knowledge is voided in the fatherland. And that it is seems true:

1. By the authority of the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians, 13[^1]: *Whether prophecies, they shall be made void; or tongues, they shall cease; or knowledge, it shall be destroyed*; but what is destroyed is simply voided: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, according to what Master Hugh of St. Victor holds in the *Didascalicon*[^2]: "The sciences were invented for supplying the wants and necessities on the part of the soul, or on the part of the body"; if therefore in the fatherland every want is taken away, it seems that all knowledge is voided.

3. Likewise, the blessed soul knows all things in the Word, both openly and continuously, in such a way that it cannot be separated from that gazing[^3]: therefore it seems that no other habit of cognition, or gaze, befits the blessed soul: it seems therefore that the habit of cognition which is on the way is simply taken away in the fatherland, otherwise it will be there in vain.

4. Likewise, that which has more of light and truth is less voidable; but in the habit of faith there is more of the character of truth and light than in the habit of acquired knowledge — for faith itself leans upon the first Truth for its own sake, and in it too there is the light of grace divinely given and infused into it — therefore much

less voidable is the habit of faith than the habit of knowledge. If therefore the habit of faith will be voided in the state of the fatherland[^4], it seems likewise that the habit of knowledge also will be.

5. Likewise, the habit of knowledge is by the bringing of cause to effect and by a certain reasoning and discursion[^5]; but it is impossible in the fatherland to find a discursion of this kind: therefore it is necessary that the habit of knowledge be simply taken away and voided.

**On the contrary:** 1. Anselm in the book *On Likenesses*[^6]: "Then the just shall know all things which God has made to be known; there all shall be known by each single one, there each single one by all, nor shall it ever be wholly hidden by what fatherland, by what people, by what stock anyone was born": if therefore the knowledge of such things will remain, much more strongly will knowledge remain, which is a cognitive habit of universals: therefore it does not seem that philosophical knowledge is to be voided in the fatherland.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher says[^7]: "Knowledge is not destroyed except either by corruption on the part of the knowable, or on the part of the medium, or by forgetfulness on the part of the knower"; but none of these will be in the fatherland: therefore in no way does it seem that knowledge is there destroyed and voided.

3. Likewise, Christ was a comprehensor, and yet none the less had knowledge befitting the state of the way[^8]; the Angels too are comprehensors, and yet none the less have a habit of knowledge by which they know things in their proper genus: therefore glory is compatible with knowledge: therefore it neither destroys nor voids it.

4. Likewise, it is of greater dignity to know how to syllogize and to demonstrate something, than to be able to be moved locally and to range about; but agility for motion will not be taken away from the Blessed themselves[^9]: therefore neither the habit disposing to syllogizing and to knowing something demonstratively: therefore it does not seem that knowledge is voided.

5. Likewise, if knowledge were voided and taken away in the passage from this life, then it would have to be reckoned among transitory goods: therefore just as those are reprehensible and foolish who labor to be rich[^10], so all seem to be foolish who labor to be knowing, since the old woman and one little rustic are of equal condition with one great clerk; but if this be said less fittingly, it seems that knowledge is not voided.

### Conclusion.

> Knowledge in the fatherland, as to habit, is not lost, but completed; as to use, however, it is changed; and as to mode, it is wholly taken away.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that here there is a threefold manner of speaking. — For to some it seems that the habit of these acquired sciences, whether of the liberal or of the others, are wholly voided and simply destroyed. For this habit has an imperfection inseparably joined to it; and therefore there will succeed to it another, far more perfect habit, not only that by which one will know all things in the Word limpidly and openly, but also a habit which will be by the species and likenesses of the universal order of the causes of the world; which was given to the angelic spirits themselves and will be given to all the glorified[^11], by which they will know the rest, even those very things which they now know, far more excellently and nobly. Otherwise, if there were not given to them another habit, new, besides this one, there would not be in the Blessed a perfect cognition of created things according to their proper genus; which is against the truth and against Anselm. And so they grant that in the fatherland that habit of knowledge is taken away on account of the nobler habit supervening. — And although this knowledge be destroyed, nevertheless he who acquires it does not labor in vain, since by it a man is led by the hand to the cognition of God and to the advancement of faith, and so to the increase of merit and consequently to the completion of the reward. And therefore, just as one does not believe in vain, although faith be voided in the fatherland; so also one does not learn in vain, although there, as they say, this knowledge be simply voided.

