title: Dist. 25, Dubia

source_text:
<!-- page 551 -->

# Dubia circa litteram Magistri

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Fides magna dicitur cognitione et articulorum quantitate, vel constantia et devotione.* Videtur enim primo hic esse superfluitas, quia magister Hugo[^p551-2] non ponit nisi duo, secundum quae attenditur profectus fidei, videlicet *cognitionem* et *affectionem*; Magister vero ponit hic quatuor: ergo videtur, quod ille sit diminutus, vel ipse superfluus. — Item, eadem fide, qua creditur unus articulus, creduntur et ceteri[^p551-3]: ergo non videtur, quod dicatur *magna* ab articulorum quantitate.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est ad hoc, quod fides dupliciter habet magnitudinem: unam per comparationem *ad obiectum*, et haec attenditur in articulorum quantitate, et vocatur hic articulorum *quantitas* ipsorum articulorum dignitas; articuli enim non sunt de quacumque veritate, sed de Veritate summa[^p551-4]. Et penes hoc *quantitas* fidei aequalis est secundum diversitatem temporum, aequalis est etiam secundum pluralitatem articulorum, quantum ad id quod est in eis *principale*, scilicet quantum ad ipsam primam Veritatem; quantum vero ad *connotatum* bene posset concedi, quod unus articulus est dignior alio, ut illi qui sunt de Divinitate, digniores sunt, quam illi qui sunt de humanitate[^p551-5].

Habet etiam magnitudinem per comparationem *ad subiectum*; et quia fides respicit subiectum secundum triplicem vim, videlicet secundum potentiam *intellectivam* et secundum potentiam *affectivam* et secundum potentiam *interpretativam*[^p551-6]; secundum hoc attenditur in fide *magnitudo* secundum triplicem modum, videlicet per comparationem ad *intellectivam* dicitur magna *cognitione*, per comparationem ad *affectivam* dicitur magna *devotione*, per comparationem ad *interpretativam* dicitur magna *constantia*. Tunc enim fides constans est, quando aliquis libere *confitetur* quod credit[^p551-7]. Et sic patet praedictorum quatuor numerus et sufficientia.

Aliter potest dici et magis secundum intentionem Magistri, quod cum fides respiciat *intellectum* et *affectum*, secundum quod supra[^p551-8] habitum est, magnitudo eius sumitur tam ex parte huius quam ex parte illius. A parte autem *intellectus* dupliciter potest attendi *maior magnitudo* in fide: aut quia *clarius* cognoscit ipsum creditum, aut quia cognoscit ipsum *in pluribus* sive distinctius. Primo modo dicitur fides magna *cognitione*; secundo, *articulorum quantitate*, quia articulos novit melius distinguere. — Similiter ex parte *affectus* dupliciter attenditur magnitudo: aut quia *firmius* adhaeret, aut quia *intensius*. Primo modo dicitur esse magna *constantia*, secundo modo dicitur magna *devotione*. Sic ista quatuor reducuntur ad illa duo, quae ponit magister Hugo. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta; patet etiam, quod non est aliqua contrarietas, nec est superfluitas[^p551-9].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quibusdam videtur, quod suffecerit illis quatuor tantum credere, scilicet nativitatem et mortem et resurrectionem et adventum ad iudicium.* Cum enim isti articuli ita bene essent ignoti, sicut alii; videtur, quod non magis tenerentur cognoscere istos quam alios. — Quaeritur ergo: quare magis debebant ista credere de Mediatore quam alia?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista quatuor principaliter debebat habere fides illorum, quibus innitebatur[^p551-10] tanquam magis opportuna. Nam primum quidem credebant tanquam ipsius *fidei* Mediatoris fundamentum, videlicet ipsam *nativitatem*. — Secundum vero, videlicet ipsam *passionem*, ut provocaret ad *amorem*. — Tertium vero, scilicet ipsam *resurrectionem*, ut sublevaret ad *spem*. — Quartum

<!-- page 552 -->

vero, scilicet *adventum ad iudicium*, ut gubernaret per *timorem*. Et quia omnibus erat necessarium ad salutem recte *credere*, *amare*, *sperare* et *timere*; ideo oportuit, aliquos[^p552-1] quatuor istos articulos credere explicite, ut alii qui innitebantur credendo implicite, salvari possent.

Vel aliter. Quia nullus poterat merito suo liberari a contagione vel obligatione peccati originalis, oportuit, quod crederent, se per meritum Christi posse salvari et per satisfactionem eius. In merito autem est ista[^p552-2] quatuor considerare, videlicet *personam* satisfacientis et *modum* satisfaciendi et eius *praemium* et *praemiandi modum*. Quantum ad *personam* satisfacientis, oportebat credere *nativitatem*; quantum ad *modum* satisfaciendi, oportebat credere *passionem*; quantum ad *praemium*, oportebat credere *resurrectionem*; quantum ad *modum*[^p552-3], oportebat credere *adventum ad iudicium*.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de Ioanne Baptista, quod *de morte Christi et descensu ad inferos dubitasse videtur.* Si enim *mori* et ad *inferos descendere* est articulus, et Ioannes de hoc dubitavit: ergo fuit infidelis. Sed constat, Ioannem non fuisse infidelem, cum Dominus laudet eum ibi, Matthaei undecimo[^p552-4]: ergo non dubitavit. — Item, Ioannes ei perhibuerat testimonium et aliis notum fecerat Christum: ergo non videtur, quod ipse dubitaverit, cum misit discipulos suos ad Christum. Et hoc est quod dicit Chrysostomus super undecimum[^p552-5] Matthaei: «Ioannes, qui a Spiritu sancto didicerat, quidquid audierat, qui ceteris praedicaverat, qui testimonium perhibuerat, qui columbam viderat, quare sic quaerit? Si ignorat, quomodo testis fuit Ioannes? Tu ante signa divulgaveras; modo post mortuos suscitatos, cum iam omnibus quasi notus est, nunquid tibi non notus? Absit». *Si tu dicas*, quod non dubitavit, sed ad modum dubitantis se habuit; *obiicitur* contra hoc auctoritate Ambrosii super Lucam[^p552-6], ubi sic ait: «Ioannes novit Dei Filium, sed non ipsum ad inferos descensurum». Item, Lucae septimo[^p552-7] in Glossa: «Poterat pius vates, quem venturum praedixerat, non moriturum credidisse». Hoc ipsum dicit Gregorius in quadam Homilia, et tangitur in littera.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sancti Doctores in hac quaestione dissentire videntur. Nam quidam videntur velle, ipsum *non dubitasse*; alii vero videntur velle dicere, ipsum *dubitasse*. Et ex hac ipsa contrarietate quidam haeretici sumserunt occasionem errandi, ut dicerent, Ioannem damnatum esse, quia in fine dubitavit in fide[^p552-8]. Sed certe ab hoc discordat textus evangelicus, in quo praecipue laudatur Ioannes; discordant etiam omnes doctores catholici, et etiam universalis Ecclesia, quae Ioannem non tantum *sanctum*, sed etiam *sanctissimum* praedicat et in eius nativitate et decollatione solemnizat[^p552-9]. — Ideo, licet sancti Doctores videantur sibi dissentire, idem tamen sentiunt secundum rem.

