title: Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 545 -->

### Articulus II. *De profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum.*

Consequenter quaeritur de profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem; Secundo, utrum creverit quantum ad luminis plenitudinem; Tertio quaeritur, utrum profecerit quantum ad cognitionis[^p545-5] certitudinem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum fides creverit vel profecerit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Exodi sexto[^p545-6]: *Nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis*; igitur ex hoc textu patet, quod aliquid cognoverunt Patres sequentes, quod non cognoverunt praecedentes, quia revelavit Dominus Moysi, quod non revelavit Patribus: ergo videtur, quod fides nostra aliquid cognoscat nunc, quod fides Patrum non cognoscebat: crevit igitur fides quoad credibilia.

2. Item, sicut Lex evangelica se habet ad Legem Mosaicam quantum ad *moralia*, sic fides Legis novae ad fidem veteris Legis quantum ad *credibilia*; sed Evangelium super Legem veterem addit multa consilia[^p545-7]: ergo videtur, quod fides Legis novae se extendat ad plura credibilia quam fides Legis veteris.

3. Item, incarnatio Christi, passio, resurrectio et ascensio et huiusmodi proponuntur omnibus credenda, qui sunt in nova Lege; sed haec non proponebantur illis qui erant in Lege Mosaica[^p545-8]: ergo etc.

4. Item, aliquid cognovit Ecclesia post adventum Christi, quod latebat Angelos, ergo multo fortius cognoscit aliquid et credit, quod latebat homines puros: videtur ergo, quod fides creverit quantum ad ea quae per ipsam creduntur et cognoscuntur. *Primo* manifestatur per hoc quod dicitur ad Ephesios tertio[^p545-9]: *Ut innotescat Potestatibus et Principatibus per Ecclesiam multiformis sapientia Dei.*

**Sed contra:** *Ad oppositum.* 1. Tota fides christiana continetur in Lege nova, et tota Lex nova continetur in veteri, quia rota est in rota, secundum quod dicitur Ezechielis primo[^p545-10]: si ergo fides primorum Patrum prae-

<!-- page 546 -->

cedentium adventum Christi claudebat in se, quidquid erat Legis veteris, claudebat et per consequens, quidquid erat Legis novae: videtur ergo, quod fides secundum tempora diversa non creverit quantum ad credibilia.

2. Item, mutato obiecto, mutatur habitus: ergo si fides secundum diversa tempora haberet aliquod obiectum novum, videlicet si aliquid crederet, quod prius non credidisset, secundum diversa tempora mutata esset; sed «fides secundum diversa tempora non est mutata», secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^p546-1], et habetur in littera: ergo videtur, quod non profecit quantum ad credibilia.

3. Item, omne quod est verum *modo* de praeterito, *aliquando* fuit verum de futuro: ergo sicut *modo* verum est, Christum esse incarnatum, natum et passum; ita verum erat in *praeterito*, Christum esse incarnandum, nasciturum et passurum; et qua ratione nunc est credibile de praeterito, eadem ratione erat tunc credibile de futuro: ergo non videtur, quod creverit fides quantum ad numerum credibilium[^p546-2].

4. Item, quamvis caritas profecerit aliquo modo secundum intensionem et fervorem, non tamen profecit quantum ad diligendorum multitudinem — tot enim fuerunt diligibilia in veteri Lege, quot et in nova[^p546-3] — ergo consimili ratione videtur et circa fidem et credibilia, quod etiam proficiente fide, credibilia propter hoc non sint multiplicata.

### Conclusio.

> Fides processu temporis profecit, non quidem novorum articulorum additione, sed implicitorum explicatione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod credibilia multiplicari dupliciter potest intelligi: vel quantum ad *novorum articulorum additionem*, vel quantum ad *implicitorum explicationem*[^p546-4]. Si primo modo intelligatur, sic non est concedendum, fidem profecisse quantum ad credendorum multitudinem; si secundo modo, sic profecit secundum processum temporis, quia quod uno tempore credebatur implicite et quasi uno articulo, processu temporis explicatum est et quasi distinctum in multa credibilia; sicut supra[^p546-5] dicebatur, quod sufficiebat aliquo tempore credere Redemptorem futurum; nunc autem circa ipsum Redemptorem septem articuli explicantur, et multa ex illis consequentia et eis annexa manifestantur. — Et hoc est quod dicit magister Hugo de sancto Victore in libro *de Sacramentis*[^p546-6]: «Ante Legem, inquit, Deus Creator credebatur, et ab eo salus et redemptio exspectabatur; per quem autem et quo modo eadem salus implenda et perficienda foret, exceptis paucis, quibus hoc scire singulariter in munere datum erat, a ceteris fidelibus non cognoscebatur. Sub Lege autem persona Redemptoris praedicabatur mittenda; quae autem ipsa persona foret, hoc est homo, vel Angelus, vel Deus, nondum manifestabatur; soli enim hoc cognoverunt, qui per Spiritum illuminati fuerunt. Sub gratia autem manifeste iam ab omnibus praedicatur et creditur et modus redemptionis et qualitas personae Redemptoris». — Et sic patet, quod fides profecit[^p546-7] quantum ad credibilium multitudinem, non nova addendo, sed quodam modo implicita explicando. Qualitas enim personae Redemptoris et modus redemptionis sciri non potest aperte, nisi sub quadam articulorum multitudine et distinctione. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad primam partem inductae, quae ostendunt, fidem aliquo modo profecisse secundum credibilium multitudinem.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Lex nova est in veteri, sicut rota in rota; dicendum, quod rota non habet esse in rota nisi secundum implicationem quandam, quia quod in Lege nova est explicite in veteri Lege erat implicite. Unde ex hoc non sequitur[^p546-8], quod fides in Lege nova non profecerit secundum articulorum multitudinem, explicando per multos quod in uno continebatur implicite; sed quod non crevit addendo aliquid extraneum, quod quidem in Lege veteri nec explicite nec implicite fuisset contentum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mutato obiecto, mutatur habitus; iam patet responsio: quia ista multiplicatio[^p546-9] articulorum, secundum quam dicimus fidem profecisse, non mutat obiectum secundum substantiam, sed solum secundum accidens, quia implicitum explicat; et ideo ex hoc non potest inferri, quod fides essentialiter sit mutata.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia quae credimus de praeterito, fuerunt credibilia de futuro; dicendum, quod verum est; sed licet omnia illa,