But to others it seems that it should be said otherwise, namely that knowledge is not wholly voided. For there is here to consider habit and use. In the fatherland, however, it is taken away as to use, which is of imperfection, and it remains as to habit, which makes for the comeliness and beauty of the soul itself. For if there will remain there the scars of wounds and the marks of thoughts[^12] for the commendation of merit and the adorning of those who merit; it seems more reasonable that there should remain there the habits of the sciences, which make for the comeliness and ornament of the soul itself.

The third, however, it seems should be said otherwise, that since there are three things to consider in knowledge itself, namely habit and use and mode; knowledge as to habit remains and is completed; but as to use it is changed, but not taken away; as to mode, however, it is simply voided and destroyed. — For the habit is not taken away, because it is not repugnant to perfection. For these two are not repugnant: to see God, and to know the propositions and conclusions and principles of geometry and of any other science. — But use is not wholly taken away, because, if there were a habit without use and act, it would be incomplete or less complete, which in no way befits that most perfect and most complete state; it is changed, however, on account of the annexed imperfection. — But mode, which is observed in discursion and inquiry and a certain successive reasoning and collation, is simply destroyed, for the reason that in the fatherland the mode of knowing will be by a simple gaze, since there a deiform intellect is had through the completion of glory[^18]. And so according to this opinion knowledge is in a certain manner saved, and in a certain manner changed, and in a certain manner destroyed and voided. — Now this third manner of speaking accords more with the Gloss itself, on the first to the Corinthians 13[^19], and with the authority of the Master, accords more also with right reason; therefore it ought rather to be held and more commonly maintained. — Therefore according to this manner of speaking there can be granted the reasons which show that knowledge is not wholly voided. For it remains, as they show, as to habit according to a more perfect state, it remains also as to act, namely as to the simple gaze.

1. But to that which is objected first to the contrary from the authority of the Apostle, the response is now plain: because knowledge is said to be destroyed, not because the habit is destroyed and voided, but because there is taken away and destroyed that mode of knowing which, as has been said, comes about through discursion.

2. To that which is objected concerning Hugh, that the sciences were invented on account of want; it must be said that Hugh does not assign the whole cause, but assigns the cause which moved men according to the state of the present life to the invention of knowledge. For although men were moved on account of removing wants, habits of this kind[^13] have rather to be ordered to the perfecting of our understandings; which indeed belongs not only to the state of the way, but also of the fatherland.

3. To that which is objected, that the soul knows all things in the Word in act, etc.; it must be said that, just as was said[^14] of Christ, that the soul of Christ not only had a cognition of things in the Word, but also in itself by a habit innate to it; and the same befits the blessed Angels on account of the perfection of cognition, not only in respect of the diversity of the knowable, but also as to the varied mode of knowing: so also it is to be understood to be in the Blessed, because the cognition of things in the Word and in their proper genus can be compatible together both as to habit and as to act, because the one is ordered to the other.

4. To that which is objected, that faith has more of truth and light than the habit of knowledge; it must be said that, although that may be granted, nevertheless from this it does not follow that it should be voided, because the light of faith, inasmuch as it is such, has inseparably joined to it something which is not compossible with the state of glory, as was shown in the preceding[^15]. But it is not so with the habit of knowledge, which, as far as is of its own character, is the more perfect the more certain and clearer it is; therefore it is not to be taken away as to habit in the way that faith is at the presence of glory.

