title: Coll. 4

title_alt:
De dono scientiae
On the gift of knowledge

source_text:
<!-- page 473 -->

### COLLATIO IV.
#### *De dono scientiae.*

### Summarium

*Introductio,* 1. — *Expositio textus. Duo antecedentia donum scientiae, et duo consequentia,* 2. — *Quatuor sunt claritates sive scientiae, quae omnes sunt dona Dei; earum definitiones,* 3-5. — Pars I. De scientia philosophica. *Ipsa est veritatis scrutabilis notitia certa. Triplex eius divisio principalis comprobatur,* 6. — *Salomon has tres habuit,* 7-11. — *Eaedem scientiae facile eclipsantur; requiritur igitur ulterius lumen,* 12. — Pars II. De scientia theologica. *Ipsa est veritatis credibilis notitia pia; fundatur super articulos fidei; Scriptura comparatur aquis maris ob triplicem rationem,* 13. — *Primo, propter profunditatem mysteriorum,* 14. — *Secundo, propter multiplicitatem sensuum,* 15. — *Tertio, propter stabilitionem Ecclesiarum,* 16. — *Deficiente scientia fidei, commovetur Ecclesia; haec scientia est necessaria pontificibus; requiritur insuper operis impletio, aliter est damnosa; ideo necessaria est ulterior scientia,* 17. 18. — Pars III. De scientia gratuita. *Ipsa est veritatis credibilis et diligibilis notitia sancta. Dicitur scientia Sanctorum ob triplicem rationem,* 19. — *Primo, quia a Spiritu S. datur,* 20. — *Secundo, quia nihil vitiositatis habet,* 21. — *Tertio, quia aemulationem sanctitatis habet; exhortatio,* 22. — *Scientia gratuita docet scire et verum modum sciendi,* 23. — *Iungenda est caritas scientiae,* 24. — *Scientia gloriosa,* 25.

1. *Deus, qui dixit de tenebris lucem splendescere, ipse illuxit in cordibus nostris ad illuminationem scientiae claritatis Dei in facie Christi Iesu*[^p473-6]. — *Qui corripit gentes non arguet, qui docet homines scientiam?* Psalmus David dicit, quod magnus doctor scientiarum Deus est. Scitis, si aliquis habet haurire aquam, libentius haurit eam ab originali suo principio quam a rivulo. Ideo, si Dominus est doctor magnus et donator doni, de quo intendimus loqui; oportet, quod recurramus ad fontem illum ad illuminationem consequendam. Sic fecit Psalmista, sic fecit Salomon et factus est clericus[^p473-7] magnus. In principio oportet quod levemus animas nostras et rogemus largitorem donorum, quia non petimus temporalia, sed utilitatem et salutem animae nostrae; et hoc placet Deo, sicut fecit Salomon, qui petiit sapientiam a Domino[^p473-8]. Rogemus ergo Dominum, ut ipse aperiat oculos mentis nostrae et det mihi lumen scientiale, ut possim aliquid loqui de dono scientiae, quod sit ad honorem Dei etc.

<!-- page 474 -->

2. *Deus, qui dixit de tenebris lucem splendescere* etc. Verbum istud scriptum est in secunda Epistola ad Corinthios, in quo Apostolus Paulus, doctor magnus, explicat ipsius scientiae donum; et explicat *ipsum donum* quantum ad *antecedentia* et *subsequentia.* Donum scientiae duo antecedunt: unum est sicut lumen *innatum,* et aliud est sicut lumen *infusum.* Lumen innatum est lumen *naturalis iudicatorii* sive rationis; lumen superinfusum est *lumen fidei.* Quantum ad primum dicit: *Deus, qui dixit lucem splendescere,* id est lumen naturalis iudicatorii impressit creaturae rationali, id est non solum intellectum possibilem, sed etiam intellectum agentem[^p474-1]. Quantum ad *lumen fidei* superinfusum dicit: *Illuxit in cordibus nostris* etc., scilicet per infusionem lucis fidei. Deus naturam rationalem condidit et superaddidit gratiam. Duo igitur sunt antecedentia. — Consequentia etiam sunt duo, scilicet *clara notitia Creatoris,* et *revelata notitia Salvatoris*[^p474-2]. Quantum ad antecedentia dicit: *Deus, qui dixit* etc.; quantum ad consequentia dicit: *Ad illuminationem scientiae claritatis Dei,* ubi tangitur *clara notitia Creatoris; in facie Christi Iesu,* ubi tangitur *revelata notitia Salvatoris.* — Dat Apostolus intelligere, quod anima multiformem habet claritatem et ab una transcendit in alteram. Unde Apostolus ad Corinthios[^p474-3]: *Nos vero omnes, revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes, in eandem imaginem transformamur a claritate in claritatem, tanquam a Domini Spiritu.* Claritas animae est scientia, econtra *tenebra* animae est ignorantia. Dicit: *transformamur a claritate in claritatem.*

3. Hic notandum est, quod est claritas scientiae *philosophicae,* scientiae *theologicae,* scientiae *gratuitae,* et claritas scientiae *gloriosae.* Claritas scientiae philosophicae est magna secundum opinionem hominum mundialium, parva tamen est in comparatione ad claritatem scientiae christianae. Claritas vero scientiae theologicae parva videtur secundum opinionem hominum mundialium, sed secundum veritatem magna est. Claritas scientiae gratuitae est maior, sed claritas scientiae gloriosae est maxima; ibi est status. Psalmus[^p474-4]: *Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me, confortata est, et non potero ad eam,* scilicet in hac vita.

4. Omnes istae scientiae et claritates earum divinitus dantur, quamquam semper in donatione ipsarum sit maius donum. Verum est, quod scientia *philosophica* et *theologica* est donum Dei; *proprie* vero est donum Dei scientia *gratuita;* scientia vero *gloriosa* non tantum est donum, sed etiam praemium. In Cantico autem Annae dicitur in libro Regum[^p474-5]: *Recedant vetera de ore vestro, quia Deus scientiarum Dominus est, et ipsi praeparantur cogitationes;* non stultae cogitationes, quae dissipantur per vias errorum, sed bonae cogitationes praeparantur Domino per vias veritatis. Iob: *Nunquid nosti semitas nubium, semitas magnas et perfectas scientias?* Dicit *semitas magnas,* id est scientiam philosophicam et theologicam, quae dicuntur *magnae semitae,* quia multas scientias comprehendunt; *semitas perfectas* dicit quantum ad scientiam *gratuitam* et *gloriosam. Semitae nubium* sunt *virorum perfectorum scientiae,* quia, sicut nubes abstrahuntur virtute caloris in altum, ita viri perfecti in abstractione mentis sublimantur. — De istis quatuor scientiis volumus dicere, ut ad tertiam possimus pervenire, de qua loquimur hic.

5. Scientia *philosophica* nihil aliud est quam veritatis ut *scrutabilis notitia certa.* Scientia *theologica* est veritatis ut *credibilis notitia pia.* Scientia *gratuita* est veritatis ut *diligibilis notitia sancta.* Scientia *gloriosa* est veritatis ut *desiderabilis notitia sempiterna.*

6. Primo incipiamus a scientia *philosophica.* Dico, quod scientia philosophica est veritatis ut *scrutabilis notitia certa*[^p474-6]. De hac scientia dicitur in Proverbiis: *Ecce, descripsi eam tripliciter in cogitationibus et scientia, ut ostenderem tibi firmitatem et eloquia veritatis.* Potest illud verbum esse *Salomonis* et verbum *Dei.* Dico, quod potest esse verbum *Dei.* Ipse enim describit scientiam philosophicam tripliciter, id est secundum triplicem rationem describit eam, ut *naturalem,* ut *rationalem* et ut *moralem,* scilicet in quantum est « *causa essendi, ratio intelligendi* et *ordo vivendi*[^p474-7] ». In quantum est *causa essendi,* designat scientiam naturalem; in quantum est *ratio intelligendi,* significat scientiam *rationalem;* in quantum est *ordo vivendi,* describit scientiam *moralem.*

7. Nec tantum est verbum illud *Dei,* immo est etiam *Salomonis,* qui *disputavit a cedro Libani usque ad hyssopum*[^p474-8]. Ipse dicit: *Ecce, descripsi eam tibi tripliciter, ut ostenderem tibi firmitatem,* id est solidam et firmam veritatem, *et eloquia veritatis;* ipse describit eam tripliciter, scilicet in quantum est veritas *rerum,* veritas *sermonum* et veritas *morum,* secundum quod est indivisio entis *ab esse,* et indivisio entis *ad esse,* et entis *a fine.* Veritas rerum est indivisio entis ab *esse;* veritas sermonum

<!-- page 475 -->
est indivisio entis *ad esse;* veritas *morum* est indivisio entis *a fine*[^p475-1]. — Veritas *morum* est rectitudo, secundum quam homo bene vivit *intus* et *extra* secundum dictamen iuris, quia ius est regula rectitudinis; veritas *sermonum* est adaequatio vocis et intellectus; veritas *rerum* est « adaequatio intellectus et rei[^p475-2] ». Et quia scientia philosophica *eloquia veritatis* docet; et triplex est veritas: ideo dicit, quod descripsit eam tripliciter.

8. Non creditis, quod Salomon istam triplicem notitiam acquisierit? — De scientia *sermocinandi* dicit, quod eam habuit. Unde in libro Sapientiae[^p475-3] dicit: *Da mihi, Domine, sedium tuarum assistricem sapientiam, ut dignus sim sedium patris mei.* Ibi scriptum est: *Mihi autem dedit Deus dicere ex sententia et praesumere digna horum quae mihi dantur. In manu eius sumus nos et sermones nostri.* Impossibile est, quod sapientia fiat doctrina nisi per sermonem. Sermo autem non est sufficiens ad docendum, nisi sit sententiosus. Et non loquitur homo sententiose, nisi sermo eius sit *discussivus, inquisitivus* et *persuasivus,* scilicet quod habeat sermonem potentem ad loquendum omne illud, quod potest apprehendi vel nosci, vel ad quod affectus potest inclinari. Congrue autem exprimit quod dicit per *grammaticam,* rationabiliter investigat per scientiam *logicam* et efficaciter persuadet per *rhetoricam.* Ista igitur est pars philosophiae, scilicet scientia sermocinalis, quae triplex est, ut patet[^p475-4], quam adeptus est Salomon.