<!-- page 547 -->

quae nos modo[^p547-1] credimus, ab aliquibus personis ex speciali munere Dei cognoscerentur et crederentur explicite, universitati tamen populi non proponebantur credenda nisi implicite; unde et populus communiter exspectabat Messiam sive Redemptorem, nihil cogitantes de Filii Dei incarnatione, vel passione, vel resurrectione. Nunc autem omnia haec sunt explicata, nec tantum sunt *credibilia*, immo *actu credita* et ad credendum proposita; et quantum ad hoc dicimus ea esse multiplicata, licet quantum ad veritatem rei non sint augmentata.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caritas non profecit quantum ad numerum; dicendum, quod si loquamur de isto modo proficiendi, concedi potest eo modo de caritate, sicut concessum est de fide: quoniam in Lege veteri non praecipiebatur diligere inimicum nisi implicite, sed hoc in Lege evangelica explicatur[^p547-2]: sic et in fide suo modo est intelligendum, sicut prius tactum est. Loquimur enim hic de profectu fidei et caritatis per comparationem ad *communem* populi statum, non quantum ad *privilegium speciale* quarundam personarum.

english:
### Article II. *On the progress of faith according to the diversity of times.*

Consequently there is inquiry concerning the progress of faith according to the diversity of times. And concerning this three things are inquired. First it is asked whether faith has grown as to the multitude of things to be believed; Second, whether it has grown as to the fullness of the light; Third it is asked whether it has progressed as to the certitude of cognition[^p545-5].

### Question I. *Whether faith has grown as to the multitude of things to be believed.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and there is inquiry whether faith has grown or progressed as to the multitude of things to be believed. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Exodus six[^p545-6]: *My name Adonai I did not make known to them*; therefore from this text it is evident that the later Fathers knew something which the preceding ones did not know, because the Lord revealed to Moses what he did not reveal to the [earlier] Fathers: therefore it seems that our faith now knows something which the faith of the Fathers did not know: therefore faith has grown as to the things to be believed.

2. Likewise, as the evangelical Law stands to the Mosaic Law as to *morals*, so the faith of the new Law [stands] to the faith of the old Law as to *the things to be believed*; but the Gospel adds many counsels[^p545-7] over and above the old Law: therefore it seems that the faith of the new Law extends to more things to be believed than the faith of the old Law.

3. Likewise, the incarnation of Christ, the passion, the resurrection and the ascension and such things are set forth to be believed by all who are in the new Law; but these were not set forth to those who were in the Mosaic Law[^p545-8]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Church knew something after the coming of Christ which lay hidden from the Angels, therefore much more strongly does it know and believe something which lay hidden from mere men: therefore it seems that faith has grown as to those things which are believed and known through it. This is *first* manifested through what is said to the Ephesians, chapter three[^p545-9]: *That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the Powers and Principalities through the Church.*

**On the contrary:** *To the opposite.* 1. The whole Christian faith is contained in the new Law, and the whole new Law is contained in the old, because the wheel is in the wheel, according as is said in Ezekiel, chapter one[^p545-10]: if therefore the faith of the first Fathers preceding the

coming of Christ enclosed in itself whatever was of the old Law, it enclosed also, and consequently, whatever was of the new Law: therefore it seems that faith, according to the diverse times, has not grown as to the things to be believed.

2. Likewise, the object being changed, the habit is changed: therefore if faith, according to the diverse times, had some new object, namely if it believed something which it had not believed before, it would have been changed according to the diverse times; but «faith according to the diverse times has not been changed», according as Augustine says[^p546-1], and is held in the text: therefore it seems that it has not progressed as to the things to be believed.

3. Likewise, everything that is *now* true concerning the past, was *at some time* true concerning the future: therefore just as it is *now* true that Christ was incarnate, born, and suffered; so it was true in the *past* that Christ was to be incarnate, to be born, and to suffer; and by whatever account it is now credible concerning the past, by the same account it was then credible concerning the future: therefore it does not seem that faith has grown as to the number of things to be believed[^p546-2].

4. Likewise, although charity has progressed in some way as to intensity and fervor, yet it has not progressed as to the multitude of things to be loved — for there were as many things lovable in the old Law as in the new[^p546-3] — therefore by a like account it seems also concerning faith and the things to be believed, that even though faith progresses, the things to be believed are not on that account multiplied.

### Conclusion.

> Faith in the process of time has progressed, not indeed by the addition of new articles, but by the explication of things implicit.