Propter quod intelligendum est, quod triplex est modus dubitandi. Est enim quaedam dubitatio proveniens ex *infidelitate*, sicut dubitaverunt Iudaei; et est dubitatio proveniens ex *tarditate*, sicut dubitaverunt discipuli, quibus dicitur Lucae ultimo[^p552-10]: *O stulti et tardi corde ad credendum*; et est dubitatio proveniens ex *pietate*, sicut aliquis ex

<!-- page 553 -->

passione magna et admiratione ad modum dubitantis se habet. — Dicendum est igitur, quod primo et secundo genere dubitationis Ioannes nullo modo dubitavit, dubitaverunt tamen discipuli eius; et sic intelligunt Sancti[^p553-1], qui dicunt, eum non dubitasse, sed dubitationi discipulorum consuluisse. Ideo enim eos misit ad Christum, ut videntes mirabilia, quae faciebat, converterentur ad ipsum. Si autem loquamur de *tertio* genere dubitationis, sic dixerunt alii Sancti, Ioannem dubitasse non dubitatione *vacillationis*, sed potius cuiusdam *admirationis* et *compassionis*, quae facit, hominem se habere ad modum dubitantis; Lucae septimo et Matthaei undecimo[^p553-2]: «Non *fide*, sed *pietate* dubitavit». Et sic patet, quod nulla est contrarietas inter auctoritates praemissas.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Fides, spes, caritas et operatio secundum aliquid aequalia sunt.* Sed *contra*: contingit, aliquam habere habitus virtutum et non operationem[^p553-3]: ergo videtur, quod operatio non aequetur ipsis habitibus. — Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^p553-4]: *Si habuero fidem, ita ut montes transferam, caritatem non habuero* etc.: ergo videtur, quod aliquis possit habere magnam fidem, ita quod nullam habeat caritatem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum breviter, quod illa quatuor aequalia sunt, secundum quod dicitur super illud Apocalypsis vigesimo primo[^p553-5], quod latera civitatis erant *aequalia*. Dicitur enim ibi, quod «latera civitatis sunt fides, spes, caritas et operatio». De modo autem aequalitatis ipsarum *virtutum* dicetur infra[^p553-6] planius, ubi est quaestio et sermo specialis. Ad praesens autem tantum dixisse sufficit, quod haec quatuor sunt aequalia secundum rationem *merendi*, quando sunt informata gratia. Tantum enim ipsa *caritas* est meritoria in suo actu, quantum et *fides*, in uno et eodem homine. Similiter tantum meretur *operatio* procedens ab habitu, quantum placet ipse habitus. Quia enim una est gratia gratum faciens, quae facit, animam Deo placere per habitus et operationes; hinc est, quod necesse est, ista quatuor esse aequalia secundum divinam[^p553-7] acceptionem, ac per hoc secundum efficaciam merendi.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod habitus possunt esse sine operibus; dicendum, quod non assignatur hic aequalitas habituum ad operationes in omnibus, sed in his qui habent habitus simul cum ipsis operationibus ab ipsis egredientibus. *Praeterea*, non intelligit de operibus[^p553-8] exterioribus, immo de operationibus interioribus, quae consistunt in motu et usu liberi arbitrii. Et ille quidem usus bonitatem habet iuxta mensuram habitus virtutis gratuitae; illa enim praecipue est, «quae habentem perficit et opus eius bonum reddit[^p553-9]». Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magna fides potest haberi sine caritate; dicendum, quod Apostolus ibi loquitur de fide *informi*; sed littera ista intelligi habet de fide *formata*. — Et ista sufficiant circa litteram; nam illa quae praemittuntur[^p553-10] de fide Cornelii, satis per se sunt plana.

english:
<!-- page 551 -->

# Doubts concerning the text of the Master

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: *Faith is called great by cognition and by the quantity of articles, or by constancy and devotion.* For first it seems that here there is superfluity, because master Hugh[^p551-2] sets down only two things according to which the progress of faith is regarded, namely *cognition* and *affection*; but the Master here sets down four: therefore it seems that either he is deficient, or the Master is superfluous. — Likewise, by the same faith by which one article is believed, the others also are believed[^p551-3]: therefore it does not seem that it should be called *great* from the quantity of articles.

**I respond:** It must be said to this that faith has greatness in two ways: one through comparison *to the object*, and this is regarded in the quantity of articles, and what is here called the *quantity* of articles is the dignity of the articles themselves; for articles are not about just any truth, but about the supreme Truth[^p551-4]. And in this respect the *quantity* of faith is equal according to the diversity of times, it is equal also according to the plurality of articles, as to that which is *principal* in them, namely as to the first Truth itself; but as to the *connoted* element it might well be granted that one article is more worthy than another, as those which are about the Divinity are more worthy than those which are about the humanity[^p551-5].

It has greatness also through comparison *to the subject*; and because faith regards the subject according to a threefold power, namely according to the *intellective* power and according to the *affective* power and according to the *interpretative* power[^p551-6]; according to this the *greatness* is regarded in faith according to a threefold mode, namely through comparison to the *intellective* it is called great by *cognition*, through comparison to the *affective* it is called great by *devotion*, through comparison to the *interpretative* it is called great by *constancy*. For then faith is constant, when one freely *confesses* what he believes[^p551-7]. And thus the number and sufficiency of the aforesaid four is clear.

It can otherwise be said, and more according to the intention of the Master, that since faith regards the *intellect* and the *affect*, according as was held above[^p551-8], its greatness is taken both on the part of the one and on the part of the other. But on the part of the *intellect* a *greater greatness* can be regarded in faith in two ways: either because it knows the thing believed *more clearly*, or because it knows it *in more things* or more distinctly. In the first way faith is called great by *cognition*; in the second, by the *quantity of articles*, because it knows how to distinguish the articles better. — Likewise on the part of the *affect* greatness is regarded in two ways: either because it adheres *more firmly*, or because *more intensely*. In the first way it is said to be great by *constancy*, in the second way it is called great by *devotion*. Thus these four are reduced to those two which master Hugh sets down. — And through this the response to the objections is clear; it is also clear that there is no contrariety, nor is there superfluity[^p551-9].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *To some it seems that it sufficed for them to believe only those four, namely the nativity and the death and the resurrection and the coming to judgment.* For since these articles were just as well unknown as the others, it seems that they were not bound to know these any more than the others. — It is asked therefore: why ought they rather to believe these concerning the Mediator than other things?

**I respond:** It must be said that the faith of those upon which it rested ought to have these four principally[^p551-10], as more opportune. For the first indeed they believed as the foundation of the very *faith* of the Mediator, namely the *nativity* itself. — The second indeed, namely the *passion* itself, that it might provoke to *love*. — The third indeed, namely the *resurrection* itself, that it might raise up to *hope*. — The fourth

<!-- page 552 -->

indeed, namely the *coming to judgment*, that it might govern through *fear*. And because it was necessary for all unto salvation rightly to *believe*, to *love*, to *hope*, and to *fear*; therefore it was fitting that some[^p552-1] should believe these four articles explicitly, so that others who relied upon them by believing implicitly might be saved.

Or otherwise. Because no one could by his own merit be freed from the contagion or obligation of original sin, it was fitting that they believe that they could be saved through the merit of Christ and through his satisfaction. But in the merit there are these[^p552-2] four to consider, namely the *person* of the one making satisfaction and the *manner* of making satisfaction and its *reward* and the *manner of rewarding*. As to the *person* of the one making satisfaction, it was fitting to believe the *nativity*; as to the *manner* of making satisfaction, it was fitting to believe the *passion*; as to the *reward*, it was fitting to believe the *resurrection*; as to the *manner*[^p552-3], it was fitting to believe the *coming to judgment*.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says concerning John the Baptist, that *he seems to have doubted concerning the death of Christ and his descent to the lower regions.* For if *to die* and *to descend to the lower regions* is an article, and John doubted about this: therefore he was unfaithful. But it is established that John was not unfaithful, since the Lord praises him there, in the eleventh chapter of Matthew[^p552-4]: therefore he did not doubt. — Likewise, John had borne testimony to him and had made Christ known to others: therefore it does not seem that he doubted, since he sent his disciples to Christ. And this is what Chrysostom says on the eleventh chapter[^p552-5] of Matthew: «John, who had learned from the Holy Spirit whatever he had heard, who had preached to the others, who had borne testimony, who had seen the dove, why does he ask thus? If he is ignorant, how was John a witness? You had divulged the signs beforehand; now after the dead have been raised, when he is already as it were known to all, is he not known to you? Far be it». *If you say* that he did not doubt, but bore himself after the manner of one doubting; *it is objected* against this by the authority of Ambrose on Luke[^p552-6], where he says thus: «John knew the Son of God, but not that he would descend to the lower regions». Likewise, in the seventh chapter of Luke[^p552-7] in the Gloss: «The pious seer could have believed that the one whom he had foretold would come would not die». Gregory says this same thing in a certain Homily, and it is touched on in the text.