9. Alteram partem philosophiae, scilicet quae est in veritate *rerum,* dicit se Salomon adeptum esse. Unde dicit in libro Sapientiae[^p475-5]: *Mihi dedit Deus eorum quae sunt scientiam veram, ut sciam dispositionem orbis terrarum et virtutes elementorum.* Certum est, quod notitia veritatis *rerum* triformis est, secundum quod sunt formae *concretae,* formae *abstractae,* et formae *separatae.* Formas *concretas* considerat physicus, formas *abstractas* metaphysicus, et formas *separatas* mathematicus. Unde dicit: *Mihi dedit Deus scientiam eorum quae sunt,* id est entium principaliter, quae vere entia, quantum ad scientiam *metaphysicam; ut sciam dispositionem orbis terrarum,* quantum ad *mathematicam; et virtutes elementorum,* quantum ad *naturalem philosophiam.* Salomon scivit anni cursum ex dispositione stellarum, naturas animalium et virtutes radicum; omnia docuit Salomon[^p475-6].

10. De tertia parte philosophiae, scilicet de *morali,* dicit etiam Salomon, quod eam est adeptus. Unde in Ecclesiaste[^p475-7]: *Lustravi universa animo meo, ut scirem et considerarem et quaererem sapientiam et rationem, et ut cognoscerem impietatem stulti et errorem imprudentium.* Multa dicit se considerasse et omnia ordinasse ad mores. — Carissimi! *impietas stulti* est in male sentiendo de causa causarum; *error imprudentium* est circa regimen vitae monasticae, vel vitae oeconomicae, vel politicae, id est circa regimen sui, vel familiae, vel civitatis. Magna prudentia requiritur ad regimen sui, maior ad regimen familiae, sed maxima circa regimen civitatis. Impossibile est, quod sol illuminet remota corpora a se et non illuminet propinqua sibi. Non potest aliquis habere ordinatam familiam, nisi ipse sit ordinatus. Si velit aliquis habere servientes castos; et ipse non erit castus, hoc non potest esse. Similiter nisi homo bene regat familiam suam, non poterit bene regere civitatem, quia *qualis princeps civitatis, tales et habitantes in ea*[^p475-8].

11. Ostendit igitur Salomon, se pervenisse ad triformem descriptionem scientiae philosophicae, scilicet ad descriptionem scientiae rationalis, moralis et naturalis et ad triformem descriptionem quarumlibet istarum. — Qui haberet descriptionem istarum scientiarum secundum veritatem, maximum speculum haberet ad cognoscendum, quia nihil est in aliqua istarum scientiarum, quod non importet vestigium Trinitatis. Illud esset facile ostendere, sed longum esset[^p475-9].

12. Prima claritas, scilicet scientiae *philosophicae,* magna est secundum opinionem hominum mundialium; sed de facili eclipsatur, nisi homo caveat sibi a capite et cauda draconis[^p475-10]. Si aliquid interponatur inter ipsum et solem iustitiae, patitur eclipsim stultitiae. Ieremias: *Stultus factus est omnis homo a scientia sua,* scilicet *occasionaliter,* non *causaliter.* Qui confidit in scientia philosophica et appretiatur se propter hoc et credit, se esse meliorem, stultus factus est, scilicet quando per istam scientiam sine ulteriori lumine credit, se apprehendere Creatorem; sicut si homo per candelas vellet videre caelum vel corpus solare. — Certum est, quod *rationalis* philosophia in rhetorica consummatur; cum sit triplex genus deliberativae, scilicet quando homo deliberat de *utilitate,* de *securitate* et de *honestate,* et eius opposito, scilicet de *damno,* de *periculo* et de *peccato* sive

<!-- page 476 -->
de *inhonestate*[^p476-1]. Non potest homo scire, quid *utile,* quid *damnosum,* nisi ex additione ultra istam scientiam. Dicitur in Evangelio[^p476-2]: *Quid prodest homini, si mundum universum lucretur, animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur?* Quid valet, quod homo multa sciat, si vera honestas animae relinquatur? — Certum est etiam, quod secundum scientiam *moralem* non potest homo scire, quid utile, quid damnosum, nisi ex additione ultra scientiam moralem, secundum quod scientia moralis est *ritus* colendi, *norma* vivendi et *censura* iudicandi[^p476-3]. Quis potest scire *ritum colendi* per philosophiam naturalem? — Esto, quod homo habeat scientiam naturalem et metaphysicam, quae se extendit ad substantias summas, et ibi deveniat homo, ut ibi *quiescat;* hoc est impossibile, quin cadat in errorem, nisi sit adiutus lumine fidei, scilicet ut credat homo Deum trinum et unum, potentissimum et optimum secundum ultimam influentiam bonitatis. Si aliter credas, insanis circa Deum; quod proprium est Dei attribuis alteri, blasphemas et idololatra es, sicut si homo simplicitatem Dei vel huiusmodi attribuat alteri. — Igitur ista scientia praecipitavit et obscuravit philosophos, quia non habuerunt lumen fidei. Unde Apostolus[^p476-4]: *Qui cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt; sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes se sapientes stulti facti sunt.* Et in libro Sapientiae: *Si enim tantum potuerunt scire, ut possent aestimare saeculum, quomodo huius Dominum non facilius invenerunt?* — Philosophica scientia via est ad alias scientias; sed qui ibi vult stare cadit in tenebras.

13. Ultra scientiam philosophicam dedit nobis Deus scientiam *theologicam,* quae est *veritatis credibilis notitia pia:* quia lux aeterna, scilicet Deus, est lux inaccessibilis nobis[^p476-5], quamdiu sumus mortales et habemus oculos vespertilionis. Unde Augustinus: « Acies mentis invalida in tam excellenti lumine non figitur, nisi per iustitiam fidei emundetur ». Ideo super fidem fundata est scientia theologica: sicut scientiae philosophicae super prima principia sua fundantur, ita scientia Scripturae fundatur super articulos fidei, qui sunt duodecim fundamenta civitatis[^p476-6]. De ista scientia dicitur in Isaia: *Non nocebunt et non occident in universo monte sancto meo;* sequitur: *quia repleta est terra scientia Domini et velut aquae maris operientes* eam. Comparatur sacra Scriptura aquae maris propter *profunditatem mysteriorum,* propter *multiformitatem sensuum* et propter *stabilitionem*[^p476-7] *Ecclesiarum.*

14. Primo, dico, comparatur sacra Scriptura aquae maris propter *profunditatem mysteriorum.* Mare est profundum, nec potest homo ipsum transvadere; ita est tanta profunditas mysteriorum sacrae Scripturae, quod, quantumcumque homo sit illuminatus et quantaecumque sit industriae, non potest ad ipsarum profunditatem attingere. Unde Isaias[^p476-8]: *Erit vobis visio omnium sicut verba libri signati, quem cum dederint scienti litteras, dicent: Lege istum; et respondebit: Non possum; signatus est enim. Et dabitur liber nescienti litteras, diceturque ei: Lege; et respondebit: Nescio litteras.* Nec sciens nec non sciens poterit legere. Quis ergo leget ipsum? Dico, quod qui cum superbia vult intrare sanctuarium Dei non poterit, licet sit litteratus; similiter, si illiteratus velit intrare, stultus esset. Oportet igitur, quod habeat *litteraturam* et *spiritum.*

15. Secundo comparatur sacra Scriptura aquae maris propter *multiformitatem sensuum.* In mari sunt diversae scaturitiones; ita in sacra Scriptura in una littera est multiplex sententia. Unde in Daniele[^p476-9]: *Tu autem, Daniel, claude sermones et signa librum usque ad tempus statutum; plurimi pertransibunt, et multiplex erit scientia.* — Mirantur aliqui, quod in eadem Scriptura habemus tot sententias. Dicit Anselmus, quod in eadem terra possunt diversa plantari; terra per virtutem divinam varias facit pullulationes; ita per Spiritum sanctum in eadem littera sunt sententiae variae. Nec est inconveniens aequivoco multipliciter posito uti aequivoce. In theologia significant et *res* et *voces*[^p476-10]. Ideo, quando sunt plures proprietates rei, tunc per unam rem plura significantur. Quot sunt proprietates solis, tot, quando *sol* significat iustum, sunt proprietates iusti.

16. Tertia ratio, quare sacra Scriptura comparatur aquae maris, est propter *stabilitionem Ecclesiarum.* Psalmus[^p476-11]: *Super maria fundavit eam;* et alibi: *Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam.*

<!-- page 477 -->
Deriserunt aliqui David, quia dixit, quod Deus fundavit terram super aquas. Terra, cum sit sicca, nisi esset humidum, quod penetrat terram, redigeretur in pulverem; et sicut corpus humanum per venas recipit humorem, ita necesse est, quod a mari veniant aquae dulces et teneant terram. Dicit, quod *fundavit terram super aquas,* propter mysterium. Terra, quam implevit Spiritus, est hierarchia ecclesiastica; qui *appendit tribus digitis molem terrae*[^p477-1], quia fundavit sacram Ecclesiam super eloquia divina. Eloquia sacra sunt stabilimenta. Dicit Apostolus ad Timotheum: *Scribo tibi, Timothee, ut scias, qualiter oportet te in domo Dei conversari, quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis.*

17. Ubi sacra Scriptura deficit, necesse est, terram, id est Ecclesiam, commoveri: *Nescierunt neque intellexerunt, in tenebris ambulant; movebuntur omnia fundamenta terrae*[^p477-2]. Arius, qui fundamentum Trinitatis voluit auferre; Nestorius, qui voluit unitatem personae, et Eutyches, qui volebat confundere naturas in Christo; isti concusserunt fundamenta Ecclesiae. — Omnis pontifex debet scire istam scientiam; unde petitur ab hierarcha: Scis vetus testamentum et novum? — Rex Angliae petiit a quodam episcopo, quid significarent duo cornua in mitra sua. Respondit, et bene, quod significant duo testamenta, quae episcopi scire debent[^p477-3]. « Et quid significant illa duo pendicula, quae pendent post tergum »? Respondit, quod significant ignorantiam utriusque, « quia neque hoc neque illud scimus, sed totum proiecimus post tergum ». Et in hoc male dixit.