5. To that which is objected, that knowledge is by the bringing of cause to effect and by a certain collative discursion; it must be said that he argues of knowledge as to the mode which it has in the present, of which it has been said[^16], by reason of which it was granted that knowledge is voided, and by reason of which the Apostle asserts that it is to be destroyed in the future.

la: Vers. 8.

en: Verse 8.

la: Sive *Erudit. didascalicae* lib. I. c. 6; cfr. I. *Excerpt.* c. 5.

en: Or *Erudit. didascalicae* I, c. 6; cf. *Excerpt.* I, c. 5.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Mox post *conveniat* cod. F subiungit *ex sua dilectione*. In fine arg. pro *erit* cod. A *est*, cod. Z *esset*.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 1, and following. — Presently, after *conveniat* codex F adds *ex sua dilectione*. At the end of the argument, for *erit* codex A reads *est*, codex Z *esset*.

la: Vide supra q. I.

en: See above, question 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *Poster.* c. 2. — Pro *decursum*, quod vocabulum omnes codd. hic et infra passim adhibent, edd. hic et saepe *discursum*, quo termino technico posteriores auctores communiter utuntur.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Posterior* [Analytics] I, c. 2. — For *decursum*, which word all the manuscripts use here and below throughout, the editions read here and often *discursum*, which technical term later authors commonly employ.

la: Cap. 59. In textu origin. post *scienda* additum est: *tam ea quae praeterita sunt, quam ea quae postmodum sunt futura*; deinde etiam pro *nec unquam* exhibetur *nec quemquam*. — Liber *de Similitudinibus* falso tribuitur Anselmo; est potius Eadmeri (†1121), Anselmi discipuli et amici. — De scientia ut habitu cognitivo universalium vide Aristot., I. *Poster.* c. 24. (c. 31.), II. c. 18. (c. 15.); VI. *Ethic.* c. 3. et 6; I. *Metaph.* c. 1.

en: Chapter 59. In the original text, after *scienda* there is added: *both those things which are past, and those which afterwards are to be future*; then also for *nec unquam* there is presented *nec quemquam*. — The book *On Likenesses* is falsely attributed to Anselm; it is rather by Eadmer (†1121), the disciple and friend of Anselm. — On knowledge as a cognitive habit of universals see Aristotle, *Posterior* [Analytics] I, c. 24 (c. 31), II, c. 18 (c. 15); *Ethics* VI, c. 3 and 6; *Metaphysics* I, c. 1.

la: Sententialiter I. *Poster.* c. 6. Cfr. *de Praedicam.* c. *de Eis quae ad aliquid*; VIII. *Topic.* c. 2; cfr. etiam *de Longitud. et brevit. vitae*, c. 2, nec non *Fragment. de divis.* 66.

en: In substance, *Posterior* [Analytics] I, c. 6. Cf. *Categories*, the chapter *On Things in Relation to Something*; *Topics* VIII, c. 2; cf. also *On Length and Shortness of Life*, c. 2, and likewise *Fragment on Division*, 66.

la: Vide supra d. 14. a. 3. q. 1. De cognitione Angelorum vide II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: See above, d. 14, a. 3, q. 1. On the cognition of the Angels see *II Sent.* d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 4, a. 3, q. 1, and following.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 49. p. II. a. 2. princip. a. 1. q. 1. — In edd. 1, 2 sic concluditur: *ergo non videtur evacuandus*; in Vat. *ergo non videtur evacuandus, et sic non videtur, quod* etc.

en: Cf. *IV Sent.* d. 49, p. II, a. 2, principal a. 1, q. 1. — In editions 1, 2 it is concluded thus: *therefore it does not seem to be voided*; in the Vatican edition: *therefore it does not seem to be voided, and so it does not seem that* etc.

la: Cfr. I. Tim. 6, 9. — Paulo superius pro *igitur esset* cod. K *igitur videtur esse*.

en: Cf. *I Timothy* 6, 9. — A little above, for *igitur esset* codex K reads *igitur videtur esse*.

la: Codd. X aa *glorificaturis*, Vat. *glorificandis*. Mox pro *eadem ipsa* cod. Z *haec eadem*. Inferius ante *perfecta cognitio* cod. U interiicit *propria et*.