**I respond:** It must be said that the things to be believed being multiplied can be understood in two ways: either as to the *addition of new articles*, or as to the *explication of things implicit*[^p546-4]. If it be understood in the first way, then it is not to be granted that faith has progressed as to the multitude of things to be believed; if in the second way, then it has progressed according to the process of time, because what at one time was believed implicitly and as it were in one article, in the process of time was explicated and as it were distinguished into many things to be believed; just as above[^p546-5] it was said that it sufficed at some time to believe in the Redeemer to come; but now concerning the Redeemer himself seven articles are explicated, and many things consequent upon them and annexed to them are manifested. — And this is what master Hugh of St. Victor says in the book *On the Sacraments*[^p546-6]: «Before the Law, he says, God was believed as Creator, and from him salvation and redemption was awaited; but through whom and in what manner the same salvation was to be fulfilled and perfected, except for a few to whom it was singularly granted as a gift to know this, by the rest of the faithful it was not known. But under the Law the person of the Redeemer was preached as to be sent; but who that person would be, that is, man, or Angel, or God, was not yet manifested; for those alone knew this who were illumined by the Spirit. But under grace [it] is now manifestly preached and believed by all, both the manner of redemption and the quality of the person of the Redeemer». — And thus it is evident that faith has progressed[^p546-7] as to the multitude of things to be believed, not by adding new things, but in a certain way by explicating things implicit. For the quality of the person of the Redeemer and the manner of redemption cannot be known openly, except under a certain multitude and distinction of articles. — Therefore the reasons adduced for the first side, which show that faith has in some way progressed as to the multitude of things to be believed, are to be granted.

1. But to that which is objected first to the contrary, that the new Law is in the old, as the wheel in the wheel; it must be said that the wheel does not have being in the wheel except according to a certain implication, because what in the new Law is explicit was implicit in the old Law. Hence from this it does not follow[^p546-8] that faith in the new Law has not progressed as to the multitude of articles, by explicating through many what was contained implicitly in one; but [it follows] that it did not grow by adding something extraneous which had not been contained in the old Law either explicitly or implicitly.

2. To that which is objected, that the object being changed, the habit is changed; the response is now evident: because that multiplication[^p546-9] of articles, according to which we say that faith has progressed, does not change the object as to substance, but only as to accident, because it explicates the implicit; and therefore from this it cannot be inferred that faith has been essentially changed.

3. To that which is objected, that all the things which we believe concerning the past were credible concerning the future; it must be said that this is true; but although all those things

which we now believe[^p547-1] were known and believed explicitly by certain persons from a special gift of God, yet to the universality of the people they were not set forth to be believed except implicitly; whence also the people commonly awaited the Messiah or Redeemer, thinking nothing of the incarnation of the Son of God, or the passion, or the resurrection. But now all these things are explicated, and they are not only *credible*, nay rather *actually believed* and set forth to be believed; and as to this we say that they are multiplied, although as to the truth of the matter they are not augmented.

4. To that which is objected, that charity has not progressed as to number; it must be said that if we speak of that mode of progressing, it can be granted concerning charity in the same way as it was granted concerning faith: since in the old Law it was not commanded to love the enemy except implicitly, but this is explicated in the evangelical Law[^p547-2]: so also in faith it is to be understood in its own way, as was touched on before. For we are speaking here of the progress of faith and charity by comparison to the *common* state of the people, not as to the *special privilege* of certain persons.

la: Pro *cognitionis* cod. Z *assensus*, quae lectio infra in ipsa (3.) quaest. communis est.

en: For *cognitionis* codex Z reads *assensus*, which reading below in question (3) itself is the common one.

la: Vers. 3. Codd. G H I L T W aa *Nomen unum, Adonai* etc.

en: Verse 3. Codices G H I L T W aa [read] *Nomen unum, Adonai* etc.

la: Cfr. Matth. 5, 17, seqq. et 19, 21.

en: Cf. Matthew 5, 17, ff. and 19, 21.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2.

en: See above, a. 1. q. 2.

la: Vers. 10. Cfr. supra pag. 539, nota 4.

en: Verse 10. Cf. above, page 539, note 4.

la: Vers. 16: *Quasi sit rota in medio rotae*; de quibus verbis Gregorius (I. *Homil. in Ezech.* homil. 6. n. 12.) dicit: *Quid in Testamenti veteris littera Testamentum est hoc... nisi quod novum latuit per allegoriam?* Unde et rota eadem, quae iuxta animalia apparuit, quatuor facies habere describitur etc. — Mox pro *primorum*, quod ab edd. abest, codd. A K bb *priorum*, et subinde pro *Legis veteris* et *Legis novae* cod. Z *in Lege veteri* et *in Lege nova*.

en: Verse 16: *As if there were a wheel in the midst of a wheel*; concerning which words Gregory (I. *Homily on Ezekiel*, homily 6. n. 12.) says: *What is this in the letter of the Old Testament... but that the New lay hidden through allegory?* Whence also the same wheel, which appeared beside the living creatures, is described as having four faces, etc. — Soon after, for *primorum*, which is absent from the editions, codices A K bb [read] *priorum*, and thereupon for *Legis veteris* and *Legis novae* codex Z [reads] *in Lege veteri* and *in Lege nova*.

la: Vide supra pag. 315, nota 2. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi asseritur, *eandem* esse fidem Patrum et nostram. — De *maiori* cfr. supra pag. 214, nota 3. et pag. 470, nota 8, in fine.

en: See above, page 315, note 2. Cf. also here the text of the Master, c. 1, where it is asserted that the faith of the Fathers and ours is *the same*. — On the *major* [premise] cf. above, page 214, note 3. and page 470, note 8, at the end.