18. Quia hierarchia ecclesiastica fundata est in Scriptura, quae comparatur aquae maris propter ista tria; ideo sententia data est contra illos qui non habent istam scientiam. In Osee[^p477-4]: *Quia tu repulisti scientiam, repellam te, ne sacerdotio fungaris mihi.* A gubernaculo navis et a regimine civitatis repellitur qui nihil scit de regimine. Si fundamenta Ecclesiae consistunt in scientia sacrae Scripturae, ideo qui sacram Scripturam nescit repellendus est ab officio et dignitate ecclesiastica. Si caecus vellet alium ducere, maxima fatuitas esset[^p477-5]. Non sorte nec amicitia eligendus est nauta. — Et sciendum, quod *scientia repellitur,* quando homo *non curat eam addiscere.* Isaias[^p477-6]: *Propterea captivus ductus est populus meus, quia non habuit scientiam,* scilicet in capite neque in membris. — Item, *repellitur scientia,* quando homo scit scientiam *et non vult secundum scientiam vivere* nec eam implere. Unde dicit Dominus[^p477-7]: *Vae vobis, Scribae et Legisperiti! quia tulistis clavem scientiae; ipsi non introistis et eos qui introibant, prohibuistis.* Medicus si comedit cibum, quem prohibet infirmo, scandalizatur infirmus et vult illum cibum comedere. — Quare *vae vobis, Scribae et Pharisaei!* quia *scienti bonum et non facienti peccatum est,* ut dicit beatus Iacobus[^p477-8]. Ex scientia culpa augetur etiam et poena; unde in Luca: *Servus, qui cognovit voluntatem Domini sui et non praeparavit et non fecit secundum voluntatem eius, vapulabit multis.* Si homo *non prohibeat* malum exemplo, vel consilio, vae ipsi! Facis te doctorem sacrae Scripturae, sed suades contrarium bono et veritati. Qui deberet incedere per viam rectam, et alter *diceret* ei, quod incederet per viam tortam; esset peccatum eius inexpiabile. Impediendo salutem alterius exemplo, consilio, vel suadendo, oportet dare animam tuam pro anima illius[^p477-9]. Nunquid, si possum alium trahere ad id quod melius, et traho ipsum ad peius, non graviter pecco? Si impedio bonum alterius, peius facio quam diabolus; quia diabolus facit sicut hostis. — Ista scientia, si non adsit operis impletio, non est utilis, sed damnosa. Prima claritas potest *obscurari,* sed ista potest *damnari.*

19. Ideo aliam claritatem oportet habere, scilicet *scientiae gratuitae,* quae est forma claritatum duarum praecedentium. Deficis in tertio signo[^p477-10], si non habes istam scientiam. Ista scientia est veritatis ut *credibilis et diligibilis notitia sancta.* De ista scientia dicitur in libro Sapientiae[^p477-11]: *Iustum deduxit Dominus per vias rectas et ostendit illi regnum Dei; honestavit illum in laboribus et dedit illi scientiam Sanctorum.* Scientia gratuita dicitur *scientia Sanctorum* ex triplici causa.

20. Primo, quia a Spiritu sancto datur; dico a Spiritu sancto *movente* animam, *inspirante* et *informante* ad sanctitatem. Dico a Spiritu sancto *inspirante* ad sanctitatis *notitiam,* ad sanctitatis *placentiam* et ad sanctitatis *custodiam.* Unde Apostolus ad Corinthios[^p477-12]: *Nos non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum, qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis;* et quomodo? Si scimus, custodimus et approbamus inspirata per Spiritum sanctum ad sanctitatis notitiam, ad sanctitatis

<!-- page 478 -->
placentiam et custodiam. Unde in Ioanne: *Pater, sanctifica eos in veritate.*

21. Alio modo dicitur scientia gratuita *scientia Sanctorum,* quia nihil vitiositatis habet admixtum, nihil carnalitatis, nihil curiositatis et nihil vanitatis. Unde in Levitico[^p478-1]: *Dixit quoque Dominus ad Aaron: Vinum et omne, quod inebriari potest, non bibetis tu et filii tui, ut habeatis scientiam discernendi inter sanctum et profanum.* Qui habet scientiam discernendi inter sanctum et profanum ab omni eo, quod inebriare potest, abstinebit, id est ab omni delectatione superflua in creatura; haec est vinum inebrians. Sive quis propter *vanitatem,* sive propter *curiositatem,* sive *carnalitatem* inclinet ad delectationem superfluam, quae est in creatura; non habet scientiam Sanctorum. Dicitur in Genesi[^p478-2]: *De omni ligno, quod est in paradiso, comedes; de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali non comedes, quia, quacumque hora comederitis, morte moriemini.* Adam cum uxore sua contraxit vitium *curiositatis,* quando diabolus dixit eis: *Eritis sicut dii, scientes bonum et malum;* contraxit etiam vitium *carnalitatis,* quando comedit de fructu; contraxit etiam *vitium vanitatis,* quando voluit esse sicut dii. — Audite, fratres: qui scientiam habent Sanctorum, scilicet clerici, caveant sibi, ne aliquid vitiositatis habeant admixtum; quia, si admisceat homo aliquid vitiositatis, amittit scientiam discernendi inter bonum et malum.

22. Tertio dicitur scientia gratuita *scientia Sanctorum,* quia habet aemulationem omnis sanctitatis. — Unde in libro Ecclesiastae[^p478-3]: *In multa sapientia erit indignatio; qui addit scientiam addit dolorem.* Sciens homo defectus suos, habet dolorem *compunctionis* pro se ipso, dolorem *compassionis* pro proximis, et dolorem *aemulationis* pro honore Dei. — Psalmus: *Filii hominum, usquequo gravi corde? Ut quid diligitis vanitatem et quaeritis mendacium? Et scitote, quoniam mirificavit Dominus Sanctum suum; Dominus exaudiet me, cum clamavero ad eum. Irascimini, et nolite peccare; quae dicitis in cordibus vestris in cubilibus vestris compungimini.* Qui veram habet scientiam et novit Deum et videt, se non ambulare recte nec perfecte, in continuo dolore est, quia videt, quod dissipentur eius affectus et cogitationes. Augustinus[^p478-4]: « Scientia parit luctum ». — Videt homo strages *corporum,* dolet multum. Qui igitur videt strages *animarum,* quomodo potest se abstinere a lacrymis? Dolor iste multum placet Deo. Dicit Dominus de ista scientia[^p478-5]: *Misericordiam volo et non sacrificium, et scientiam Dei plus quam holocausta.* Scio infirmitates alienas; debeo compati eis. Isaias: *Vidimus eum, virum dolorum et scientem infirmitatem.* Non est spiritus scientiae Dei in isto membro, quando videt membrum capitis sui laesum et non condolet ei. David dolebat de morte Absalonis, qui tamen ipsum persecutus erat. Est igitur dolor *compunctionis* pro se ipso, dolor *compassionis* pro proximis. — Tertius dolor est *aemulationis* pro *honore divino.* Unde in libro Machabaeorum[^p478-6]: *Tu, Domine, qui habes scientiam, nosti, quod cum a morte liberari possem, duros sustineo corporis dolores; secundum animam vero propter timorem tuum libenter haec patior.* Verba ista dixit Eleazarus, quando potius voluit mori, quam simulationem comedendi carnes porcinas facere. Hoc non docet philosophia, quod pro conclusione exponam me morti.

23. Psalmus[^p478-7]: *Servus tuus sum ego; da mihi intellectum, ut sciam testimonia tua.* Scientia gratuita docet *scire* et *modum sciendi.* Unde super illud Apostoli: *Si quis autem se existimat scire aliquid, nondum cognovit, quomodo oporteat eum scire;* dicit Bernardus: « Vides, quod non approbat Apostolus multa *scientem,* sed *modum sciendi;* vide, quod omnem fructum et utilitatem scientiae in *modo sciendi* constituit. Quid dicit *modum sciendi?* Scire, quo *ordine,* quo *studio,* quo *fine* quisque addiscat: quo *ordine,* ut id prius addiscat, quod maturius est ad salutem; quo *studio,* ut id ardentius, quod vehementius trahit ad amorem Dei; quo *fine,* ut non propter inanem gloriam, aut curiositatem, sed propter aedificationem suam et proximi addiscat. Sunt qui scire volunt tantum, ut sciant, et turpis *curiositas* est. Sunt qui addiscunt et scire volunt, ut *sciantur,* et turpis *vanitas* est. Et sunt qui scire volunt, ut *scientiam vendant* pro pecunia, aut honoribus, et turpis *quaestus* est. Sunt qui scire volunt, ut alios *aedificent,* et *caritas* est. Et sunt qui scire volunt, ut *aedificentur,* et *prudentia* est ».

24. *Scientia inflat, sed caritas aedificat*[^p478-8]; ideo oportet iungere cum scientia caritatem, ut homo habeat simul scientiam et caritatem, ut possit impleri illud quod dicit Apostolus: *In caritate radicati et*

<!-- page 479 -->
*fundati, ut possitis comprehendere cum omnibus Sanctis, quae sit longitudo, latitudo, sublimitas et profundum, scire etiam supereminentem scientiae claritatem Christi.* Ista est scientia, quae est donum Spiritus sancti.

25. De ultima scientia, scilicet de scientia *gloriosa,* dicam unum verbum. Dicitur de ea in libro Sapientiae[^p479-1]: *Nosse te summa iustitia est;* sequitur: *et radix est immortalitatis.* Ista scientia *initiatur* in contemplativis, *perpetuatur* in dormientibus et *consummatur* in resurgentibus. Istam scientiam nobis praestare dignetur qui cum Patre etc.