en: Codices X aa read *glorificaturis*, the Vatican edition *glorificandis*. Presently, for *eadem ipsa* codex Z reads *haec eadem*. Below, before *perfecta cognitio* codex U inserts *propria et*.

la: Aristot., I. *Periherm.* c. 1: *Sunt ergo ea quae sunt in voce, earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae, et ea quae scribuntur, eorum quae sunt in voce* etc. — Loco *cogitationum* in nonnullis codd. *cognitionum* scriptum videtur; Vat. habet *operationum*. Post pauca pro *quae faciunt* codd. A H I L U V *quae faciant*.

en: Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 1: *Therefore the things which are in the voice are marks of the passions which are in the soul, and the things which are written are [marks] of those which are in the voice*, etc. — In place of *cogitationum* in some manuscripts *cognitionum* seems to be written; the Vatican edition has *operationum*. After a little, for *quae faciunt* codices A H I L U V read *quae faciant*.

la: Edd. addunt *tamen*. Subinde pro *ordinari habent* cod. K *ordinantur*.

en: The editions add *tamen*. Then for *ordinari habent* codex K reads *ordinantur*.

la: Vide locc. citt. supra pag. 686, nota 5.

en: See the passages cited above, p. 686, note 5.

la: Quaest. 1. et d. 24. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3. et q. 3. ad 2. — Mox pro *de habitu* cod. F *de statu*.

en: Question 1, and d. 24, a. 2, q. 1, to the 3rd, and q. 3, to the 2nd. — Presently, for *de habitu* codex F reads *de statu*.

la: Vat. omittit *de quo dictum est*. In fine solut. pro *asserit* cod. Z *astruit*.

en: The Vatican edition omits *de quo dictum est*. At the end of the solution, for *asserit* codex Z reads *astruit*.

la: Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. III. tr. 20. c. 2: *Scientia destruetur non secundum substantiam, sed secundum modum et usus quosdam, non omnes.*

en: William of Auxerre, *Summa*, p. III, tr. 20, c. 2: *Knowledge will be destroyed not according to substance, but according to mode and certain uses, not all.*

la: Vide exemplum, infra d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. ad 3. ex Aristot. allatum.

en: See the example, below, d. 34, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, to the 3rd, adduced from Aristotle.

la: Vers. 10. — Glossa supra allata est in corp. 1. quaest. Quam Glossam Petr. Lombard. hic ponit et diversas de evacuatione scientiae opiniones recenset. Deinde dicit: De actu quidem et usu ipsius scientiae probabile est, quod evacuetur; de ipsa vero scientia non adeo; scientia enim est ipsa mentis qualitas, cuius actus est visio ipsa, qua videmus nunc, a qua ad aliam perducemur etc. Clarius docet hic in lit. c. 2. — Mox pro *debet poni et communius sustineri* edd. *debet et potest rationabilius sustineri*.

en: Verse 10. — The Gloss adduced above is in the body of question 1. This Gloss Peter Lombard sets down here and reviews the various opinions concerning the voiding of knowledge. Then he says: Concerning the act indeed and the use of knowledge itself it is probable that it is voided; but concerning knowledge itself, not so; for knowledge is the very quality of the mind, whose act is the very vision by which we see now, from which we shall be led on to another, etc. He teaches more clearly here in the letter, c. 2. — Presently, for *debet poni et communius sustineri* the editions read *debet et potest rationabilius sustineri*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Primam opinionem hic explicatam sequitur B. Albert. (hic a. 10.), qui, de tertia opinione tacens, secundam reprobat et addit: «Ego puto, melius esse, quod consentiatur Magistro hic in littera dicenti[^17] (*), quod omnino destruetur; quia nos post mortem... necessario alium modum cognoscendi habebimus rerum in propria natura, quem habent daemones et Angeli a creatione; et puto, quod ille tunc dabitur nobis per species, scilicet quae sunt similitudines ordinis universi causarum mundi; qui modus nobilior est quam iste» etc. Quod autem ipse putat, Magistrum idem docere; error esse videtur, cum eiusdem verba (hic c. 2, in fine) potius tertiae sententiae faveant, ut etiam auctor noster asserit. S. Thom. aliique communiter tertiam opinionem approbant.