**I respond:** It must be said that the holy Doctors seem to disagree in this question. For some seem to mean that he *did not doubt*; but others seem to mean to say that he *did doubt*. And from this very contrariety certain heretics took occasion to err, so as to say that John was damned, because in the end he doubted in faith[^p552-8]. But certainly the evangelical text disagrees with this, in which John is especially praised; all the catholic doctors also disagree, and even the universal Church, which proclaims John not only *holy*, but even *most holy*, and solemnizes both his nativity and his beheading[^p552-9]. — Therefore, although the holy Doctors seem to disagree among themselves, nevertheless they hold the same thing in reality.

On account of which it must be understood that there is a threefold mode of doubting. For there is a certain doubt arising from *unfaithfulness*, as the Jews doubted; and there is a doubt arising from *slowness*, as the disciples doubted, to whom it is said in the last chapter of Luke[^p552-10]: *O foolish and slow of heart to believe*; and there is a doubt arising from *piety*, as someone from

<!-- page 553 -->

great passion and admiration bears himself after the manner of one doubting. — It must be said therefore that by the first and second kind of doubting John in no way doubted, yet his disciples did doubt; and thus the Saints[^p553-1] understand it, who say that he did not doubt, but provided for the doubt of his disciples. For he sent them to Christ for this reason, that seeing the marvels which he was doing, they might be converted to him. But if we speak of the *third* kind of doubting, thus other Saints have said that John doubted, not with the doubt of *wavering*, but rather of a certain *admiration* and *compassion*, which makes a man bear himself after the manner of one doubting; in the seventh chapter of Luke and the eleventh of Matthew[^p553-2]: «He doubted not by *faith*, but by *piety*». And thus it is clear that there is no contrariety among the authorities adduced.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Faith, hope, charity, and work are in some respect equal.* But *on the contrary*: it happens that someone has the habits of the virtues and not the operation[^p553-3]: therefore it seems that the operation is not equal to the habits themselves. — Likewise, the thirteenth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians[^p553-4]: *If I should have faith, so as to move mountains, but have not charity* etc.: therefore it seems that someone can have great faith, such that he has no charity.

**I respond:** It must be said briefly that those four are equal, according to what is said upon that passage of the twenty-first chapter of the Apocalypse[^p553-5], that the sides of the city were *equal*. For it is said there that «the sides of the city are faith, hope, charity, and work». But concerning the manner of the equality of the *virtues* themselves it will be said more plainly below[^p553-6], where there is a special question and discourse. For the present it suffices to have said only this, that these four are equal according to the account of *meriting*, when they are informed by grace. For *charity* itself is meritorious in its act just as much as *faith*, in one and the same man. Likewise the *work* proceeding from a habit merits just as much as the habit itself pleases. For since there is one sanctifying grace, which makes the soul please God through the habits and operations; hence it is that these four must necessarily be equal according to the divine[^p553-7] acceptance, and through this according to the efficacy of meriting.

To that, therefore, which is objected, that habits can be without works; it must be said that here the equality of habits to operations is not assigned in all cases, but in those who have habits together with the operations themselves issuing from them. *Furthermore*, he does not understand it of exterior works[^p553-8], but rather of interior operations, which consist in the motion and use of free choice. And that use indeed has goodness according to the measure of the gratuitous habit of virtue; for it is especially this which «perfects its possessor and renders his work good[^p553-9]». To that which is objected, that great faith can be had without charity; it must be said that the Apostle there speaks of *unformed* faith; but this text must be understood of *formed* faith. — And let these things suffice concerning the text; for those things which are set forth before it[^p553-10] concerning the faith of Cornelius are plain enough of themselves.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 4. Vide supra a. 2. q. 3. in corp.

en: Book I of *On the Sacraments*, p. X, c. 4. See above, a. 2, q. 3, in the body.

la: Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 3.

la: Vide supra d. 24. a. 3. q. 2. — Paulo superius pro *hic articulorum quantitas* sola Vat. *haec articulorum quantitas*, refragantibus codd. et aliis edd.

en: See above, d. 24, a. 3, q. 2. — A little above, in place of *hic articulorum quantitas* the Vatican edition alone reads *haec articulorum quantitas*, against the codices and the other editions.

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Sive sermocinalem, vel loquendi. Cfr. opuscul. de Reductione artium ad theolog. — Subinde pro *secundum hoc* Vat. *secundum haec*; cod. aa *hoc modo attenditur etiam fidei magnitudo* etc.

en: Or the discursive [power], or [the power] of speaking. Cf. the little work *On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology.* — Thereupon, in place of *secundum hoc* the Vatican edition reads *secundum haec*; codex aa *in this manner the greatness of faith is also regarded* etc.

la: Rom. 10, 10: Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem.

en: Romans 10:10: For with the heart it is believed unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

la: Dist. 23. a. 1. q. 2. — Inferius post *secundo* cod. X repetit *modo.*

en: D. 23, a. 1, q. 2. — Below, after *secundo* codex X repeats *modo.*

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 3. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert. hic a. 5.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 3. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 5.

la: Cod. K *innitebantur.*

en: Codex K reads *innitebantur* [were resting].

la: In edd. desideratur *aliquos*, pro quo codd. A K posuerunt *omnes*; sed cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2, q. 3. ad 5.

en: In the editions *aliquos* [some] is wanting, for which codices A K have set *omnes* [all]; but cf. above, a. 1, q. 2, q. 3, to 5.

la: Edd. *In merito autem isto est quatuor.*

en: The editions read *In merito autem isto est quatuor* [But in this merit there are four].

la: Codd. U Z bb supplent *praemiandi.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra a. 1. q. 2; B. Albert. hic a. 6; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Codices U Z bb supply *praemiandi* [of rewarding]. — Cf. on this doubt above, a. 1, q. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vers. 11.

en: Verse 11.

la: Vers. 3. — Verba Chrysostomi, hic abbreviata, habentur in eius homil. 36. (alias 37.) super Matth. n. 1. — In omnibus fere codd. scriptum est (perperam) *super 11. Ioannis*; in edd. legitur *Augustinus super 11. Ioannis.* Cfr. August., Serm. 66. n. 3. seq.

en: Verse 3. — The words of Chrysostom, here abbreviated, are had in his homily 36 (alias 37) on Matthew, n. 1. — In almost all the codices it is written (wrongly) *on 11 of John*; in the editions is read *Augustine on 11 of John.* Cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 66, n. 3 f.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 2, haec verba Ambrosio non simpliciter tribuit, sed ea affert ut verba *Glossae*, ex Ambrosio delibata (« dicit Ambrosius *in Glossa* »). S. Bonav. in Comment. super Luc. 7, 19. ait: « Ambrosius vero vult, quod dubitaverit non ex infidelitate aut tarditate, ut discipuli, sed quadam pietate, sicut dicitur in Glossa ». Cui sententiae revera concordare videntur illa verba Ambrosii, V. in Luc. 7, 19. n. 93: « Non cadit igitur in talem prophetam tanti erroris suspicio. Itaque si intellectus simplicis forma compugnat, *spiritualem* quaeramus figuram. Et quia supra iam diximus (in Luc. c. 3.), in Ioanne typum esse Legis, quae praenuntia fuit Christi, recte Lex... plenum exitum testimonii dominicae dispensationis sine Evangelii nequit astipulatione perferre ». Quibus verbis idem Ambros. deinde n. 98. (unde Glossa *ordinaria*, quae paulo post affertur, sumta est) adiungit recensionem dictorum 11, 3. dicit: « Et est sensus: Manda mihi, quia interficiendus ab Herode et ad inferna descensurus sum, utrum te et in inferis debeam nuntiare, qui nuntiavi superis, an non conveniat Filio Dei, ut gustet mortem, et alium ad haec sacramenta missurus es ». Eadem verba habentur apud Hieronymum in Matth. 11, 3. Cfr. Gregor., I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 6. n. 1, et I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 1. n. 5.