---

english:
<!-- page 473 -->

### COLLATION IV.
#### *On the gift of knowledge.*

### Summarium

*Introduction,* 1. — *Exposition of the text. Two things that go before the gift of knowledge, and two that follow,* 2. — *There are four brightnesses or kinds of knowledge, all of which are gifts of God; their definitions,* 3-5. — Part I. On philosophical knowledge. *It is the certain notice of truth as searchable. Its threefold principal division is confirmed,* 6. — *Solomon had these three,* 7-11. — *These same kinds of knowledge are easily eclipsed; a further light is therefore required,* 12. — Part II. On theological knowledge. *It is the pious notice of truth as credible; it is founded upon the articles of faith; Scripture is compared to the waters of the sea for a threefold reason,* 13. — *First, because of the depth of the mysteries,* 14. — *Secondly, because of the manifoldness of the senses,* 15. — *Thirdly, because of the establishing of the Churches,* 16. — *When knowledge of the faith fails, the Church is shaken; this knowledge is necessary for pontiffs; the fulfilment of it in works is required besides, otherwise it is harmful; therefore a further knowledge is necessary,* 17. 18. — Part III. On the freely given knowledge. *It is the holy notice of truth as credible and lovable. It is called the knowledge of the Saints for a threefold reason,* 19. — *First, because it is given by the Holy Spirit,* 20. — *Secondly, because it has nothing of viciousness,* 21. — *Thirdly, because it has a zeal for holiness; an exhortation,* 22. — *Freely given knowledge teaches both to know and the true manner of knowing,* 23. — *Charity is to be joined to knowledge,* 24. — *The knowledge of glory,* 25.

1. *God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has himself shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the brightness of God in the face of Christ Jesus*[^p473-6]. — *Shall he that chastises nations not rebuke, he that teaches man knowledge?* The Psalm of David says that God is the great teacher of the branches of knowledge. You know that if a man has to draw water, he draws it more gladly from its original source than from a rivulet. Therefore, if the Lord is the great teacher and the giver of the gift of which we intend to speak, we must go back to that fountain to obtain enlightenment. So did the Psalmist, so did Solomon, and he became a great clerk[^p473-7]. At the outset we must lift up our souls and beseech the bestower of gifts, since we ask not for temporal things but for the profit and salvation of our soul; and this pleases God, as Solomon did, who asked wisdom of the Lord[^p473-8]. Let us therefore beseech the Lord that he himself may open the eyes of our mind and grant me the light of knowledge, so that I may be able to say something about the gift of knowledge that may be to the honour of God etc.

<!-- page 474 -->

2. *God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness* etc. This word is written in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, in which the Apostle Paul, the great teacher, sets out the gift of knowledge itself; and he sets out *the gift itself* with respect to what *goes before* it and what *follows* it. Two things go before the gift of knowledge: one is like an *inborn* light, and the other is like an *infused* light. The inborn light is the light of the *natural faculty of judgment* or of reason; the light poured in from above is the *light of faith.* As to the first he says: *God, who commanded the light to shine,* that is, he impressed the light of the natural faculty of judgment upon the rational creature, that is, not only the possible intellect but also the agent intellect[^p474-1]. As to the *light of faith* poured in from above he says: *He has shone in our hearts* etc., namely by the infusion of the light of faith. God founded the rational nature and superadded grace. There are, then, two antecedents. — The consequents also are two, namely the *clear notice of the Creator* and the *revealed notice of the Saviour*[^p474-2]. As to the antecedents he says: *God, who commanded* etc.; as to the consequents he says: *To give the light of the knowledge of the brightness of God,* where the *clear notice of the Creator* is touched upon; *in the face of Christ Jesus,* where the *revealed notice of the Saviour* is touched upon. — The Apostle gives us to understand that the soul has a manifold brightness and passes from one to another. Whence the Apostle to the Corinthians[^p474-3]: *But we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from brightness to brightness, as by the Spirit of the Lord.* The brightness of the soul is knowledge; contrariwise the *darkness* of the soul is ignorance. He says: *we are transformed from brightness to brightness.*

3. Here it is to be noted that there is a brightness of *philosophical* knowledge, of *theological* knowledge, of *freely given* knowledge, and a brightness of the knowledge of *glory.* The brightness of philosophical knowledge is great in the opinion of worldly men, yet it is small in comparison with the brightness of Christian knowledge. But the brightness of theological knowledge seems small in the opinion of worldly men, though in truth it is great. The brightness of freely given knowledge is greater, but the brightness of the knowledge of glory is greatest; there is the resting-place. The Psalm[^p474-4]: *Thy knowledge is become wonderful to me; it is strengthened, and I cannot reach to it,* namely in this life.

4. All these kinds of knowledge and their brightnesses are given from above, although in the giving of them there is always a greater gift. It is true that *philosophical* and *theological* knowledge is a gift of God; but *properly* the gift of God is *freely given* knowledge; while the knowledge of *glory* is not only a gift but also a reward. And in the Canticle of Anna it is said in the book of Kings[^p474-5]: *Let old things depart from your mouth, for the Lord is the God of all knowledge, and to him are thoughts prepared;* not foolish thoughts, which are scattered along the ways of error, but good thoughts are prepared for the Lord along the ways of truth. Job: *Dost thou know the paths of the clouds, the great and perfect kinds of knowledge?* He says *the great paths,* that is, philosophical and theological knowledge, which are called *great paths* because they take in many branches of knowledge; he says *perfect paths* with respect to *freely given* knowledge and the knowledge of *glory. The paths of the clouds* are *the kinds of knowledge of perfect men,* because, as clouds are drawn on high by the power of heat, so perfect men are lifted up in the abstraction of the mind. — Of these four kinds of knowledge we mean to speak, so that we may be able to arrive at the third, of which we are speaking here.

5. *Philosophical* knowledge is nothing other than the *certain notice* of truth as *searchable. Theological* knowledge is the *pious notice* of truth as *credible. Freely given* knowledge is the *holy notice* of truth as *lovable.* The knowledge of *glory* is the *everlasting notice* of truth as *desirable.*

6. Let us begin first with *philosophical* knowledge. I say that philosophical knowledge is the *certain notice* of truth as *searchable*[^p474-6]. Of this knowledge it is said in Proverbs: *Behold, I have described it to thee three manner of ways, in thoughts and knowledge, that I might show thee the certainty and the words of truth.* That word can be *Solomon's* and the word of *God.* I say that it can be the word of *God.* For he describes philosophical knowledge in a threefold way, that is, he describes it according to a threefold ground, as *natural,* as *rational* and as *moral,* namely in so far as it is « the *cause of being,* the *ground of understanding* and the *order of living*[^p474-7] ». In so far as it is the *cause of being,* it designates natural knowledge; in so far as it is the *ground of understanding,* it signifies *rational* knowledge; in so far as it is the *order of living,* it describes *moral* knowledge.

7. Nor is that word only *God's;* it is rather also *Solomon's,* who *discoursed from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop*[^p474-8]. He himself says: *Behold, I have described it to thee three manner of ways, that I might show thee the certainty,* that is, solid and firm truth, *and the words of truth;* he describes it in a threefold way, namely in so far as it is the truth *of things,* the truth *of words* and the truth *of morals,* according as there is an undividedness of being *from its act of being,* an undividedness of being *towards its act of being,* and of being *from its end.* The truth of things is the undividedness of being from its *act of being;* the truth of words

<!-- page 475 -->
is the undividedness of being *towards its act of being;* the truth *of morals* is the undividedness of being *from its end*[^p475-1]. — The truth *of morals* is rectitude, according to which a man lives well *within* and *without* according to the dictate of right, since right is the rule of rectitude; the truth *of words* is the adequation of utterance and understanding; the truth *of things* is « the adequation of understanding and thing[^p475-2] ». And because philosophical knowledge teaches *the words of truth,* and truth is threefold, therefore he says that he described it three manner of ways.

8. Do you not believe that Solomon acquired this threefold notice? — Of the knowledge *of discourse* he says that he had it. Whence in the book of Wisdom[^p475-3] he says: *Give me, Lord, wisdom that sits by thy throne, that I may be worthy of the seats of my father.* There it is written: *And to me God has given to speak as I would, and to conceive thoughts worthy of those things that are given me. In his hand are both we and our words.* It is impossible that wisdom should become teaching except through speech. But speech is not sufficient for teaching unless it be weighty with meaning. And a man does not speak weightily unless his speech be *discussive, inquisitive* and *persuasive,* namely that he have a speech able to utter everything that can be apprehended or known, or towards which the affection can be inclined. Now he expresses fittingly what he says by *grammar,* he investigates reasonably by the science of *logic,* and he persuades effectively by *rhetoric.* This, then, is a part of philosophy, namely the knowledge of discourse, which is threefold, as is plain[^p475-4], and which Solomon obtained.

9. The other part of philosophy, namely that which lies in the truth *of things,* Solomon says he obtained. Whence he says in the book of Wisdom[^p475-5]: *God has given me the true knowledge of the things that are, so that I may know the disposition of the whole world and the virtues of the elements.* It is certain that the notice of the truth *of things* is threefold, according as there are *concrete* forms, *abstract* forms, and *separate* forms. The natural philosopher considers *concrete* forms, the metaphysician *abstract* forms, and the mathematician *separate* forms. Whence he says: *God has given me the knowledge of the things that are,* that is, of beings principally, which are truly beings, as regards *metaphysical* knowledge; *so that I may know the disposition of the whole world,* as regards *mathematics; and the virtues of the elements,* as regards *natural philosophy.* Solomon knew the course of the year from the disposition of the stars, the natures of animals and the virtues of roots; Solomon taught all things[^p475-6].