**II.** Scot., in utroque Scripto IV. Sent. d. 45, q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. I. II. q. 67. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. Durand., hic q. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The first opinion here explained is followed by B. Albert (here, a. 10), who, keeping silent about the third opinion, rejects the second and adds: "I think it better that the Master be agreed with, who here in the letter says[^17] (*) that it will be wholly destroyed; because we after death... shall necessarily have another mode of knowing things in their proper nature, which the demons and Angels have from creation; and I think that that mode will then be given to us by species, namely which are the likenesses of the universal order of the causes of the world; which mode is nobler than this one" etc. But that he thinks the Master teaches the same; this seems to be an error, since the words of the same (here, c. 2, at the end) rather favor the third opinion, as our author too asserts. St. Thomas and others commonly approve the third opinion.

**II.** Scotus, in both Writings, *IV Sent.* d. 45, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; *S.* I-II, q. 67, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1. Durandus, here q. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**J4 Class B — orphaned apparatus definitions [^18], [^19] placed (2026-07-17).** Both were defined in `## Apparatus` but unanchored in either body. Diagnosed and placed against the vol3 PDF p.687 column bands at 450dpi and 600dpi (`pdftoppm -r 600 -f 709 -l 709` on `raw/doctorisseraphic03bona.pdf`), reading the *triplex-modus* Respondeo paragraph in print order. Printed superscripts ¹²³ restart for p.687 and run in **body reading order**, not in the order the footer prints them (L-column footer prints notes 1–3 first even though notes 4–7, keyed to the later Solutio Ad2–Ad5, physically sit earlier on the page — a TRAP-1-shaped page, confirmed by matching each footer entry's own content back to its lemma): superscript ¹ (William of Auxerre, our existing [^17]) sits on *destruitur* in "...quantum autem ad modum simpliciter evacuatur et destruitur¹" — earlier in the same Respondeo paragraph than where [^17] currently anchors (at *dicenti* in the Scholion); superscript ² sits on *complementum* in "...per gloriae complementum²"; superscript ³ sits on *tertio* in "...primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio³". [^18] and [^19] are now anchored at *complementum* / *decimo tertio* in both Latin and English, matching this print evidence — [^19]'s apparatus text ("Vers. 10. — Glossa supra allata... Mox pro *debet poni et communius sustineri* edd. *debet et potest rationabilius sustineri*") independently confirms this placement: the variant clause it names appears verbatim later in the very same sentence. **[^17]'s existing anchor at *dicenti* was left untouched** — out of scope for this Class-B pass (it is not orphaned; only [^18]/[^19] were), though the print evidence found here suggests ¹ may actually belong at *destruitur* instead. Flagging for a future pass, not corrected here per the "don't touch what isn't broken" scope of this ticket.

**Provenance.** Raw OCR lines 47623–47786 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Latin re-set from the vol3 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{685,686,687}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.707–709; offset pdf = printed + 22), authoritative for the *triplex modus dicendi* Respondeo, the *Solutio oppositorum* (Ad 1–5), the SCHOLION §I–§II, 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 (affirmative *Fundamenta* / *Sed contra* arguments) and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads in-span (trust running-head **text** + the +22 offset over OCR'd digits per the override): `QUAESTIO III. / Utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria` (printed clean, p.685 L-col foot, raw 47623); `686 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.686 top, raw 47648 `68fi`); `DIST. XXXI. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 687` (p.687 top, raw 47714 `087`); `688 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` is the **next** page (ARTICULUS III, not in span).