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. circa finem corp. atque ad 1. et 5.

en: Cf. above, d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. near the end of the body and at [replies] 1 and 5.

la: Vide infra d. 28. q. 6. — Paulo superius post *fervorem* codd. A B K addunt male *diligendorum*. In fine arg. pro *non sint* complures codd. *non sunt*.

en: See below, d. 28. q. 6. — A little above, after *fervorem* codices A B K wrongly add *diligendorum*. At the end of the argument, for *non sint* several codices [read] *non sunt*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 5. — Pro *explicationem* edd. *explanationem*. Paulo inferius pro *multitudinem*, quam lectionem e codd. A G K V restituimus, edd. (et infra circa finem corp. bis etiam nonnulli codd.) *multiplicationem*.

en: Cf. above, a. 1. q. 1. ad 5. — For *explicationem* the editions [read] *explanationem*. A little below, for *multitudinem*, which reading we have restored from codices A G K V, the editions (and below near the end of the body, twice, also some codices) [read] *multiplicationem*.

la: Art. 1. q. 2. et d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. in fine corp. — Septem articulos de Redemptore videsis supra a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. — Paulo superius pro *processu temporis explicatum* codd. A K *in processu temporis explicitum*.

en: Art. 1. q. 2. and d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. at the end of the body. — The seven articles concerning the Redeemer you may see above, a. 1. q. 1. at the end of the body. — A little above, for *processu temporis explicatum* codices A K [read] *in processu temporis explicitum*.

la: Libr. 1. p. X. c. 6. circa finem. In testimonio allato textus origin. pro *praedicabatur* exhibet *praedicebatur*, deinde verbo *illuminati* praemittit *singulariter* [codd. A K voci *Spiritum* adiungunt *sanctum*] et mox omittit *ab* ante *omnibus praedicatur*.

en: Book 1. p. X. c. 6. near the end. In the testimony cited, the original text reads *praedicebatur* for *praedicabatur*, then before the word *illuminati* it prefixes *singulariter* [codices A K adjoin *sanctum* to the word *Spiritum*] and soon after omits *ab* before *omnibus praedicatur*.

la: Codd. A G (H primitus) K L T U V aa *proficit*. Inferius pro *non potest* edd. *non potuit*.

en: Codices A G (H originally) K L T U V aa [read] *proficit*. Below, for *non potest* the editions [read] *non potuit*.

la: Pro *non sequitur* codd. A G K *non potest concludi*. Mox pro *multitudinem* multi codd. *multiplicationem*, et deinde pro *crevit* codd. K bb *creverit*, edd. 1, 2 cum pluribus codd. falso *credit*.

en: For *non sequitur* codices A G K [read] *non potest concludi*. Soon after, for *multitudinem* many codices [read] *multiplicationem*, and then for *crevit* codices K bb [read] *creverit*, [while] editions 1, 2 with several codices wrongly [read] *credit*.

la: Codd. A K *multitudo*.

en: Codices A K [read] *multitudo*.

la: Pro *nos modo*, quam scripturam invenimus in cod. X, codd. M O U Z *quae modo*, alii codd. minus congrue *quae nunc modo*, edd. *quae nunc*. Inferius pro *nihil cogitantes* edd. *nihil cogitans*.

en: For *nos modo*, which reading we find in codex X, codices M O U Z [read] *quae modo*, other codices less fittingly *quae nunc modo*, the editions *quae nunc*. Below, for *nihil cogitantes* the editions [read] *nihil cogitans*.

la: Levit. 19, 18; Matth. 5, 43. seq. — Pro *diligere inimicum* edd. *diligi inimicus*.

en: Leviticus 19, 18; Matthew 5, 43. f. — For *diligere inimicum* the editions [read] *diligi inimicus*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Insinuatur a S. Bonav. hic et in seqq. quaestionibus duplex modus, quo aliquid in articulo continetur, scilicet vel ita, ut in uno articulo virtualiter contineantur alii *articuli*, postea determinate proponendi, ut passio et mors Christi in mysterio redemptionis; vel ita, ut in articulo contineatur non quidem alius articulus, sed aliquid, quod ut *conclusio* in eo contineatur (Cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. ad 5.). Substantia igitur fidei semper remanente eadem, per *explicationem* crevit etiam numerus articulorum credendorum; sed haec explicatio, sive *primo* modo sumta, *completa* fuit in Evangelio; ast *alio* sensu sumta explicatio fidei proficere potest et in singulis hominibus et in tota Ecclesia. Hoc docet Concil. Vatican. (c. 4. *de fide et ratione*): «Crescat igitur et multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac saeculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia; sed in suo dumtaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia» (Vinc. Lirin. *Commonit.* n. 28.). Cfr. hic q. 2. 3. et dub. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. II. II. q. 1. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic q. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 5. q. 1, a. 4. q. 2.