10. Of the third part of philosophy, namely the *moral,* Solomon also says that he obtained it. Whence in Ecclesiastes[^p475-7]: *I surveyed all things with my mind, that I might know and consider and seek out wisdom and reason, and that I might know the impiety of the fool and the error of the imprudent.* He says that he considered many things and ordered them all to morals. — Dearly beloved! the *impiety of the fool* lies in thinking ill of the cause of causes; the *error of the imprudent* concerns the government of the monastic life, or of the domestic, or of the political, that is, the government of oneself, or of a household, or of a city. Great prudence is required for the government of oneself, greater for the government of a household, but the greatest for the government of a city. It is impossible that the sun should light bodies far from it and not light those near it. No one can have a well-ordered household unless he himself is well ordered. If a man wants to have chaste servants and he himself will not be chaste, this cannot be. Likewise, unless a man governs his household well, he will not be able to govern a city well, since *as is the prince of the city, so also are they that dwell in it*[^p475-8].

11. Solomon therefore shows that he arrived at the threefold description of philosophical knowledge, namely at the description of rational, moral and natural knowledge, and at a threefold description of each of these. — Whoever should have the description of these kinds of knowledge according to truth would have the greatest mirror for knowing, because there is nothing in any of these kinds of knowledge that does not carry a vestige of the Trinity. That would be easy to show, but it would take long[^p475-9].

12. The first brightness, namely that of *philosophical* knowledge, is great in the opinion of worldly men; but it is easily eclipsed, unless a man beware of the head and the tail of the dragon[^p475-10]. If anything be interposed between him and the sun of justice, he suffers the eclipse of folly. Jeremiah: *Every man is become a fool by his own knowledge,* namely *occasionally,* not *causally.* He who trusts in philosophical knowledge and prizes himself on that account and believes himself to be the better for it, has become a fool, namely when by this knowledge and without a further light he believes that he apprehends the Creator; as if a man wanted to see the heavens or the body of the sun by candles. — It is certain that *rational* philosophy is consummated in rhetoric, since the deliberative kind is threefold, namely when a man deliberates about *usefulness,* about *safety* and about *honourableness,* and about their opposites, namely about *loss,* about *danger* and about *sin* or

<!-- page 476 -->
*dishonour*[^p476-1]. A man cannot know what is *useful* and what is *harmful* except by an addition beyond this knowledge. It is said in the Gospel[^p476-2]: *What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?* What is it worth that a man should know much, if the true honour of the soul is abandoned? — It is likewise certain that by *moral* knowledge a man cannot know what is useful and what is harmful except by an addition beyond moral knowledge, in so far as moral knowledge is the *rite* of worship, the *norm* of living and the *standard* of judging[^p476-3]. Who can know the *rite of worship* through natural philosophy? — Grant that a man have natural knowledge and metaphysics, which extends to the highest substances, and that he arrive there so as to *rest* there; it is impossible but that he fall into error, unless he be helped by the light of faith, namely so that he believe God to be three and one, most powerful and best according to the utmost outflow of goodness. If you believe otherwise, you are mad concerning God; you attribute to another what is proper to God, you blaspheme and you are an idolater, as when a man attributes to another the simplicity of God or the like. — Therefore this knowledge cast down and darkened the philosophers, because they had not the light of faith. Whence the Apostle[^p476-4]: *Who, when they had known God, glorified him not as God, nor gave thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.* And in the book of Wisdom: *For if they were able to know so much as to be able to value the world, how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?* — Philosophical knowledge is a way to the other kinds of knowledge; but he who wants to stand still there falls into darkness.

13. Beyond philosophical knowledge God has given us *theological* knowledge, which is *the pious notice of truth as credible:* because the eternal light, namely God, is a light inaccessible to us[^p476-5] so long as we are mortal and have the eyes of a bat. Whence Augustine: « The weak edge of the mind is not fixed upon so surpassing a light unless it be cleansed by the justice of faith ». Therefore theological knowledge is founded upon faith: as the philosophical branches of knowledge are founded upon their own first principles, so the knowledge of Scripture is founded upon the articles of faith, which are the twelve foundations of the city[^p476-6]. Of this knowledge it is said in Isaiah: *They shall not hurt nor kill in all my holy mountain;* and there follows: *because the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea.* Sacred Scripture is compared to the water of the sea because of the *depth of the mysteries,* because of the *manifoldness of the senses* and because of the *establishing*[^p476-7] *of the Churches.*

14. First, I say, sacred Scripture is compared to the water of the sea because of the *depth of the mysteries.* The sea is deep, nor can a man wade across it; so great is the depth of the mysteries of sacred Scripture that, however enlightened a man may be and of however great diligence, he cannot reach to their depth. Whence Isaiah[^p476-8]: *The vision of all shall be unto you as the words of a sealed book, which when they shall deliver to one that is learned, they shall say: Read this; and he shall answer: I cannot, for it is sealed. And the book shall be given to one that knows no letters, and it shall be said to him: Read; and he shall answer: I know no letters.* Neither the learned man nor the unlearned will be able to read it. Who then shall read it? I say that he who wishes to enter the sanctuary of God with pride will not be able to, though he be lettered; likewise, if an unlettered man should wish to enter, he would be a fool. He must therefore have both *letters* and *spirit.*

15. Secondly, sacred Scripture is compared to the water of the sea because of the *manifoldness of the senses.* In the sea there are various springings-up; so in sacred Scripture there is in one letter a manifold meaning. Whence in Daniel[^p476-9]: *But thou, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book even to the appointed time; many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold.* — Some wonder that in the same Scripture we have so many meanings. Anselm says that in the same soil different things can be planted; the soil by the divine power brings forth various growths; so through the Holy Spirit there are various meanings in the same letter. Nor is it unfitting to use equivocally what is equivocal and set down in many ways. In theology both *things* and *words* signify[^p476-10]. Therefore, when there are several properties of a thing, then many things are signified by one thing. As many as are the properties of the sun, so many, when *the sun* signifies the just man, are the properties of the just man.

16. The third reason why sacred Scripture is compared to the water of the sea is because of the *establishing of the Churches.* The Psalm[^p476-11]: *He has founded it upon the seas;* and elsewhere: *Who hast founded the earth upon its own stability.*

<!-- page 477 -->
Some derided David because he said that God founded the earth upon the waters. Since the earth is dry, unless there were moisture penetrating the earth, it would be reduced to dust; and as the human body receives moisture through the veins, so it is necessary that fresh waters come from the sea and hold the earth together. He says that *he founded the earth upon the waters* because of a mystery. The earth which the Spirit has filled is the ecclesiastical hierarchy; he *who has poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth*[^p477-1], because he founded the holy Church upon the divine words. The sacred words are its supports. The Apostle says to Timothy: *I write to thee, Timothy, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.*

17. Where sacred Scripture fails, the earth, that is the Church, must needs be shaken: *They have not known nor understood; they walk on in darkness; all the foundations of the earth shall be moved*[^p477-2]. Arius, who wished to take away the foundation of the Trinity; Nestorius, who wished to take away the unity of the person; and Eutyches, who wanted to confound the natures in Christ — these shook the foundations of the Church. — Every pontiff ought to know this knowledge; whence the hierarch is asked: Do you know the Old Testament and the New? — The king of England asked a certain bishop what the two horns on his mitre signified. He answered, and rightly, that they signify the two testaments, which bishops ought to know[^p477-3]. « And what do those two lappets signify, which hang down behind the back? » He answered that they signify ignorance of both, « since we know neither the one nor the other, but have cast the whole behind our back ». And in this he spoke ill.

18. Because the ecclesiastical hierarchy is founded in Scripture, which is compared to the water of the sea for these three reasons, therefore sentence has been passed against those who have not this knowledge. In Hosea[^p477-4]: *Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me.* From the helm of a ship and from the government of a city he is rejected who knows nothing of governing. If the foundations of the Church consist in the knowledge of sacred Scripture, therefore he who does not know sacred Scripture is to be rejected from ecclesiastical office and dignity. If a blind man wanted to lead another, it would be the greatest folly[^p477-5]. A pilot is not to be chosen by lot nor by friendship. — And it is to be known that *knowledge is rejected* when a man *does not care to learn it.* Isaiah[^p477-6]: *Therefore has my people been led away captive, because they had not knowledge,* namely neither in the head nor in the members. — Again, *knowledge is rejected* when a man knows the knowledge *and will not live according to the knowledge* nor fulfil it. Whence the Lord says[^p477-7]: *Woe to you, Scribes and Lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in you have hindered.* If a physician eats the food which he forbids to the sick man, the sick man is scandalized and wants to eat that food. — Wherefore *woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees!* since *to him that knows the good and does it not, it is sin,* as blessed James says[^p477-8]. By knowledge both the fault and the penalty are increased; whence in Luke: *The servant who knew the will of his lord and prepared not and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.* If a man *does not hinder* evil by example or by counsel, woe to him! You make yourself a doctor of sacred Scripture, but you persuade what is contrary to the good and the true. If one who ought to walk by the straight way had another *tell* him to walk by the crooked way, his sin would be inexpiable. In hindering another's salvation by example, by counsel, or by persuasion, you must give your own soul for that man's soul[^p477-9]. If I can draw another to what is better and I draw him to what is worse, do I not sin gravely? If I hinder another's good, I do worse than the devil; because the devil acts as an enemy does. — This knowledge, if the fulfilment of it in works be lacking, is not useful but harmful. The first brightness can be *darkened,* but this one can be *condemned.*

19. Therefore another brightness must be had, namely that of *freely given knowledge,* which is the form of the two preceding brightnesses. You fail in the third sign[^p477-10] if you have not this knowledge. This knowledge is the *holy notice* of truth as *credible and lovable.* Of this knowledge it is said in the book of Wisdom[^p477-11]: *The Lord led the just man through the right ways and showed him the kingdom of God; he honoured him in his labours and gave him the knowledge of the Saints.* Freely given knowledge is called *the knowledge of the Saints* for a threefold cause.