**Page-span / page-split map.** Chunk spans **printed pp.685–687** (PDF 707–709). p.685 (L-col foot, *below* the q2 *spes* tail): `QUAESTIO III` head + title + the affirmative *Et quod sic* arguments — arg.1 (Apostle I Cor.13, L-col), arg.2 (Hugh *Didascalicon*, L-col), then arg.3 (anima cognoscit in Verbo, R-col) + arg.4 opener (lumine et veritate, R-col, straddling onto p.686). p.686: arg.4 tail (*minus est evacuabilis habitus fidei*) + arg.5 (*per collationem… decursum*), then the **Sed contra** arguments 1–5 (Anselm *de Similitudinibus* / Philosophus / Christ+Angels comprehensores / agilitas ad motum / divites, L→R), the `CONCLUSIO` + Conclusio sentence + `Respondeo` (the *triplex modus dicendi*: opinio 1 "omnino evacuentur" with the *non frustra laborat* corollary; opinio 2 "non omnino evacuetur" habitus/usus with the cicatrices-vulnerum parallel, ending mid-page R-col). p.687: opinio 3 (habitus/usus/modus — the author's *communius sustineri* view + *Epilogus*), then the `Solutio oppositorum` Ad 1–5 (Ad 1 Apostle, Ad 2 Hugo *Notandum*, Ad 3 cognitio in Verbo *Notandum*, Ad 4 fides-disanalogy, Ad 5 *de quo dictum est… in futuro asserit destruendam*), then the `SCHOLION` §I (Albert + Master + Thomas) and §II (Scotus/Thomas/Petr. a Tar./Richard/Durandus). The chunk **opens** fresh at `QUAESTIO III` on p.685 (raw 47623) and **closes** at the end of scholion §II (*…Durand., hic q. 7*, raw ~47755), just before `688 / ARTICULUS III` (raw 47780+). The SCHOLION completes on p.687; p.688 is entirely the next article (a3-q1).