**II.** In praecedentibus agitur de profectu fidei quoad *obiecta*, in seqq. (nempe 2. et 3.) quaestionibus de profectu quoad *actus*, de quo etiam occurrit sermo hic dub. 1. Supposita doctrina antea explicata, facile haec intelliguntur; ab aliis autem Lombardi commentatoribus vel tantum tanguntur vel breviter expediuntur. — De utraque (2. et 3.) quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. q. 3. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica, circa finem.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** There is insinuated by St. Bonaventure here and in the following questions a twofold mode by which something is contained in an article, namely either so that in one article other *articles* are virtually contained, to be set forth determinately afterward, as the passion and death of Christ in the mystery of redemption; or so that in an article there is contained not indeed another article, but something which is contained in it as a *conclusion* (Cf. St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. ad 5.). Therefore, the substance of faith always remaining the same, by *explication* the number of articles to be believed also grew; but this explication, taken in the *first* mode, was *complete* in the Gospel; but taken in *another* sense, the explication of faith can progress both in individual men and in the whole Church. This the Vatican Council teaches (c. 4. *On faith and reason*): «Let there therefore grow and let there much and vehemently progress, of single persons as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, by the degrees of ages and of centuries, understanding, knowledge, wisdom; but only in its own kind, that is, in the same dogma, the same sense and the same judgment» (Vincent of Lérins, *Commonitorium* n. 28.). Cf. here q. 2. 3. and dub. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1; *Summa* II–II q. 1. a. 7. — B. Albert, here q. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 5. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here q. 5. q. 1, a. 4. q. 2.

**II.** In the preceding [question] there is treated the progress of faith as to *objects*, in the following questions (namely 2 and 3) the progress as to *acts*, concerning which discourse also occurs here in dub. 1. Given the doctrine explained before, these things are easily understood; but by the other commentators on Lombard they are either merely touched upon or briefly dispatched. — On both (2 and 3) questions: St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1; *Summa* loc. cit. q. 3. a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 5. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. unica, near the end.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{545,546,547}-{L,R}-*.png`, read L-then-R, body then footer) over the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 37903–38063) for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Vol III is two-column; PDF-priority inversion applied throughout. English is a fresh literal translation paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Chunk convention.** ARTICULUS II restarts the QUAESTIO numbering at I (`articulus: 2`, `quaestio: 1`). The short ARTICULUS II opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de profectu fidei… circa hoc quaeruntur tria…*) is folded into this q1 per the Vol II/III convention — no standalone divisio chunk.

**Alignment check.** PASS. The q1 opener reads *…utrum fides creverit vel profecerit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem*; title verified eyes-on at the QUAESTIO I header (p.545 L band) as *Utrum fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem*. No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Page span.** pp. 545–547 (pdf = printed + 22 → 567–569). ARTICULUS II + q1 begin lower in the p.545 L column (after a1-q3 closes), fill the p.545 R column, run through all of p.546, and end on p.547 (RESPONDEO solution 4 + Scholion I–II) immediately before QUAESTIO II. Running heads verified: p.546 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.547 `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` (the running head of p.547 names QUAEST. II because q2 opens lower on that same page).

**Footer ownership (page-split map).** NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart.
- **p.545** has 10 footers (nn.1–10). On eyes-on the split by body anchor is: **nn.1–4 belong to a1-q3** (n.1 *Vide II. Sent. d. 23…*, n.2 *Cod. A refugere…*, n.3 *Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. — Pro quod non possunt cod. A quae non possunt* keyed to q3's p.545-L tail *…ad quod possunt confugere…*, n.4 *Cfr. supra d. 24. dub. 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* keyed to the q3-redirect / article boundary); **nn.5–10 belong to this q1** (n.5 *cognitionis/assensus* → article-opener *cognitionis* line; n.6 *Vers. 3. Nomen unum, Adonai* → arg 1 *Exodi sexto*; n.7 *Matth. 5, 17* → arg 2 *consilia*; n.8 *Vide supra a. 1. q. 2.* → arg 3 *Lege Mosaica*; n.9 *Vers. 10* → arg 4 *ad Ephesios tertio*; n.10 *Vers. 16: Quasi sit rota…* → Sed contra 1 *Ezechielis primo*). This chunk renders **p.545 nn.5–10** (markers `[^p545-5]`…`[^p545-10]`). ✅ **RESOLVED 2026-06-10 (cross-chunk footer-split repair):** p.545 nn.3–4 were backfilled INTO d25-a1-q3 (markers `[^p545-3]` on ad-6 *negligentiae*, `[^p545-4]` on ad-6 *uniformiter*); q3 now owns p.545 nn.1–4 and this q1 owns nn.5–10. The earlier gap (nn.3–4 unowned) is closed. Split is clean by body anchor for q1.
- **p.546**: nn.1–9 all owned by this q1 (`[^p546-1]`…`[^p546-9]`).
- **p.547**: nn.1–2 owned by this q1 (`[^p547-1]` glosses solution 3 *nos modo*; `[^p547-2]` glosses solution 4 *diligere inimicum*). **nn.3 ff. (n.3 *Cap. 10, 23 — Sententia Gregorii…* and following) belong to d25-a2-q2** (they gloss q2's Gregory-on-Luke argument). Split by body anchor; documented for hand-off.

Apparatus count rendered = **17** (p.545 ×6 [nn.5–10] + p.546 ×9 + p.547 ×2).

**Scholion disposition.** q1 HAS its own scholion (**own**, not a redirect). The printed SCHOLION header (OCR-garbled `S0H0LI0N`) sits at the top of p.547 between solution 3 and QUAESTIO II, with two sections **I** and **II** (each closing with a source-list paragraph; no separate III/IV). Note: the coordinator's prediction of `has_scholion: false` (based on the p.545 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* footer) is **overridden by eyes-on** — that footer (p.545 n.4) is an apparatus cross-reference owned by the prior chunk, NOT the scholion disposition for this q1. `has_scholion: true`.