20. First, because it is given by the Holy Spirit; I say by the Holy Spirit *moving* the soul, *inspiring* and *forming* it unto holiness. I say by the Holy Spirit *inspiring* unto the *notice* of holiness, unto the *pleasingness* of holiness and unto the *guarding* of holiness. Whence the Apostle to the Corinthians[^p477-12]: *We have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us from God;* and how? If we know, guard and approve the things inspired by the Holy Spirit unto the notice of holiness, unto the

<!-- page 478 -->
pleasingness and the guarding of holiness. Whence in John: *Father, sanctify them in truth.*

21. In another way freely given knowledge is called *the knowledge of the Saints,* because it has nothing of viciousness mixed in, nothing of carnality, nothing of curiosity and nothing of vanity. Whence in Leviticus[^p478-1]: *And the Lord said also to Aaron: Wine, and everything that may make drunk, you shall not drink, thou and thy sons, that you may have knowledge to discern between the holy and the profane.* He who has the knowledge to discern between the holy and the profane will abstain from everything that can make drunk, that is, from every superfluous delight in a creature; this is the wine that makes drunk. Whether a man be inclined towards the superfluous delight that is in a creature because of *vanity,* or because of *curiosity,* or because of *carnality,* he has not the knowledge of the Saints. It is said in Genesis[^p478-2]: *Of every tree that is in paradise thou shalt eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat, for in what hour soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death.* Adam with his wife contracted the vice of *curiosity,* when the devil said to them: *You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil;* he contracted also the vice of *carnality,* when he ate of the fruit; he contracted also *the vice of vanity,* when he wished to be as gods. — Hear, brethren: let those who have the knowledge of the Saints, namely clerics, beware lest they have anything of viciousness mixed in; because, if a man mixes in anything of viciousness, he loses the knowledge to discern between good and evil.

22. Thirdly, freely given knowledge is called *the knowledge of the Saints* because it has a zeal for all holiness. — Whence in the book of Ecclesiastes[^p478-3]: *In much wisdom there shall be indignation; and he that adds knowledge adds also sorrow.* A man knowing his own defects has the sorrow of *compunction* for himself, the sorrow of *compassion* for his neighbours, and the sorrow of *zeal* for the honour of God. — The Psalm: *O ye sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? Why do you love vanity and seek after lying? Know ye also that the Lord has made his holy one wonderful; the Lord will hear me when I shall cry unto him. Be angry, and sin not; the things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds.* He who has true knowledge and knows God and sees that he does not walk rightly nor perfectly is in continual sorrow, because he sees that his affections and thoughts are scattered. Augustine[^p478-4]: « Knowledge begets mourning ». — A man sees the slaughter of *bodies* and grieves much. He therefore who sees the slaughter of *souls,* how can he hold himself back from tears? This sorrow greatly pleases God. The Lord says of this knowledge[^p478-5]: *I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than holocausts.* I know the infirmities of others; I ought to have compassion on them. Isaiah: *We have seen him, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity.* The spirit of the knowledge of God is not in that member which sees a member of its own head wounded and does not grieve with it. David grieved over the death of Absalom, who nevertheless had persecuted him. There is, then, the sorrow of *compunction* for oneself and the sorrow of *compassion* for one's neighbours. — The third sorrow is that of *zeal* for the *divine honour.* Whence in the book of Maccabees[^p478-6]: *Thou, O Lord, who hast knowledge, knowest that whereas I might be delivered from death, I endure grievous pains of body; but in soul I willingly suffer these things for thy fear.* These words Eleazar spoke, when he chose rather to die than to make a pretence of eating swine's flesh. Philosophy does not teach this, that for a conclusion I should expose myself to death.

23. The Psalm[^p478-7]: *I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies.* Freely given knowledge teaches both *to know* and the *manner of knowing.* Whence on that word of the Apostle — *And if any man think that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know* — Bernard says: « You see that the Apostle does not approve one who *knows much,* but the *manner of knowing;* see that he places the whole fruit and usefulness of knowledge in the *manner of knowing.* What does he call the *manner of knowing?* To know in what *order,* with what *zeal,* to what *end* each man learns: in what *order,* so that he learn first what is more ripe unto salvation; with what *zeal,* so that he learn the more ardently what draws the more vehemently to the love of God; to what *end,* so that he learn not for empty glory or curiosity, but for his own upbuilding and his neighbour's. There are those who wish to know only in order to know, and that is base *curiosity.* There are those who learn and wish to know in order *to be known,* and that is base *vanity.* And there are those who wish to know in order to *sell their knowledge* for money or honours, and that is base *gain.* There are those who wish to know in order to *build up* others, and that is *charity.* And there are those who wish to know in order *to be built up,* and that is *prudence* ».

24. *Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies*[^p478-8]; therefore charity must be joined with knowledge, so that a man may have knowledge and charity together, so that there may be fulfilled that which the Apostle says: *Rooted and*

<!-- page 479 -->
*founded in charity, that you may be able to comprehend with all the Saints what is the length, the breadth, the height and the depth, and to know also the surpassing brightness of the knowledge of Christ.* This is the knowledge which is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

25. Of the last knowledge, namely of the knowledge of *glory,* I shall say one word. It is said of it in the book of Wisdom[^p479-1]: *To know thee is perfect justice;* and there follows: *and it is the root of immortality.* This knowledge is *begun* in contemplatives, *made perpetual* in those who sleep and *consummated* in those who rise again. May he deign to grant us this knowledge who with the Father etc.

---

la: Epist. II. Cor. 4, 6. — Seq. locus est Ps. 93, 10. — De hoc dono cfr. III. Sent. d. 35. q. 2.

en: II Corinthians 4:6. — The following passage is Psalm 93:10. — On this gift cf. III Sentences, d. 35, q. 2.

la: Du Cange, Glossarium etc., notat, quod nomine *clericorum* intelligantur viri litterati ac docti, vel etiam scholares.

en: Du Cange, Glossarium etc., notes that by the name *clerici* are understood lettered and learned men, or even scholars.

la: Cfr. III. Reg. 3, 7. seqq.

en: Cf. III Kings 3:7 ff.

la: Vide supra pag. 365, nota 4.

en: See above, page 365, note 4.

la: Locum hunc in codd. corruptum emendavimus, adhibita editione Bonelli.

en: This passage, corrupt in the manuscripts, we have emended with the help of Bonelli's edition.

la: Epist. II. 3, 18.

en: Second Epistle 3:18.

la: Libr. I. 2, 3. — Seq. locus est Iob 37, 16.

en: Book I, 2:3. — The following passage is Job 37:16.

la: Cfr. supra opusculum de Reductione artium ad theolog. n. 4. et in Hexaëm. collat. 4. n. 1. seqq. — Seq. locus est Prov. 22, 20. et 21.

en: Cf. above the opuscule On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology, n. 4, and the Hexaëmeron, collation 4, n. 1 ff. — The following passage is Proverbs 22:20 and 21.

la: Est sententia Platonis ab Augustino allata; cfr. supra pag. 19, nota 7.

en: It is a saying of Plato cited by Augustine; cf. above, page 19, note 7.

la: Libr. III. Reg. 4, 33: Et disputavit super lignis, a cedro, quae est in Libano, usque etc.

en: III Kings 4:33: And he discoursed upon trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon, unto etc.

la: Cfr. supra in Hexaëm. collat. 4. n. 2. et IV. Sent. d. 14. p. II. a. 1. q. 1: *Verum* (dicit) indivisionem entis ab *esse* sive actu *absoluto*... et *bonum* indivisionem ab actu ut *in finem relato.*

en: Cf. above, the Hexaëmeron, collation 4, n. 2, and IV Sentences, d. 14, p. II, a. 1, q. 1: *The true* (he says) an undividedness of being from its *act of being* or from *absolute* act… and *the good* an undividedness from act as *referred to an end.*

la: Vide supra pag. 344, nota 5.

en: See above, page 344, note 5.

la: Cap. 9, 4. et 12: Et ero dignus sedium patris mei. Ibid. 7, 15. et 16. habetur seq. locus. Post *dantur* in Vulgata plura adduntur.

en: Chapter 9:4 and 12: And I shall be worthy of the seats of my father. The following passage is found ibid. 7:15 and 16. After *are given* the Vulgate adds more.

la: Cfr. supra Itinerarium mentis in Deum, c. 3. n. 6, opusculum de Reductione artium ad theolog. n. 4. et in Hexaëm. collat. 4. n. 18. seqq.

en: Cf. above the Itinerary of the Mind into God, ch. 3, n. 6, the opuscule On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology, n. 4, and the Hexaëmeron, collation 4, n. 18 ff.

la: Cap. 7, 17. — De seqq. cfr. loci in nota praecedente allegati.

en: Chapter 7:17. — On what follows cf. the passages cited in the preceding note.

la: Vide Sap. 7, 18. seqq.

en: See Wisdom 7:18 ff.

en: Chapter 7:26.

la: Eccli. 10, 2: Et qualis est rector civitatis etc. Cfr. I. Tim. 3, 2. seqq.

en: Ecclesiasticus 10:2: And such as is the ruler of the city etc. Cf. I Timothy 3:2 ff.

la: Cfr. opusculum de Reductione artium ad theolog. n. 15. seqq.

en: Cf. the opuscule On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology, n. 15 ff.

la: Vide supra in Hexaëm. collat. 22. n. 41. et 42. — Seq. locus est Ier. 10, 14. Vulgata omittit *sua.*

en: See above, the Hexaëmeron, collation 22, nn. 41 and 42. — The following passage is Jeremiah 10:14. The Vulgate omits *his own.*

la: Cfr. supra in Hexaëm. collat. 4. n. 23.

en: Cf. above, the Hexaëmeron, collation 4, n. 23.

en: Matthew 16:26.

la: Cfr. supra in Hexaëm. collat. 5. n. 14. seqq. et collat. 7. n. 5. seqq.

en: Cf. above, the Hexaëmeron, collation 5, n. 14 ff., and collation 7, n. 5 ff.

la: Rom. 1, 21. et 22. — Seq. locus est Sap. 13, 9.

en: Romans 1:21 and 22. — The following passage is Wisdom 13:9.

la: Epist. I. Tim. 6, 16: Et lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem, quem nullus hominum vidit, sed nec videre potest. — De comparatione cognitionis nostrae cum oculis vespertilionis cfr. supra pag. 309, nota 2, et de sententia August. vide supra pag. 345, nota 1.