**Apparatus (19 entries, NOTAE, per-page restart, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^19]):**
- **p.685 footer nn.8–10 → [^1]–[^3]** (INBOUND HAND-OFF from a2-q2, leading entries). n.8 = *Vers. 8* (I Cor.13:8, marker on arg.1's *sive scientia destruetur*); n.9 = *Sive Erudit. didascalicae lib. I. c. 6; cfr. I. Excerpt. c. 5* (Hugh *Didascalicon*, marker on arg.2 *Magister Hugo de sancto Victore in Didascaleo*); n.10 = *Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq.* + *conveniat → ex sua dilectione* (cod. F) + *erit / est / esset* variants (marker on arg.3 *ab illo aspectu non potest separari*). (p.685 nn.1–7 were consumed by a2-q2 as its [^16]–[^22].)
- **p.686 footer nn.1–9 → [^4]–[^12]**. n.1 *Vide supra q. I* (marker *in statu patriae*, arg.4 tail); n.2 Aristot. *I. Poster. c. 2* + *decursum/discursum* variant (marker *decursum*, arg.5); n.3 Anselm *de Similitudinibus* cap.59 + Eadmer attribution (marker *Anselmus*, Sed contra 1); n.4 *Sententialiter I. Poster. c. 6* + Categories/Topics (marker *Philosophus*, Sed contra 2); n.5 *d. 14. a. 3. q. 1* + De cognitione Angelorum (marker *statui viae*, Sed contra 3); n.6 *IV. Sent. d. 49* + edition conclusio variants (marker *agilitas ad motum*, Sed contra 4); n.7 *I. Tim. 6, 9* + *igitur videtur esse* variant (marker *divites*, Sed contra 5); n.8 *glorificaturis/glorificandis* + *haec eadem* / *propria et* variants (marker *glorificatis*, Respondeo opinio 1); n.9 Aristot. *I. Periherm. c. 1* + *cognitionum/operationum* + *quae faciant* variants (marker *notae cogitationum*, opinio 2).
- **p.687 footer nn.1–7 → [^13]–[^19]**. **Body notes nn.4–7 → [^13]–[^16]**: n.4 = *Edd. addunt tamen; ordinari habent / ordinantur (cod. K)* (marker *huiusmodi habitus magis ordinari*, Ad 2); n.5 = *Vide locc. citt. supra pag. 686, nota 5* (marker *sicut fuit dictum de Christo*, Ad 3); n.6 = *Quaest. 1. et d. 24. a. 2. q. 1.* + *de habitu / de statu (cod. F)* (marker *in praecedentibus ostensum fuit*, Ad 4); n.7 = *Vat. omittit "de quo dictum est"; asserit / astruit (cod. Z)* (marker *de quo dictum est*, Ad 5). **Notae ad scholion nn.1–3 → [^17]–[^19]** (print first on p.687 but anchor in the SCHOLION text, which prints below the body): n.1 = William of Auxerre *Summa* III tr.20 c.2 (marker on scholion §I *Magistro hic in littera dicenti*); n.2 = *Vide exemplum, infra d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. ad 3* (marker on §I's Aristotle-example clause — rendered at the (*) flag); n.3 = *Vers. 10* + the long Lombard-Gloss recension note + *debet et potest rationabilius sustineri* edition variant (marker on §I's Master-teaching discussion). Rendered continuously [^17]–[^19] after the body notes for marker monotonicity; the markers themselves sit in the `### Scholion` block.
- The marker positions in the heavily OCR-fragmented Respondeo / *triplex-modus* / Solutio / scholion regions were placed from the PDF column bands, not raw-line order.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. **This question has its OWN scholion** (§I–§II), printed at the foot of p.687 after the Ad-5 solution, two-column. §I treats the doxography of the three opinions: B. Albert (a.10) follows the FIRST opinion and rejects the second, wrongly claiming the Master teaches *omnino destruetur* — our author corrects this (the Master's words at c.2 in fine favor the THIRD opinion); St. Thomas and others approve the third. §II is the parallel-citation register (Scotus, Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Durandus). This is **distinct** from the a2 article-master scholion under a2-q1, which forward-covered q1 (*fides*) + q2 (*spes*) ONLY — q3 (*scientia*) was NOT in that scholion's scope, and a2-q2's [^22] (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) confirms the q1 scholion was the q2 redirect target, not q3's. q3 stands on its own scholion. Ordered body-then-scholion per the `extractLanguageBlock` parser rule (`### Scholion` LAST in each language block).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (inbound) from d31-a2-q2*: **p.685 footer nn.8–10**, claimed as the leading apparatus entries [^1]–[^3] (per the a2-q2 report: nn.1–7 anchored in the q2 *spes* body; nn.8–10 anchor in this q3 *scientia* body, which opens in the p.685 L-col foot). Confirmed on the p.685 R-2 footer band: n.8 *Vers. 8*, n.9 *Sive Erudit. didascalicae…*, n.10 *Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. 3…*.
- *Forwarded to d31-a3-q1*: **NONE.** This chunk closes at scholion §II end (raw ~47755) on p.687. p.687's footer sequence (nn.1–7) is fully consumed here ([^13]–[^19]); the ARTICULUS III opener begins fresh at the top of p.688 (raw 47780+) with its own new footer sequence. No shared-page seam carries into a3-q1.

**Alignment check.** **PASSED, no q-swap.** The opener *Tertio quaeritur de evacuatione scientiae… utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria* (raw 47625–47627) = `title_la` *Utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria* 1:1; the ARTICULUS II TRACTATIO (in a2-q1) lists *Primo… fidei; Secundo… spei; Tertio… scientiae*, and this is the **third (last)** member (*scientia*). Distinct from q1 (*fides*) and q2 (*spes*). This is the LAST question of ARTICULUS II. No STOP.

**[?] flags.** None. The two-column footer fragmentation, the *triplex modus dicendi* Respondeo, the Solutio oppositorum, and the SCHOLION §I–§II were fully resolved against the 450 dpi PDF column bands; all 19 NOTAE entries are legible and the q3-owns-its-scholion disposition is confirmed against the a2-q1/a2-q2 scholion-coverage chain.

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