**Seam status.**
- *Open seam (with d25-a1-q3):* continuous. a1-q3 closes at raw 37902 (*…qui veritatem / [recurrendum est]…* tail in p.545 L); ARTICULUS II opener begins raw 37903. Grammatically clean break at the article header.
- *Close seam (with d25-a2-q2):* q1 ends right before QUAESTIO II header (raw ~38064, p.547). q1's last sentence (*…non quantum ad privilegium speciale quarundam personarum.*) is grammatically complete; QUAESTIO II opener (*Secundo quaeritur, utrum fides profecerit quantum ad illuminationis plenitudinem…*) begins cleanly. No cascade-merge splice.

**[?] flags:** none.

**HAND-OFF → d25-a2-q2 (next chunk):**
- QUAESTIO II header raw **~38062** (running-head `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` at raw ~38026 on p.547); body opener *Secundo quaeritur, utrum fides profecerit quantum ad illuminationis plenitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Primo auctoritate Gregorii in quadam Homilia super illud Lucae…* — title eyes-on at QUAESTIO II header (p.547 L band) = **`Utrum fides profecerit quoad illuminationis plenitudinem`** (printed *An fides profecerit quoad illuminationis plenitudinem*; render `title_la: "Utrum fides profecerit quoad illuminationis plenitudinem"`).
- **Footer hand-off:** p.547 **n.3** (*Cap. 10, 23. — Sententia Gregorii, quam Hugo a S. Vict. in I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 6.…*) and all following p.547 footers belong to q2's args. q1 took only p.547 nn.1–2.
- QUAESTIO III raw **~38191** (q3 = *Utrum profecerit quantum ad cognitionis certitudinem*); the d.25 DUBIA block raw **~38302** (after Art. II q3).
- **has_scholion for q2: VERIFY eyes-on** — scholion I above (q1's) says these matters are insinuated *hic et in seqq. quaestionibus*; q2/q3 may share or redirect. Read the p.548+ band between q2's solutio and QUAESTIO III for a printed SCHOLION header (OCR garbles `SCHOLION`→`S0H0LI0N`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 547 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum fides profecerit quoad illuminationis plenitudinem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum fides profecerit quantum ad illuminationis plenitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* auctoritate Gregorii in quadam Homilia super illud Lucae[^p547-3]: *Beati oculi, qui vident quae vos videtis*; ibi Gregorius: «Secundum incrementa temporum crevit scientia Sanctorum et spiritualium Patrum; et quanto adventui Salvatoris viciniores exstiterunt, tanto mysterium salutis plenius perceperunt»; ergo pleniori lumine cognoverunt; sed non cognoverunt nisi fide: ergo crevit fides quantum ad luminis plenitudinem.

2. Item, secundum profectum temporum crevit prophetia quantum ad illuminationis plenitudinem: ergo consimili ratione videtur hoc debere reperiri in ipsa fide. *Prima* probatur per hoc quod dicit David propheta[^p547-4]: *Super senes intellexi*; et iterum: *Super omnes docentes me intellexi*; et Actuum secundo dixit Petrus: *Non, sicut aestimatis, hi ebrii sunt, sed hoc est quod dicitur per prophetam Ioel: Et erit in novissimis diebus, effundam* etc. Si ergo secundum maiorem Spiritus effusionem crescit mentis illuminatio, videtur, quod ipsa fidei cognitio secundum temporis diversitatem creverit quantum ad luminis plenitudinem.

3. Item, clarius videtur unumquodque ad praesentiam lucis quam ad praesentiam umbrae; sed in nova Lege fuit ipsius veritatis exhibitio, in veteri vero

<!-- page 548 -->

fuit ipsius veritatis umbratilis praefiguratio[^p548-1]: ergo secundum tempus novae Legis maior fit in cognitione fidei luminis plenitudo.

4. Item, maior illuminatio fidei habet ortum a duplici principio, videlicet a *gratia* interius inspirante et ab *instructione* exterius manuducente[^p548-2]; sed tempore Legis novae abundantior est *gratiae effusio* in Sacramentis et *clarior instructio* in evangelicis et apostolicis documentis: ergo videtur, quod in ipsa fide secundum tempus gratiae maior sit plenitudo luminis.

**Sed contra:** 1. Quod est supra tempus non mutatur nec proficit nec deficit in tempore; sed illuminatio fidei innititur primae Veritati propter se et super omnia, quae est omnino supra tempus[^p548-3]: ergo videtur, quod fidei cognitio secundum temporis diversitatem nec proficiat nec deficiat quantum ad luminis plenitudinem.

2. Item, videtur, quod fides non solum non profecerit quantum ad luminis plenitudinem, immo potius decreverit, quia maior est illuminatio, quae revelat magis occultum, quam quae revelat magis manifestum; sed fides ante adventum Christi faciebat cognoscere Redemptorem et Mediatorem, et hoc quidem multo magis erat occultum quam post adventum ipsius: videtur ergo, quod ipsa fides ampliori et perfectiori lumine tunc temporis perfunderet mentem.

3. Item, maior est illuminatio, quae facit praecognoscere futura, quam quae facit rememorari praeterita; sed fides in antiquis Patribus faciebat futura praecognoscere, in nobis facit praeterita rememorari: ergo amplioris et perfectioris luminis erat tunc quam nunc.