en: I Timothy 6:16: And he dwells in light inaccessible, whom no man has seen, nor can see. — On the comparison of our knowing with the eyes of a bat cf. above, page 309, note 2, and on Augustine's statement see above, page 345, note 1.

la: Respicitur Apoc. 21, 14. Cfr. supra in Hexaëm. collat. 8. n. 12. seqq. et collat. 9. n. 8. seqq. — Seqq. duo loci sunt Isai. 11, 9.

en: Apocalypse 21:14 is referred to. Cf. above, the Hexaëmeron, collation 8, n. 12 ff., and collation 9, n. 8 ff. — The two following passages are Isaiah 11:9.

la: Cod. A *stabilitationem,* sicut etiam infra.

en: Codex A reads *stabilitationem,* as also below.

la: Cap. 29, 11. et 12. Cfr. Ambros., Epist. 2. n. 3, et Gregor., I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 6. n. 13.

en: Chapter 29:11 and 12. Cf. Ambrose, Letter 2, n. 3, and Gregory, Homilies on Ezechiel I, homily 6, n. 13.

la: Cap. 12, 4. — Sententiam Anselmi non invenimus in eius operibus explicite; cfr. tamen de Conceptu virg. etc. c. 11; Ambros., III. Hexaëm. c. 8. n. 34. seqq., et supra in Hexaëm. collat. 13. et 14. Godefrid. abbas Admont., Homil. Domin. homil. 27. comparat Scripturam terrae varia producenti.

en: Chapter 12:4. — We have not found Anselm's statement explicitly in his works; cf. however On the Virginal Conception etc., ch. 11; Ambrose, Hexaëmeron III, ch. 8, n. 34 ff.; and above, the Hexaëmeron, collations 13 and 14. Godfrey, abbot of Admont, Homilies on the Sundays, homily 27, compares Scripture to soil that brings forth various growths.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 389, nota 6, ubi etiam de usu terminorum.

en: Cf. above, page 389, note 6, where the use of the terms is also treated.

la: Psalm. 23, 2. — Seq. locus est Ps. 103, 5. — Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 16. (c. 3.): Aqua autem frigida et humida; terra autem frigida et sicca. Cfr. Ambros., III. Hexaëm. c. 4. n. 18; ibid. I. c. 6. n. 22. de positione terrae.

en: Psalm 23:2. — The following passage is Psalm 103:5. — Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption II, text 16 (ch. 3): Water is cold and moist; but earth is cold and dry. Cf. Ambrose, Hexaëmeron III, ch. 4, n. 18; ibid. I, ch. 6, n. 22, on the position of the earth.

la: Isai. 40, 12. Cfr. supra in Hexaëm. collat. 9. n. 3. — Seq. locus est I. Tim. 3, 14. et 15. Vulgata plura interserit.

en: Isaiah 40:12. Cf. above, the Hexaëmeron, collation 9, n. 3. — The following passage is I Timothy 3:14 and 15. The Vulgate inserts more.

en: Psalm 81:5.

la: Secundum Pontificale Romanum, quando mitra capiti consecrati imponitur, haec dicitur oratio: Imponimus, Domine, capiti huius antistitis et agonistae tui galeam munitionis et salutis, quatenus decorata facie, et armato capite, cornibus utriusque testamenti terribilis appareat adversariis veritatis etc.

en: According to the Roman Pontifical, when the mitre is placed on the head of the man consecrated, this prayer is said: We place, O Lord, upon the head of this thy bishop and champion the helmet of defence and salvation, that with his face adorned and his head armed, he may appear terrible to the adversaries of truth with the horns of both testaments etc.

la: Cap. 4, 6. — Superius ante *Quia* codd. addunt *Tertio;* subinde omittunt verba *fundata est in Scriptura, quae.* Secundum contextum et Bonelli haec supplevimus.

en: Chapter 4:6. — Above, before *Because,* the manuscripts add *Thirdly;* and they then omit the words *is founded in Scripture, which.* We have supplied these according to the context and Bonelli.

la: Matth. 15, 14: Caecus autem si caeco ducatum praestet, ambo in foveam cadunt.

en: Matthew 15:14: And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

en: Chapter 5:13.

la: Cap. 4, 17. — Seq. locus est Luc. 12, 47.

en: Chapter 4:17. — The following passage is Luke 12:47.

la: Respicitur poena talionis Exod. 21, 23. seq.: Reddet animam pro anima, oculum pro oculo etc. — In praecedentibus apparet defectus codicum.

en: The law of retaliation in Exodus 21:23 f. is referred to: He shall render life for life, eye for eye etc. — In what precedes a defect of the manuscripts is apparent.

la: Respicitur Exod. 8, 19. Cfr. supra pag. 341, nota 7. et pag. 375, nota 2.

en: Exodus 8:19 is referred to. Cf. above, page 341, note 7, and page 375, note 2.

la: Cap. 10, 10. Vulgata invertit ordinem verborum.

en: Chapter 10:10. The Vulgate inverts the order of the words.

la: Epist. I. 2, 12. — Seq. locus est Ioan. 17, 17.

en: First Epistle 2:12. — The following passage is John 17:17.

la: Cap. 10, 8-10. Post *filii tui* in Vulgata plura interseruntur.

en: Chapter 10:8-10. After *thy sons* the Vulgate inserts more.

la: Cap. 2, 16. et 17. ac cfr. 3, 4. 5. — Seq. locus est ibid. 3, 5. Cfr. supra pag. 420, nota 9. in fine.

en: Chapter 2:16 and 17, and cf. 3:4, 5. — The following passage is ibid. 3:5. Cf. above, page 420, note 9, at the end.

la: Cap. 1, 18. Pro *dolorem,* quod exhibent septuaginta interpretes, Vulgata *et laborem.* — Seq. locus est Ps. 4, 3-5.

en: Chapter 1:18. For *sorrow,* which the seventy interpreters give, the Vulgate has *and labour.* — The following passage is Psalm 4:3-5.

la: Libr. II. de Doctr. christiana, c. 7. n. 10: Ista scientia bonae spei hominem non se iactantem, sed lamentantem facit. Cfr. Serm. 347. (alias 17. de Sanctis) c. 3. n. 3.

en: On Christian Doctrine II, ch. 7, n. 10: This knowledge makes the man of good hope not boastful but mournful. Cf. Sermon 347 (elsewhere 17, On the Saints), ch. 3, n. 3.

la: Osee 6, 6. Pro *volo* (ita interpretes septuaginta) Vulgata *volui.* — Seq. locus est Isai. 53, 2. et 3. Post *eum* Vulgata plura addit. Subinde respicitur I. Cor. 12, 26. (de compassione membri, cfr. supra pag. 471, nota 9.) et II. Reg. 18, 33.

en: Hosea 6:6. For *I desire* (so the seventy interpreters) the Vulgate has *I desired.* — The following passage is Isaiah 53:2 and 3. After *him* the Vulgate adds more. Then I Corinthians 12:26 is referred to (on the compassion of the member, cf. above, page 471, note 9) and II Kings 18:33.

en: Book II, 6:30.

la: Psalm. 118, 125. — Seq. locus est I. Cor. 8, 2. — Sententia Bernardi habetur Serm. 36. in Cantic. n. 3. Textus originalis quaedam alio modo exhibet et plura interserit.

en: Psalm 118:125. — The following passage is I Corinthians 8:2. — Bernard's statement is found in Sermon 36 on the Canticle, n. 3. The original text gives some things otherwise and inserts more.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 8, 1. — Seq. locus est Eph. 3, 17-19. Pro *ut possitis scire* Vulgata *scire etiam.*

en: I Corinthians 8:1. — The following passage is Ephesians 3:17-19. For *that you may be able to know* the Vulgate has *to know also.*

la: Cap. 15, 3: Nosse enim te consummata iustitia est, et scire iustitiam et virtutem tuam radix est immortalitatis.

en: Chapter 15:3: For to know thee is perfect justice, and to know thy justice and thy power is the root of immortality. ---

translators_notes:
**★ Page span — closed positively at BOTH ends, and BOTH ends are shared leaves.** Collatio IV runs
**pp. 473–479**, twenty-five numbered paragraphs. It **opens mid-leaf on p. 473**, under the display
heading `COLLATIO IV.` with the subtitle *De dono scientiae.*, standing below Collatio III's ¶¶ 18
and 19; and it **closes mid-leaf on p. 479**, in the upper right column at *…praestare dignetur qui
cum Patre etc.*, above the `COLLATIO V.` display heading. The volume index lists Collatio IV at 473
and Collatio V at 479. **Both of those are heading pages and both are shared** — the rule c3 paid for
holds at this boundary too, and it now holds at both ends of a single span. The in-place subtitle on
p. 473 was read against the index's title and **agrees.** ⚠ This is the first span in the work with a
shared leaf at each end, so its apparatus register is discontinuous at both ends: it begins at n. 6
and ends at n. 1.

**A runover WAS received, and a forward hand-off IS made.** `bon-don-c3` forwarded p. 473 nn. 6, 7
and 8, and all three are transcribed here; the leaf's nn. 1–5 are Collatio III's and are not.
**⚠ Hand-off to `bon-don-c5`: p. 479 nn. 2, 3, 4 and following belong to Collatio V and are NOT
transcribed here** — only n. 1 (`Cap. 15, 3: Nosse enim te consummata iustitia est…`) anchors in
Collatio IV, at ¶ 25's *in libro Sapientiae.* c5 must pick p. 479 up at n. 2 and must not re-derive
its own p. 479 numbering from 1. Its own hand-off is visible on the leaf: n. 2 is `Prov. 31, 10. et
13. — Seq. locus est Cant. 4, 4.` and n. 3 is the Bede on *Collum tuum sicut monilia,* both anchoring
in Collatio V's ¶ 1.