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 69, m. 3, a. 2, does not attribute these words simply to Ambrose, but adduces them as words of the *Gloss*, drawn from Ambrose (« Ambrose says *in the Gloss* »). St. Bonaventure in his Commentary on Luke 7:19 says: « But Ambrose means that he doubted not from unfaithfulness or slowness, like the disciples, but from a certain piety, as is said in the Gloss ». With which judgment those words of Ambrose, V, on Luke 7:19, n. 93, indeed seem to agree: « There falls not, then, upon such a prophet the suspicion of so great an error. And so if the form of the simple understanding contends against it, let us seek the *spiritual* figure. And because we have already said above (on Luke c. 3) that in John there is a type of the Law, which was the forerunner of Christ, rightly the Law... cannot carry through the full issue of its testimony to the Lord's dispensation without the corroboration of the Gospel ». To which words the same Ambrose then, n. 98 (whence the *ordinary* Gloss, which is adduced a little after, is taken), adds a recension of the sayings of 11:3, saying: « And the sense is: Make known to me, since I am to be killed by Herod and am to descend to the lower regions, whether I ought to announce you also among those in the lower regions, I who have announced you to those above, or whether it does not befit the Son of God to taste death and to send another for these mysteries ». The same words are had in Jerome on Matthew 11:3. Cf. Gregory, I *Homilies on the Gospels*, homily 6, n. 1, and I *Homilies on Ezekiel*, homily 1, n. 5.

la: Vers. 19. — Glossa, ut iam in annotatione praecedenti observavimus, sumta est ex Ambros. in hunc loc. n. 98. dicente: Nonnulli etiam de ipso Ioanne sic intelligunt, magnum quidem ita prophetam, ut Christum agnosceret, annuntiaret remissionem peccatorum futuram, sed tamen non tanquam dubium, sed tanquam *pium* vatem, quem venturum crediderat, non credidisse moriturum. Non igitur fide, sed pietate dubitavit etc. — Pro *pius vates* edd. et multi codd. (alii sunt dubiae lectionis) *prius vates.* — De Gregor. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Verse 19. — The Gloss, as we have already observed in the preceding annotation, is taken from Ambrose on this passage, n. 98, who says: Some also understand it thus of John himself, that he was indeed so great a prophet that he recognized Christ and announced the future remission of sins, but yet not as one doubting, but as a *pious* seer, who believed that the one he had believed would come would not die. Therefore he doubted not by faith, but by piety, etc. — In place of *pius vates* the editions and many codices (others are of doubtful reading) read *prius vates.* — On Gregory see here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: B. Albert., hic a. 7: Ego puto, quod temeritas sit dicere, Ioannem dubitasse, et initium haeresis Manichaeorum, qui dicunt, eum dubitasse, et ideo eum esse damnatum. — Edd. omittunt *in fine.*

en: Blessed Albert, here a. 7: I think that it is rashness to say that John doubted, and the beginning of the heresy of the Manichaeans, who say that he doubted and was therefore damned. — The editions omit *in fine* [in the end].

la: Die 24. Iunii et 29. Augusti. — Mox post *sancti Doctores* edd. subdunt *catholici.*

en: On the 24th of June and the 29th of August. — Soon after *sancti Doctores* the editions add *catholici* [catholic].

la: Vers. 25. — Paulo inferius pro *sicut* edd. *sicut cum.*

en: Verse 25. — A little below, in place of *sicut* the editions read *sicut cum.*

la: Hilar., Comment. in Matth. c. 11. n. 2: Tali igitur Ioannes exemplo non suae, sed discipulorum ignorantiae consulit etc. Cfr. Chrysost. et August., locis supra citt., nec non Qq. ex Novo Testam. (inter opera August.) p. II. q. 10; Ambros., V. in Luc. n. 95. — Cod. V *intelligunt quidam Sancti.* Paulo inferius pro *mirabilia* codd. A K *miracula.*

en: Hilary, *Commentary on Matthew* c. 11, n. 2: By such an example, therefore, John provides not for his own ignorance, but for that of the disciples, etc. Cf. Chrysostom and Augustine, at the places cited above, and also *Questions on the New Testament* (among the works of Augustine), p. II, q. 10; Ambrose, V, on Luke, n. 95. — Codex V reads *intelligunt quidam Sancti.* A little below, in place of *mirabilia* codices A K read *miracula.*

la: Luc. 7, 19; Matth. 11, 3. — Glossam vide supra pag. 552, nota 7. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. ad 1; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. ad 5.

en: Luke 7:19; Matthew 11:3. — For the Gloss see above p. 552, note 7. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 69, m. 3, a. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 3, to 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, to 5.

la: Quod accidit e. gr. in parvulis baptizatis. Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 2. ad 5. et dub. 2. — Edd. 1, 2 cum bene multis codd. *operationum.*

en: Which happens, for example, in baptized infants. Cf. above, d. 23, a. 2, q. 2, to 5, and doubt 2. — Editions 1, 2 with very many codices read *operationum.*

la: Vers. 2.

en: Verse 2.

la: Vers. 16: Et civitas in quadro posita est, et longitudo eius tanta est, quanta et latitudo. — Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum: Quatuor latera, fides, spes, caritas, operatio, quae sunt aequalia; quia quantum quis credit, tantum sperat; quantum sperat, tantum diligit; quantum diligit, tantum operatur. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Verse 16: And the city is placed foursquare, and its length is as great as its breadth. — The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra: Four sides, faith, hope, charity, work, which are equal; because as much as one believes, so much he hopes; as much as he hopes, so much he loves; as much as he loves, so much he works. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Dist. 36. q. 5. — Mox pro *sufficit* codd. A K N Z *sufficiat.*

en: D. 36, q. 5. — Soon, in place of *sufficit* codices A K N Z read *sufficiat.*

la: Pro *divinam* edd. *dictam*, et paulo inferius *assimilatur* pro *assignatur*, et deinde *quae habent* pro *qui habent.*

en: In place of *divinam* the editions read *dictam*, and a little below *assimilatur* for *assignatur*, and then *quae habent* for *qui habent.*

la: Non pauci codd. atque edd. *operationibus*; mox pro *operationibus* complures codd. *operibus.*

en: Not a few codices and editions read *operationibus*; soon, in place of *operationibus* very many codices read *operibus.*

la: Est definitio virtutis data ab Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6. Cfr. supra pag. 470, nota 8. — De solut. seq. cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: This is the definition of virtue given by Aristotle, II *Ethics* c. 6. Cf. above p. 470, note 8. — On the following solution cf. above, d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 f.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 4. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 5, a. 2, sub-question 2.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 38308–38482) and collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF crops `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{551,552,553}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (PDF pp.573–575; `pdf = printed + 22`). The IA OCR is cascade-fragmented through the two-column Respondeo bands and every footer, so the PDF was authoritative for those regions; OCR was the base for clean running prose + marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation per the CLAUDE.md formula/terminology tables. `type: dubia`, so **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`).

**Dubia count — FOUR (Dub. I–IV), confirmed against PDF.** Hand-off forecast four; verified on the page. OCR garbled the markers (`DURIA CIRCA UTTERAM MACISTRl` = DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI; `Dim. I` = Dub. I; `dub. m.` = Dub. III; Dub. II/IV markers legible). Lemmas (each "quaeritur de hoc quod dicit…"):
- **Dub. I** (raw 38310, p.551): *Fides magna dicitur cognitione et articulorum quantitate, vel constantia et devotione* — whether the Master's four marks of faith's greatness are superfluous against Hugh of St. Victor's two (cognitio/affectio); resolved: greatness *ad obiectum* (articulorum quantitas) + *ad subiectum* (intellective/affective/interpretative, → cognitio/devotio/constantia), the four reducing to Hugh's two.
- **Dub. II** (raw 38341, p.551→552): *Quibusdam videtur, quod suffecerit illis quatuor tantum credere* (nativity, death, resurrection, coming to judgment) — why these four of the Mediator; the *fundamentum/amor/spes/timor* scheme + the *persona/modus/praemium/praemiandi modum* of the merit.
- **Dub. III** (raw 38402, p.552→553): *de Ioanne Baptista, quod de morte Christi et descensu ad inferos dubitasse videtur* — whether John doubted; the *triplex modus dubitandi* (infidelitas/tarditas/pietas); John doubted only by *admiratio/compassio*, not *vacillatio*.
- **Dub. IV** (raw 38465, p.553): *Fides, spes, caritas et operatio secundum aliquid aequalia sunt* — the *aequalitas* of faith, hope, charity, and work; equal *secundum rationem merendi* (Apoc. 21:16 four-square-city Gloss); the *fides informis/formata* reply.