4. Item, tanto amplior est illuminatio et maior, quanto lumen suum magis communicat; sed fides sequentium confirmatur per fidem Patrum praecedentium[^p548-4]: ergo cum priores communicant illuminationem suam posterioribus, non e converso; videtur, quod maior fuerit in eis luminis plenitudo.

### Conclusio.

> Fides secundum temporum diversitatem crevit quoad luminis plenitudinem, considerata fide secundum statum communem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secundum diversitatem temporum crevit fides quantum ad luminis plenitudinem, intelligendo de fide secundum statum communem. Hoc autem non est propter ipsorum temporum transmutationem primo et principaliter, sed propter *veritatis exhibitionem*, propter maiorem[^p548-5] *gratiae diffusionem*, propter planiorem *instructionem*. Ideo enim credentes clarius nunc ea quae credunt, cognoscunt, quam antiquitus cognoscebant, quia iam est veritas exhibita per Christum, iam etiam gratia Spiritus sancti amplius diffunditur in Sacramentis novae Legis propter Christi meritum et pretium iam solutum; iam etiam nunc fides apertius praedicatur et docetur, probatur et defenditur per evidens discipulorum Christi et eius sequacium documentum. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod illuminatio fidei et ipsa fides est supra tempus; dicendum, quod licet sit supra tempus quantum ad *rationem moventem*, quia innititur primae Veritati propter se; tamen quantum ad ipsum *intellectum credentem* et assentientem voluntarie respicit statum viae, et ita quodam modo temporis varietatem, quia status viae secundum diversa tempora variari habet. Et ideo, sicut videmus, quod in uno homine fides crescit et proficit paulative, secundum quod homo magis ac magis se disponit ad fidei susceptionem; sic etiam in diversis temporibus proficit fides secundum statum communem, quia secundum profectum temporum efficiebantur[^p548-6] homines magis idonei ad percipienda et intelligenda sacramenta fidei.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est illuminatio, quae manifestat magis occulta; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem ceteris paribus; sed aliqua illuminatio adeo potest illuminare ad videndam rem manifestam, quod excedit illam quae illuminat ad cognoscendam rem occultam, sicut visio patriae excedit fidem. — Potest etiam aliter dici, quod occultum aliquid dicitur dupliciter: vel a parte cognoscentis, vel a parte rei cognitae. Cum ergo dicitur, quod maior est illuminatio, quae facit cognoscere magis occultum; si intelligatur a parte cognoscentis et a parte rei cognitae, tunc habet veritatem, utpote si illud quod erat occultum, faciat magis manifestum. Et hoc modo non habet veritatem in proposito[^p548-7], quia fides praecedentium adventum Christi non faciebat de magis occulto magis manifestum, immo quod erat occultum in se remanebat occultum ipsi cognoscenti.

<!-- page 549 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est illuminatio, quae facit praecognoscere futura, quam quae facit rememorari praeterita; dicendum, quod illud verum est de illis praeteritis, quae subiacent humanae considerationi; de his autem, quae sunt supra rationem, veritatem non habet. De talibus enim consuevit dici, quod non solum est prophetia futurorum, sed etiam praeteritorum, sicut prophetavit Moyses[^p549-1], cum dixit: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram*; et Elisabeth Lucae primo: *Beata quae credidisti* etc.; et respectu talium est fides. Per fidem enim creditur, quod Deus fuit passus et mortuus et quod resurrexit tertia die; et hoc excedit naturale iudicium, nec ad huius cognitionem pervenire potest homo per ea quae sensu cognovit, sed per ea quae Deus inspiravit. Unde quamvis fides nostra sit praeteritorum, potius debet dici divina illuminatio, quam dicatur praeteritorum rememoratio.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illuminatio praecedentium magis communicatur quam illuminatio sequentium; dicendum, quod hoc accidit, sicut lucerna posita super candelabrum magis illuminat, quam si multae ponerentur sub modio[^p549-2]. Per hunc modum patientia Iob et Tobiae plures movet et dirigit ad veritatem quam patientia multorum aliorum, quorum virtus plus claruit apud Deum. Et secundum istum modum illuminatio Patrum praecedentium magis derivatur quam illuminatio sequentium, quia sequentes a prioribus accipiunt exemplum bene vivendi et credendi, non e converso; sicut discipulus doctrinam accipit a magistro; qui si bonus est, potest dicere cum David[^p549-3]: *Super omnes docentes me intellexi* etc.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether faith has progressed as to the fullness of illumination.*

Second it is asked whether faith has progressed as to the fullness of illumination. And that it is so, it seems:

1. *First*, by the authority of Gregory in a certain Homily on that text of Luke[^p547-3]: *Blessed are the eyes that see what you see*; there Gregory: «According to the increments of times the knowledge of the Saints and of the spiritual Fathers grew; and the nearer they came to the coming of the Savior, the more fully they perceived the mystery of salvation»; therefore they knew by a fuller light; but they did not know except by faith: therefore faith grew as to the fullness of the light.

2. Likewise, according to the progress of times prophecy grew as to the fullness of illumination: therefore by a like account it seems that this ought to be found in faith itself. The *first* [premise] is proved by what David the prophet says[^p547-4]: *I have understood above the aged*; and again: *I have understood above all my teachers*; and in Acts, chapter two, Peter said: *These are not, as you suppose, drunk, but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, I will pour out* etc. If therefore according to a greater outpouring of the Spirit the illumination of the mind increases, it seems that the cognition of faith itself, according to the diversity of time, has grown as to the fullness of the light.