**⛔ The heading-anchor question was not reopened, per the frozen rule.** `COLLATIO I.` was settled at
10× on p. 457 as carrying **no** apparatus anchor. Nothing on p. 473 was searched for one, and nothing
turned up incidentally: read at the full width of the leaf, `COLLATIO IV.` carries nothing after the
period, and the first anchor on the leaf is body-anchored, standing at *…in facie Christi Iesu* ⁶ in
¶ 1. ⭐ This leaf is a stronger negative than the three before it, because the heading stands **mid-leaf
between two collationes** with body type immediately above it — the position where a heading anchor
would be most visible — and there is none.

**Summarium.** Rendered, not trimmed, per the standing rule. It crosses the gutter, so it was read
from a full-width crop, never from a column band. **The Summarium and the body agree:** the synopsis
ends at `25.` and the body's numbered paragraphs run 1–25 with no gap (p. 473 = 1 · p. 474 = 2–7 ·
p. 475 = 7–12 · p. 476 = 12–16 · p. 477 = 16–20 · p. 478 = 20–24 · p. 479 = 24–25). The c6/c14
short-Summarium mechanism has still not fired in this work; it remains a property of the genre, and
the body is counted every time. ⚠ Two of the Summarium's own numerals had to be settled on the plate
against the raw, which garbles both: `3-5.` (raw `3-0`) and `15.` (raw `lo`).

**Apparatus — 53 entries, all read off 450 dpi footer bands, both blocks on every leaf, none from a
whole-page read.** Per printed page: **p. 473 = 3** (of the eight the leaf carries) **· p. 474 = 8 ·
p. 475 = 10 · p. 476 = 11 · p. 477 = 12 · p. 478 = 8 · p. 479 = 1** (of the leaf's several; see the
hand-off above).

**Block splits vs. anchor splits, stated separately per page.** ★ This is the first chunk in the work
in which the two coincide on only ONE leaf of seven, and the divergence runs in both directions:

- **p. 473** — the shared opening leaf. Of this chunk's three, the block split is **0 / 3** and the
  anchors **1 / 2**: n. 6 prints in the right footer block but anchors in the **left** column
  (*in facie Christi Iesu*), while nn. 7 and 8 both print and anchor on the right. The signature line
  `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` and the gathering signature `60` are printer's furniture and are not
  transcribed.
- **p. 474** — block **6 / 2**, anchors **4 / 4**: nn. 5 and 6 print in the left block but anchor in
  the right column. The left block **overruns** the column division by two.
- **p. 475** — block **4 / 6**, anchors **6 / 4**: nn. 5 and 6 anchor in the left column but print in
  the right block. The left block **underruns** by two — the exact mirror of p. 474, on the facing
  leaf.
- **p. 476** — block **6 / 5**, anchors **6 / 5**. They coincide. This is the only leaf in the span on
  which they do.
- **p. 477** — block **4 / 8**, anchors **6 / 6**: nn. 5 and 6 anchor in the left column but print in
  the right block. ⚠ nn. 6 and 7 are set **on the same line** — `⁶ Cap. 5, 13.` at the left margin of
  the right block and `⁷ Luc. 11, 52.` flush right on the same line — so the block must be read by
  numeral, not by line. This is c3's p. 472 n. 3 mechanism recurring, and it is now attested twice.
- **p. 478** — block **5 / 3**, anchors **4 / 4**: n. 5 begins in the left block and breaks across the
  column division mid-sentence (`…(ita interpretes septuaginta) Vul-` / `gata volui. — Seq. locus est
  Isai. 53, 2…`). The left block **overruns** by one.
- **p. 479** — the shared closing leaf. This chunk's single entry, n. 1, both prints and anchors on
  the right; the left block on this leaf carries only Collatio V's matter.

**Gutters, measured per page.** 473 = **1170** · 474 = **1393** · 475 = **1161** · 476 = **1398** ·
477 = **1180** · 478 = **1369** · 479 = **1181**.
★ **p. 473's is c3's measurement, carried over, and it is the mid-leaf display-heading failure the
previous chunk named:** `colcrop` returns 1170 on a **16 px** run because the `COLLATIO IV.` heading
sits inside the default 45–92 % window; profiling above and below the heading each returns a healthy
63–65 px band with the ink island at 1168–1173, so the value is right and only its run width was
nonsense.
★★ **p. 479 is the same structural case and it did NOT fail, which sharpens the rule.** Its
`COLLATIO V.` heading also stands mid-leaf, but higher — at about 22 % of the leaf, i.e. **above** the
default window rather than inside it — so `colcrop` measured 1180 on a healthy 60 px run untroubled,
and the skew screen's 96 px drift is entirely one slice (0.25) landing on that heading. Twenty of
twenty-four windows agreed at 1180–1182 and the band 1151–1211 (61 px) gives 1181. **So the
display-heading failure is not a property of a shared leaf as such — it is a property of a heading
that falls inside 45–92 %.** Where the heading falls above that window the default holds without
correction.
p. 475's default sat on a **53 px** run, under the 60 px floor, but the profile reproduced it: twenty-
four windows agreed at 1158–1164 and the band 1133–1189 (57 px) gives 1161, with an 11 px ink island
at 1157–1167 (peak 648). The narrow run was a heavily inked centre rule, not a bad measurement — the
same reading c3 gave p. 469. p. 476's default likewise sat on a 56 px run and the band 1371–1426
reproduced 1398.

**Digits settled against sense, not adopted from the raw. ⚠ TWO Quaracchi digits in this chunk are
wrong in the OCR, and both were caught only because they were re-read at 2.2×.**
- **p. 473 n. 6** — the raw gives `III. Senl. d. 33. q. 2`; the plate gives **`d. 35`**, which is what
  `bon-don-c3` forwarded. c3's hand-off was right and the raw was wrong. This matters beyond the
  entry: III Sent. d. 35 is the distinction on the gifts, and d. 33 is not.
- **p. 478 n. 7** — the raw gives `Psalm. 118, 123`; the plate gives **`Psalm. 118, 125`**, and the
  sense decides it independently, since Ps. 118, 125 is *Servus tuus sum ego; da mihi intellectum ut
  sciam testimonia tua,* which is the verse ¶ 23 quotes.
⚠ The eleven internal cross-references — p. 474 n. 1 (`supra pag. 365, nota 4`), n. 7 (`supra pag. 19,
nota 7`); p. 475 n. 2 (`supra pag. 344, nota 5`); p. 476 n. 5 (`supra pag. 309, nota 2` and `supra
pag. 345, nota 1`), n. 10 (`supra pag. 389, nota 6`); p. 477 n. 10 (`supra pag. 341, nota 7` and
`pag. 375, nota 2`); p. 478 n. 2 (`supra pag. 420, nota 9`), n. 5 (`supra pag. 471, nota 9`) — belong
to the Vol I cross-reference digit class: they are transcribed as printed and left to
`build-citations.py` to test, not adjusted. ⭐ p. 478 n. 5's `pag. 471, nota 9` points back into
`bon-don-c3`, so like c3's own p. 472 n. 8 it is a self-contained test of the resolver across a chunk
boundary.

**`Libr. <roman>. <ch>, <v>` — the genre trait fired twice more, exactly where c3 predicted.**
p. 474 n. 5 is `Libr. I. 2, 3.` (the Canticle of Anna, I Kings 2:3, the body naming its book aloud:
*in Cantico autem Annae dicitur in libro Regum*) and p. 478 n. 6 is `Libr. II. 6, 30.` (II Maccabees
6:30, the body again naming it: *in libro Machabaeorum*). Both are transcribed as printed and both
are caught by `scan_scripture_book_unnamed`'s barrier, so neither lets a following `ibid.` inherit
the previous note's book. **Five attestations now stand** (c2 p. 467 n. 5, c3 p. 472 n. 4 and p. 473
n. 5, and these two), which settles the shape as a trait of the reportatio rather than an accident.
Note the contrast on the same leaf as the first: p. 474 n. 8 is `Libr. III. Reg. 4, 33`, where the
book *is* named and the barrier correctly does not fire.

**Transmitted readings kept as printed, not normalised.** ¶ 2's *lumen infusum* in the division and
*lumen superinfusum* in its explanation are Quaracchi's own inconsistency within four lines and are
both kept; the English follows each. ¶ 13's *stabilitionem* is flagged by n. 7 as against codex A's
*stabilitationem,* and the body's form is kept in both places, as the note itself says it recurs.
¶ 12's `appretiatur se` is the edition's spelling for *appretiat* and stands. The Summarium prints
*multiplicitatem sensuum* where the body twice prints *multiformitatem sensuum;* both are kept as
printed and the English tracks each, since the Summarium is the editors' and the body is the
reportatio's.

**Marginalia** (trimmed from the body per the standing Vol V convention, listed here in body order):
p. 473 — Introductio.
p. 474 — Textus expositio · Duo antecedentia · Duo consequentia · Multiformis claritas · Quadruplex
claritas scientiae · Quo sensu sint dona Dei · Definitiones ipsarum · Pars I. De scientia
philosophica · Divisio trimembris philosophiae · Ita etiam Salomon.
p. 475 — Primam partem philosophiae habuit Salomon · Subdistinctio trimembris · Item, secundam ·
Subdistinctio trimembris · Item, tertiam · Subdistinctio trimembris · Vestigia Trinitatis in his ·
Periculum in his scientiis · Requiritur ulterius lumen · Non sufficit rationalis philosophia.
p. 476 — Nec moralis · Nec naturalis · Epilogus · Notanda sententia · Pars II. De scientia theologica ·
Fundatur in fide · Scriptura comparatur mari · Ratio 1 · Notandum · Ratio 2 · Ratio 3.
p. 477 — Scriptura stabilit Ecclesiam · Haec scientia necessaria episcopis · Exemplum · Confirmatur ·
Duplex modus repellendi scientiam · Simile · Increpatio contra scandalum · Notandum · Pars III. De
scientia gratuita · Vocatur scientia Sanctorum ob 3 rationes · Ratio 1 · Subdistinctio trimembris.
p. 478 — Ratio 2 · Tria vitia · Monitio · Ratio 3 · Triplex dolor · Primus · Secundus · Tertius ·
Haec scientia docet etiam modum sciendi · Iungenda scientiae caritas.
p. 479 — De quarta scientia.