**Page-split map (printed → content; per-page apparatus restart):**
- **p.551** — DUBIA header + Dub. I (full, both solutions) + Dub. II opener through Respondeo (breaks at "…Tertium vero, scilicet ipsam *resurrectionem*, ut sublevaret ad *spem*. — Quartum"). Footers `[^p551-2..10]` (9): a single per-page sequence nn.1–10 in which Art. II q.3 owns n.1 (already placed in a2-q3) and the DUBIA owns nn.2–10 (L-col footer nn.1–4, R-col footer nn.5–10).
- **p.552** — Dub. II close + Dub. III (full args + Respondeo through the *triplex modus dubitandi*, breaks at "…sicut aliquis ex"). Footers `[^p552-1..10]` (10): nn.1–5 L-col footer, nn.6–10 R-col footer.
- **p.553** — Dub. III close + Dub. IV (full), closing at "…satis per se sunt plana", then DISTINCTIO XXVI (Cap. I, *De spe*) begins lower R-col. Footers `[^p553-1..10]` (10): nn.1–5 L-col footer, nn.6–10 R-col footer; below n.10 the **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** block (d.26 littera n.1, *Haec et plura… ex Hugone a S. Vict.*) begins — that belongs to DISTINCTIO XXVI, NOT the dubia.

**Apparatus total = 29 entries** (p.551 nn.2–10 = 9; p.552 nn.1–10 = 10; p.553 nn.1–10 = 10). All walked page-by-page on the 450 dpi PDF footer bands.

**Footer ownership / migration.** Footers IN: p.551 **nn.2–10** (Art. II q.3 owns only p.551 n.1 [*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* redirect, already in a2-q3]; the DUBIA owns nn.2–10). ⚠ The p.550 n.7 WRAP (Hugh *Secundum incrementum fidei tria genera credentium inveniuntur… In primis sola pietas facit electionem etc. — Circa initium testimonii cum edd. recepimus diversa…*) prints at the TOP of the p.551 L footer band, BEFORE n.1 — verified it is **q.3's `[^p550-7]`**, NOT a dubia note, and is excluded here. Footers OUT: NONE — the dubia close at p.553 "satis per se sunt plana"; DISTINCTIO XXVI opens immediately after with its own footer restart (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM), which belongs to d.26.

**Seam (both ends) CLEAN.** Opens at `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (raw 38308), continuous from a2-q3's close (raw 38307, *…Et sic patet responsio ad propositam quaestionem¹*). Closes at "…satis per se sunt plana" (raw 38482) immediately before `DISTINCTIO XXVI` (raw 38483). The p.551 running head `DIST. XXV. DURIA.` (raw 38302) is a page-top running head, NOT the semantic boundary.

**★ With the dubia done, DISTINCTIO XXV is COMPLETE** (littera, divisio, a1-q1..q3, a2-q1..q3, dubia).

**Hand-off to d26-littera (next distinction).** `DISTINCTIO XXVI` header raw **38483**, opening with the **littera Cap. I *De spe, quid sit*** (Cap. I–V; Cap. II/III/IV/V at raw ~38515/38526/38544/38548). `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI` (subtitle *De spe*) at raw ~38558, `DIVISIO TEXTUS` ~38564, `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` ~38591; running head `DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` raw ~38583. **d.26 theme = *De spe* (On hope).** The littera Cap. I body begins "*Est autem spes virtus, qua spiritualia et aeterna bona sperantur, id est cum fiducia exspectantur…*". The p.553 R-col **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** n.1 (*Haec et plura, quae sequuntur, sumta sunt ex Hugone a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 1. c. 2.*) is d.26-littera's first footer (printed on the d.25-dubia page but owned by d.26).

**[?] flags: NONE.** All four dubia, bodies and footers, were legible at 450 dpi. Running heads OCR digit-mangled (`DURIA`=DUBIA, `DISTINCTLO`/`DISTINCTIO XXV`=running head; printed 551/552/553) — trusted via the +22 offset + running-head text per the Vol III override.

**Vestigial cleanup note (not deleted):** with this chunk done, the only remaining d.25 skeletons are the auto-chunked `-dup2` leftovers `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q1-dup2.md` and `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q3-dup2.md` — flagged for future vestigial cleanup; left untouched here.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 26

title_alt: Distinctio XXVI — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XXVI — text of the Master of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 553 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXVI.

### Cap. I. *De spe, quid sit.*

Est autem spes virtus, qua spiritualia et aeterna bona sperantur, id est cum fiducia exspectantur[^p553-1]. Est enim spes certa exspectatio futurae beatitudinis, veniens ex Dei gratia et ex meritis praecedentibus vel ipsam spem, quam natura praeit caritas, vel rem speratam, id est beatitudinem aeternam. Sine meritis enim aliquid sperare non spes, sed praesumtio dici potest.

<!-- page 554 -->

### Cap. II. *De quibus sit spes.*

Et sicut fides, ita et spes est de invisibilibus. Unde Augustinus[^p554-1]: «Fidem appellamus earum rerum, quae non videntur. De spe quoque dicitur: *Spes, quae videtur, non est spes. Quod enim videt quis, quid sperat»?* Quod attinet ad non videre vel quae creduntur, vel quae sperantur, fidei speique commune est.

### Cap. III. *Quo differant fides et spes.*

Distinguitur tamen fides a spe, sicut vocabulo, ita rationabili differentia. «Est enim fides malarum rerum et bonarum, quia et bona creduntur et mala, et hoc fide bona, non mala. Est etiam fides et praeteritarum rerum et praesentium et futurarum. Credimus enim mortem Christi, quae iam praeteriit; credimus sessionem, quae nunc est; credimus venturum ad iudicandum, quod futurum est. Item fides et suarum rerum est et alienarum. Nam et se quisque credit esse, coepisse nec fuisse utique sempiternum, et alia atque alia non modo de aliis hominibus multa, quae ad religionem pertinent, verum etiam de Angelis credimus. Spes autem non nisi bonarum rerum est nec nisi futurarum et ad eum pertinentium, qui earum spem gerere perhibetur[^p554-2]».

### Cap. IV. *Si in Christo fuit fides et spes.*

Post haec superest investigare, utrum fides et spes in Christo fuerint; unde tractatus iste sumsit exordium. Quibusdam non indocte videtur, fidem-virtutem et spem in eo non fuisse, sicut in Sanctis iam beatificatis vel in Angelis non sunt; et tamen Sancti credunt et sperant resurrectionem futuram, et Angeli eandem credunt; nec tamen in eis fides vel spes virtus est, quia et Deo per speciem contemplando fruuntur et in Dei Verbo resurrectionem futuram sive iudicium non per speculum in aenigmate[^p554-3], sed praeclarissime inspiciunt. Si enim, quia credunt resurrectionem futuram, ideo verum est, eos fidem habere: ergo ea consummata, post iudicium similiter et fidem habere dicentur, quia credent eam praeteritam. Sed sicut tunc credent, nec tamen fidem, quae fideles facit, habebunt — quia non credent absque scientia, quae non erit aenigmatica, sed per speciem — ita et modo credunt et sperant resurrectionem; nec tamen fidem habent, quia credendo cognoscunt. Venit enim eis quod perfectum est, et evacuatum est quod ex parte est; venit enim cognitio, et evacuata est fides; venit species, et desiit spes. Ita et Christus, in quo fuerunt bona patriae, credidit quidem et speravit resurrectionem tertia die futuram, pro qua et Patrem oravit; nec tamen fidem-virtutem vel spem habuit, quia non aenigmaticam et specularem, sed clarissimam de ea cognitionem habuit, quia non perfectius eam cognovit praeteritam, quam intellexit futuram. Speravit tamen Christus, sicut in Psalmo[^p554-4] ait: *In te, Domine, speravi;* nec tamen fidem vel spem-virtutem habuit, quia per speciem videbat ea quae credebat.

### Cap. V. *Si iusti in inferno fidem et spem habuerunt.*

De antiquis vero Patribus, qui apud inferos usque ad passionem tenebantur, non incongrue dici potest, quod fidem et spem-virtutem habuerint, quia credebant et sperabant, se visuros Deum per speciem, qualiter eum tunc non videbant; quia non patuit eis cognitio Dei per speciem ante passionem Christi, qua consummata, a fide transierunt ad speciem.

---

english:
### Cap. I. *On hope, what it is.*

Now hope is a virtue by which spiritual and eternal goods are hoped for, that is, awaited with confidence[^p553-1]. For hope is a certain expectation of future beatitude, coming from the grace of God and from merits preceding either the hope itself, which charity by nature goes before, or the thing hoped for, that is, eternal beatitude. For to hope for something without merits cannot be called hope, but presumption.

### Cap. II. *Concerning what things hope is.*

And just as faith, so also hope is concerning things invisible. Hence Augustine[^p554-1]: «We call faith of those things which are not seen. Concerning hope also it is said: *Hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for»?* As to not-seeing, whether of things believed or of things hoped for, it is common to faith and to hope.

### Cap. III. *How faith and hope differ.*

Yet faith is distinguished from hope, as by word, so by a reasonable difference. «For faith is of evil things and of good, since both good things are believed and evil, and this by a good faith, not an evil one. There is also faith of past things and of present and of future. For we believe the death of Christ, which has already passed; we believe the session, which now is; we believe that he will come to judge, which is future. Likewise faith is both of one's own things and of another's. For each one believes himself to be, to have begun and not to have been at all everlasting, and we believe many different things, not only about other men, which pertain to religion, but also about the Angels. But hope is only of good things, and only of future things and of those pertaining to him who is said to bear hope of them[^p554-2]».

### Cap. IV. *Whether in Christ there was faith and hope.*

After these things it remains to investigate whether faith and hope were in Christ; whence this treatise took its beginning. To some it seems not unlearnedly that faith-as-virtue and hope were not in him, just as they are not in the Saints already beatified or in the Angels; and yet the Saints believe and hope for the future resurrection, and the Angels believe the same; nor yet in them is faith or hope a virtue, because they both enjoy God by contemplating him through vision, and behold the future resurrection or judgment in the Word of God not through a glass in a dark manner[^p554-3], but most clearly. For if, because they believe the future resurrection, it is therefore true that they have faith: then, that resurrection being consummated, after the judgment they will likewise be said to have faith also, because they will believe it past. But just as then they will believe, nor yet have the faith which makes the faithful — because they will not believe without knowledge, which will not be enigmatic, but through vision — so also now they believe and hope for the resurrection; nor yet do they have faith, because by believing they know. For there comes to them that which is perfect, and that which is in part is done away; for knowledge comes, and faith is done away; vision comes, and hope ceases. So also Christ, in whom were the goods of the fatherland, did indeed believe and hope for the resurrection that would be on the third day, for which he also prayed to the Father; nor yet did he have faith-as-virtue or hope, because he had not an enigmatic and mirror-like, but a most clear knowledge of it, since he did not know it more perfectly as past than he understood it as future. Yet Christ hoped, as he says in the Psalm[^p554-4]: *In thee, O Lord, have I hoped;* nor yet did he have faith or hope-as-virtue, because through vision he saw the things which he believed.

### Cap. V. *Whether the just in hell had faith and hope.*

But concerning the ancient Fathers, who were held among those below until the passion, it can not incongruously be said that they had faith and hope-as-virtue, because they believed and hoped that they would see God through vision, in the manner in which they did not then see him; because the knowledge of God through vision did not lie open to them before the passion of Christ, which being consummated, they passed over from faith to vision.

---

la: Haec et plura, quae sequuntur, sumta sunt ex Hugone a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 1. c. 2.

en: These and several more things, which follow, are taken from Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum*, tract 1, c. 2.

la: Enchirid. c. 8. n. 2, ubi citatur Rom. 8, 24. — Pro *quid sperat* cod. D (et etiam Erf.) *quomodo sperat.*

en: *Enchiridion*, c. 8, n. 2, where Rom. 8:24 is cited. — For *quid sperat* (why doth he hope) codex D (and also Erfurt) has *quomodo sperat* (how doth he hope).

la: Haec verbotenus apud Haymonem, II. de Varietate librorum, c. 16, qui hoc sumsit ex August., Enchirid. c. 8. (sententialiter). Respicitur I. Cor. 13, 12. — Pro *habere dicentur* codd. C D *habere dicuntur*, quam lectionem notat etiam Erf. — Inferius respicitur I. Cor. 13, 10.

en: These words are verbatim in Haymo, Book II *On the Variety of Books*, c. 16, who took this from Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 8 (in substance). 1 Cor. 13:12 is referred to. — For *habere dicentur* (will be said to have) codices C and D have *habere dicuntur* (are said to have), which reading Erfurt also notes. — Below, 1 Cor. 13:10 is referred to.

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 13, 12.

en: 1 Cor. 13:12 is referred to.

en: Psalm 30:1.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Lombard's text (*littera Magistri*) for Distinctio XXVI (*De spe* — On hope), re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{553,554}-{L,R}-*.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 38483–38557) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The OCR for this distinction is two-column interleaved and the footers cascade; the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout, per the Vol II/III override (offset pdf = printed + 22). `type: littera`, **`has_scholion: false`** — the littera carries no scholion; its apparatus is the editorial *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM*. The outer-margin tags (`Dubium 1.`–`Dubium 6.`, `Haymo.`) printed beside the body are editorial cross-reference marginalia keyed to the Bonaventure dubia, not Lombard's text, and are omitted from the body.

**Cap. count + incipits (FIVE chapters, confirmed eyes-on):**
- **Cap. I** (p.553-L bottom → R) — *De spe, quid sit.* (opener *Est autem spes virtus, qua spiritualia et aeterna bona sperantur, id est cum fiducia exspectantur…*)
- **Cap. II** (p.554-L top) — *De quibus sit spes.* (opener *Et sicut fides, ita et spes est de invisibilibus. Unde Augustinus…*)
- **Cap. III** (p.554-L) — *Quo differant fides et spes.* (opener *Distinguitur tamen fides a spe, sicut vocabulo, ita rationabili differentia…*)
- **Cap. IV** (p.554-L bottom → R) — *Si in Christo fuit fides et spes.* (opener *Post haec superest investigare, utrum fides et spes in Christo fuerint…*)
- **Cap. V** (p.554-R) — *Si iusti in inferno fidem et spem habuerunt.* (opener *De antiquis vero Patribus, qui apud inferos usque ad passionem tenebantur…*)

**Reading-order note (two-column interleave).** On p.553 the DISTINCTIO XXVI head spans both columns, beneath the d25-dubia (DUB. IV) tail; Cap. I opens in the L-column bottom (*Est autem spes virtus… exspectantur¹. Est*) and continues at the top of the R-column (*enim spes certa exspectatio futurae beatitudinis… praesumtio dici potest.*). On p.554, Cap. II–IV-opener fill the L-column; Cap. IV's body continues across the top of the R-column, where Cap. V also begins; after Cap. V's close the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI begins (spanning both columns at the foot of p.554 — the next chunk, d26-divisio). True reading order was reconstructed from the column bands, not raw-line order (the raw OCR splices the two columns line-for-line).

**Page-split map.** Littera spans **printed pp.553–554** (PDF 575–576). p.553: DISTINCTIO XXVI head + Cap. I (the littera begins lower on p.553, immediately after the d25-dubia close *…nam illa quae praemittuntur de fide Cornelii, satis per se sunt plana.* in the R-column). **Page break p.553→554** falls between Cap. I (which closes on p.553-R *…praesumtio dici potest.*) and Cap. II (*Et sicut fides…* atop p.554-L). p.554: Cap. II + Cap. III + Cap. IV + Cap. V, ending *…a fide transierunt ad speciem.* (raw 38557); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI` begins at raw 38558 (the next chunk, d26-divisio). The p.554 running head OCR-mangles `554`→`354`; trusted via the +22 offset + running-head text `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III`.

**Apparatus (5 entries), NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, per-page restart:**
- **p.553** → n.1 only (the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* header appears at the bottom of p.553's R-column, beneath the d25-dubia *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* nn.1–10): n.1 (Cap. I, *exspectantur* — Hugh of St. Victor provenance note).
- **p.554** → nn. 1–4 (continues the NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM block — no new header — restarting at n.1): n.1 (Cap. II, *Augustinus* — Enchirid. c. 8, Rom. 8:24), n.2 (Cap. III, *perhibetur* — Haymo / Augustine Enchirid., 1 Cor. 13:12), n.3 (Cap. IV, *aenigmate* — 1 Cor. 13:12), n.4 (Cap. IV, *Psalmo* — Psalm 30:1). A SEPARATE *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* block (n.1 = *Pro definitione…*) begins immediately below n.4 on p.554 — that footer belongs to the COMMENTARIUS (d26-divisio), NOT this littera.

**Footer ownership.**
- **Footers IN:** the p.553 R-column *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* n.1 + the p.554 *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* nn.1–4 migrate IN to this littera chunk.
- **Footers OUT / NOT MINE:** the p.553 L-column + R-column *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* nn.1–10 (content: Hilar. Comment. in Matth.; *Apocalypsis vigesimo primo… quatuor latera*; *Dist. 36. q. 5*; Aristot. II. Ethic. definitio virtutis; etc.) are the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* of the **d25 dubia block (DONE — d25-dubia)**, owning ALL p.551–553 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM. On p.554 the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footer (n.1 *Pro definitione…*) is a SEPARATE block for the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI (the next chunk, d26-divisio); do not touch it.

**Seam status.** CLEAN at both ends.
- **Open seam:** continuous after the d25-dubia close *…nam illa quae praemittuntur¹⁰ de fide Cornelii, satis per se sunt plana.* (p.553 R-col, raw 38480) → DISTINCTIO XXVI / Cap. I opens at raw 38483.
- **Close seam:** Cap. V ends *…a fide transierunt ad speciem.* (raw 38557); the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI` (subtitle *De spe*; raw 38558) is the next chunk (d26-divisio). The COMMENTARIUS opener (*Est autem spes virtus etc.* → DIVISIO TEXTUS *In praecedentibus determinavit Magister de prima virtutum theologicarum…*) is a fresh COMMENTARIUS head, not a continuation of Cap. V — seam clean.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All five chapter rubrics, all incipits, and all 5 footers were read eyes-on from the 450 dpi bands without ambiguity.

**HAND-OFF TO d26-divisio (forwarded):** the next chunk is **bon-sent-III-d26-divisio** — `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI` (subtitle *De spe*; incipit echo *Est autem spes virtus etc.*) + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` + `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM`. `type: divisio`, OMIT `articulus`/`quaestio`, **`has_scholion: false`**, apparatus = `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`. **Raw anchors:** COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI header at raw **38558**; DIVISIO TEXTUS at raw **38564** (`In praecedentibus determinavit Magister de prima virtutum theologicarum, videlicet de fide. In hac parte intendit agere de secunda, videlicet de spe. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas partes…`); the running head `DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` at raw ~**38583**; TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM at raw ~**38591**. **Page span:** the COMMENTARIUS begins at the FOOT of printed **p.554** (PDF 576, spanning both columns beneath Cap. V) and runs onto p.555+. pdf = printed + 22. **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** footer block: header at the bottom of p.554's R-column (`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`), **n.1** = *Pro definitione, quod edd. omittunt, codd. A K definitive. Mox pro relatam cod. Z relativam.* (the DIVISIO TEXTUS variant note, at *definitione¹* / *relatam*); more NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM on p.555. **d.26 ARTICLE/QUESTION STRUCTURE:** read it from the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (raw ~38591 onward) eyes-on — the DIVISIO TEXTUS at raw 38564 sub-divides the part into two (*Prima pars… considerationem absolutam, ostendens quid ipsa sit definitione; In secunda vero determinat de ipsa secundum considerationem relatam, ibi: Et sicut fides, ita et spes etc.*), and the Prima pars further into two *secundum duas notificationes*. Use `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-divisio.md` as the structural template for the divisio chunk.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 26, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XXVI — Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XXVI — Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 554 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI.
*De spe.*

*Est autem spes virtus etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

In praecedentibus determinavit Magister de prima virtutum theologicarum, videlicet de fide. In hac parte intendit agere de secunda, videlicet de spe. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas partes. In quarum prima determinat Magister de ipsa spe secundum considerationem absolutam, ostendens, quid ipsa sit definitione[^p554-1]. In secunda vero determinat de ipsa secundum considerationem relatam, ibi: *Et sicut fides, ita et spes etc.*

Prima pars posset dividi in duas secundum duas notificationes, quas ponit. Prima ponitur ibi: *Est autem spes virtus*; secunda ibi: *Est enim spes certa exspectatio etc.*

<!-- page 555 -->

Secunda vero pars principalis dividitur in partes duas. In quarum prima determinat de ipsa spe per comparationem ad alterius virtutis habitum. In secunda determinat de ipsa in comparatione ad proprium subiectum, ibi: *Post haec superest investigare etc.* In prima parte duo facit. Primo comparat spem ad ipsam fidem secundum convenientiam, secundo vero secundum differentiam, ibi: *Distinguitur tamen fides a spe.* Similiter et in parte reliqua duo facit. Primo inquirit, utrum spes et fides[^p555-1] fuerit in Christo. Secundo inquirit, utrum fuerit in illis Patribus, qui fuerunt in limbo, ibi: *De antiquis vero Patribus, qui apud inferos etc.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de virtute spei. Et circa ipsius inquisitionem dupliciter procedendum est secundum processum ipsius Magistri.

Primo enim quaeritur de ipsa spe secundum considerationem absolutam.

Secundo quaeritur de eadem secundum considerationem relatam.

Circa primum quaeruntur quinque.

Primo quaeritur, utrum spes sit virtus gratuita.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum spes sit virtutis genus, an species specialissima.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum spes sit virtus cardinalis, an theologica.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum aliquando sit virtus informis, an semper formata.

Quinto quaeritur, utrum in actu suo sit certitudinalis, an dubia.

### ARTICULUS

*De spe secundum considerationem absolutam.*

english:
<!-- page 554 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXVI.
*On hope.*

*"Now hope is a virtue, etc."*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

In the foregoing the Master determined concerning the first of the theological virtues, namely faith. In this part he intends to treat of the second, namely hope. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master determines concerning hope itself according to its absolute consideration, showing what it is by definition[^p554-1]. But in the second he determines concerning it according to its relative consideration, there: *And as faith, so also hope, etc.*

The first part could be divided into two according to the two descriptions which he sets down. The first is set down there: *Now hope is a virtue*; the second there: *For hope is a certain expectation, etc.*

<!-- page 555 -->

But the second principal part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning hope itself by comparison to the disposition of another virtue. In the second he determines concerning it in comparison to its proper subject, there: *After these things it remains to investigate, etc.* In the first part he does two things. First he compares hope to faith itself according to their agreement, but second according to their difference, there: *Yet faith is distinguished from hope.* Likewise in the remaining part also he does two things. First he inquires whether hope and faith[^p555-1] were in Christ. Second he inquires whether they were in those Fathers who were in limbo, there: *But concerning the ancient Fathers, who were among those below, etc.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part a question here falls concerning the virtue of hope. And concerning the inquiry into it one must proceed in two ways, according to the procedure of the Master himself.

For first it is asked concerning hope itself according to its absolute consideration.

Second it is asked concerning the same according to its relative consideration.

Concerning the first five points are asked.

First it is asked whether hope is a gratuitous virtue.

Second it is asked whether hope is a genus of virtue, or a most special species.

Third it is asked whether hope is a cardinal virtue, or a theological one.

Fourth it is asked whether it is sometimes an unformed virtue, or always formed.

Fifth it is asked whether in its act it is certain, or doubtful.

### ARTICLE

*On hope according to its absolute consideration.*

la: Pro *definitione*, quod edd. omittunt, codd. AK *definitive*. Mox pro *relatam* cod. Z *relativam*.

en: In place of *definitione* ("by definition"), which the editions omit, codices AK read *definitive* ("definitively"). Shortly after, in place of *relatam* ("relative"), codex Z reads *relativam* ("relative," another form).

la: In plurimis codd. desunt verba *et fides*, in cod. bb verba *spes et*.

en: In most codices the words *et fides* ("and faith") are absent; in codex bb the words *spes et* ("hope and") are absent.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.554 (PDF 576) and p.555 (PDF 577), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 38558–38607) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Vol III OCR for this distinction is two-column interleaved and the footers cascade; the column-band PDF read is authoritative throughout, per the Vol II/III override. Offset **pdf = printed + 22**. `type: divisio`, **`has_scholion: false`** — divisio chunks carry no scholion. The chunk holds the COMMENTARIUS opener (*De spe* / *Est autem spes virtus etc.*) + **DIVISIO TEXTUS** + **TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM** (the listing of the five questions) + the short **ARTICULUS** opener/subtitle. It STOPS at **QUAESTIO I** (*Utrum spes sit virtus gratuita* / *Circa primum sic proceditur…*), which opens the next chunk (`d26-a1-q1`), per the Vol II/III convention that a short ARTICULUS opener folds into its q1.

**Page span.** The COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI begins at the FOOT of printed **p.554** (PDF 576), spanning both columns beneath the littera's Cap. V; the DIVISIO TEXTUS opens there (*In praecedentibus determinavit Magister…*) and continues into the R-column (*…dividitur in par-*). The page break **p.554→555** falls mid-word at *par-* | *-tes duas* (the running head `DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` sits at the top of p.555). The remainder of the DIVISIO TEXTUS, the full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the five questions), and the ARTICULUS opener/subtitle all sit on **p.555** (PDF 577). Span = **printed pp.554–555 (PDF 576–577)**. Page break placed at the *…notificationes… secunda ibi: Est enim spes certa exspectatio etc.* / *Secunda vero pars principalis…* paragraph seam (the last fully-on-p.554 sentence vs. the first p.555 sentence; the mid-word *par-/-tes duas* split is normalized to the nearest paragraph boundary for clean rendering).

**d.26 question-plan — confirmed (ONE article of FIVE questions for the absolute consideration).** Per the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.555): hope is treated in two ways — **(A)** *secundum considerationem absolutam* (absolute consideration) and **(B)** *secundum considerationem relatam* (relative consideration). Under (A) "Circa primum quaeruntur quinque" — there are **five questions** (ARTICULUS, *De spe secundum considerationem absolutam*):
- **a1-q1** — *Utrum spes sit virtus gratuita* (whether hope is a gratuitous virtue).
- **a1-q2** — *Utrum spes sit virtutis genus, an species specialissima* (genus of virtue, or most special species).
- **a1-q3** — *Utrum spes sit virtus cardinalis, an theologica* (cardinal, or theological).
- **a1-q4** — *Utrum aliquando sit virtus informis, an semper formata* (sometimes unformed, or always formed).
- **a1-q5** — *Utrum in actu suo sit certitudinalis, an dubia* (in its act certain, or doubtful).

Part (B) *secundum considerationem relatam* forms the later article(s)/question(s) of d.26 (the comparison of hope to faith, and the Christ / Fathers-in-limbo material the DIVISIO subdivides). The DIVISIO's "Secunda vero pars principalis dividitur in partes duas… Primo inquirit, utrum spes et fides fuerit in Christo. Secundo inquirit, utrum fuerit in illis Patribus, qui fuerunt in limbo" maps to those downstream questions.

**Page-split map.** p.554: COMMENTARIUS opener (*De spe* / *Est autem spes virtus etc.*) + DIVISIO TEXTUS opening (through *…secunda ibi: Est enim spes certa exspectatio etc.*) + the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1 footer (*Pro definitione…*, anchored *definitione¹*). p.555: remainder of the DIVISIO TEXTUS (*Secunda vero pars principalis… apud inferos etc.*) + full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the five questions) + ARTICULUS opener/subtitle; its footer band carries NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1 (*In plurimis codd. desunt verba et fides…*, anchored to the DIVISIO's *spes et fides¹*) — IN to this chunk — plus nn.2–6, which anchor to the QUAESTIO I argument body and are OUT (→ `d26-a1-q1`).

**Apparatus (2 entries), NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart:**
- **p.554** → n.1: *Pro definitione, quod edd. omittunt, codd. AK definitive. Mox pro relatam cod. Z relativam.* — textual-variant note on the DIVISIO body word *definitione* (and *relatam*). Rendered `[^p554-1]`.
- **p.555** → n.1: *In plurimis codd. desunt verba et fides, in cod. bb verba spes et.* — textual-variant note on the DIVISIO body words *spes et fides* (the subdivision *Primo inquirit, utrum spes et fides fuerit in Christo*). Rendered `[^p555-1]`. Per-page restart; both numbered 1.

**Footers IN.** The p.554 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1 (*Pro definitione…*) and the p.555 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1 (*In plurimis codd…*) — both textual-variant notes anchored to the DIVISIO body.

**Footers OUT / NOT MINE.**
- The p.554 *Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum* nn.1–4 (and the asterisk note *Psalm. 30, 1.*) belong to the **littera** (`d26-littera`) — already carried there.
- The p.555 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM **nn.2–6** belong to **`d26-a1-q1`**: n.2 (*Vers. 24* — Rom. 8:24, q1 fundamentum 1 *Spe salvi facti sumus*), n.3 (*Psalm. 146, 11* — q1 fund. 2 *Beneplacitum est Domino super timentes eum*), n.4 (*Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1*), n.5 (*Epist. 1. Cor. 2, 9 … De fide vide supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 1* — q1 fund. 4 *quod nec oculus vidit…*), n.6 (*Vide 1. Rhetor. c. 20 … I. Ethic. c. 8 … II. c. 3-6 … de Virtutibus* — q1 fund. 5 *secundum quod vult Philosophus*). These anchor to the QUAESTIO I argument body, which is OUT of this chunk.

**Seam status — CLEAN both ends.**
- *Open:* the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXVI (subtitle *De spe*; incipit *Est autem spes virtus etc.*; raw 38558) is a fresh COMMENTARIUS head following the littera Cap. V close (*…a fide transierunt ad speciem.*, raw 38557) — not a continuation of the littera.
- *Close:* the divisio ends at the ARTICULUS opener/subtitle (*De spe secundum considerationem absolutam*); the QUAESTIO I header (*Utrum spes sit virtus gratuita*) and body (*Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum spes sit virtus gratuita. Et quod sic, videtur.*) open `d26-a1-q1`.

**`[?]` flags.** None — pp.554/555 fully legible at 450 dpi; the COMMENTARIUS opener, both columns of the DIVISIO TEXTUS, the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (all five questions), the ARTICULUS subtitle, and both NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1 entries read cleanly. (Running heads OCR digit-mangled — `DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` / `555`→`333` — trusted via +22 offset + running-head text.)

**Hand-off forwarded.** Next = **bon-sent-III-d26-a1-q1** (ARTICULUS, QUAESTIO I — *Utrum spes sit virtus gratuita*, "Whether hope is a gratuitous virtue"; the first of the five questions of the absolute consideration in the TRACTATIO list). The short ARTICULUS opener (header + subtitle *De spe secundum considerationem absolutam*) folds into q1 per convention. **Raw start:** QUAESTIO I header at raw ~38609; body opener *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum spes sit virtus gratuita. Et quod sic, videtur.* immediately following. **Page span:** begins at the foot of printed **p.555** (PDF 577, R-column, beneath the ARTICULUS subtitle) and runs onto p.556+. pdf = printed + 22. **Primo/Secundo alignment:** q1 = *Primo quaeritur, utrum spes sit virtus gratuita* — verify the opener reads *gratuita*, not the q2 *genus/species* question. **Shared-footer note:** the p.555 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM **nn.2–6** are q1's first footers (n.2 Rom. 8:24, n.3 Psalm 146:11, n.4 lit. Magistri c.1, n.5 1 Cor. 2:9, n.6 Aristot. Rhetor./Ethic.); the p.555 **n.1** (*et fides*) was already consumed by this divisio — start q1's apparatus at p.555 n.2. See `next-session-resume.md`.

**Scholion.** None — divisio chunks carry no scholion (`has_scholion: false`).