3. Likewise, each thing is seen more clearly in the presence of light than in the presence of shadow; but in the new Law there was the exhibition of truth itself, while in the old

there was the shadowy prefiguration of truth itself[^p548-1]: therefore according to the time of the new Law a greater fullness of light comes to be in the cognition of faith.

4. Likewise, the greater illumination of faith takes its origin from a twofold principle, namely from *grace* inspiring within and from *instruction* leading by the hand without[^p548-2]; but in the time of the new Law the *outpouring of grace* in the Sacraments is more abundant and the *instruction* in the evangelical and apostolic documents is *clearer*: therefore it seems that in faith itself, according to the time of grace, there is a greater fullness of light.

**On the contrary:** 1. What is above time is not changed nor does it progress nor fail in time; but the illumination of faith rests upon the first Truth for its own sake and above all things, which is altogether above time[^p548-3]: therefore it seems that the cognition of faith, according to the diversity of time, neither progresses nor fails as to the fullness of the light.

2. Likewise, it seems that faith not only has not progressed as to the fullness of the light, nay rather has decreased, because that illumination is greater which reveals what is more hidden than that which reveals what is more manifest; but faith before the coming of Christ made [men] know the Redeemer and Mediator, and this indeed was much more hidden than after his coming: therefore it seems that faith itself then flooded the mind with an ampler and more perfect light.

3. Likewise, that illumination is greater which makes [one] foreknow future things than that which makes [one] recall past things; but faith in the ancient Fathers made [them] foreknow future things, in us it makes [us] recall past things: therefore there was an ampler and more perfect light then than now.

4. Likewise, the illumination is so much the ampler and greater the more it communicates its light; but the faith of those who follow is confirmed by the faith of the Fathers who precede[^p548-4]: therefore since the prior ones communicate their illumination to the posterior, and not conversely; it seems that the fullness of light was greater in them.

### Conclusion.

> Faith according to the diversity of times has grown as to the fullness of illumination, faith being considered according to the common state.

**I respond:** It must be said that according to the diversity of times faith has grown as to the fullness of light, understanding [this] of faith according to the common state. But this is not on account of any transmutation of the times themselves first and principally, but on account of the *exhibition of truth*, on account of a greater[^p548-5] *diffusion of grace*, on account of a plainer *instruction*. For believers now know more clearly the things which they believe than they knew of old, because the truth has now been exhibited through Christ, [and] now also the grace of the Holy Spirit is more amply diffused in the Sacraments of the new Law on account of Christ's merit and the price now paid; now also faith is more openly preached and taught, proved and defended through the evident testimony of the disciples of Christ and of his followers. — Hence the reasons which show this are to be granted.

1. But to that which is objected, that the illumination of faith and faith itself is above time; it must be said that although it is above time as to the *moving ground*, because it rests upon the first Truth for its own sake; yet as to the *believing intellect* itself, voluntarily assenting, it regards the state of the wayfarer, and thus in a certain way the variety of time, because the state of the wayfarer is liable to vary according to the diverse times. And therefore, just as we see that in one man faith grows and progresses little by little, according as the man disposes himself more and more to the reception of faith; so also in the diverse times faith progresses according to the common state, because according to the progress of the times men were made[^p548-6] more apt for perceiving and understanding the sacraments of faith.

2. To that which is objected, that the illumination is greater which manifests what is more hidden; it must be said that this holds true other things being equal; but some illumination can illuminate so [strongly] for seeing a manifest thing that it exceeds that which illuminates for knowing a hidden thing, just as the vision of the homeland exceeds faith. — It can also be said otherwise, that something is called hidden in two ways: either on the part of the knower, or on the part of the thing known. When therefore it is said that the illumination is greater which makes [one] know what is more hidden; if it be understood on the part of the knower and on the part of the thing known, then it holds true, as for instance if it makes more manifest that which was hidden. And in this mode it does not hold true in the matter proposed[^p548-7], because the faith of those preceding the coming of Christ did not make of the more hidden the more manifest, nay rather what was hidden in itself remained hidden to the knower himself.

3. To that which is objected, that the illumination is greater which makes [one] foreknow future things than that which makes [one] recall past things; it must be said that this is true of those past things which lie under human consideration; but of those things which are above reason, it does not hold true. For of such things it is wont to be said that there is prophecy not only of future things, but also of past things, as Moses prophesied[^p549-1], when he said: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*; and Elizabeth in Luke, chapter one: *Blessed art thou that hast believed* etc.; and with respect to such things there is faith. For by faith it is believed that God suffered and died and that he rose on the third day; and this exceeds natural judgment, nor can a man arrive at the knowledge of this through the things which he has known by sense, but through the things which God has inspired. Hence although our faith is of past things, it ought rather to be called a divine illumination than be called a recollection of past things.

4. To that which is objected, that the illumination of those preceding is more communicated than the illumination of those following; it must be said that this happens, just as a lamp set upon a candlestick gives more light than if many were placed under a bushel[^p549-2]. In this manner the patience of Job and of Tobias moves and directs more [people] to the truth than the patience of many others, whose virtue shone more before God. And according to this mode the illumination of the preceding Fathers is more derived [to others] than the illumination of those following, because those following receive from the prior ones the example of living and believing well, and not conversely; just as a disciple receives doctrine from a master; who if he is good, can say with David[^p549-3]: *I have understood above all my teachers* etc.

---

la: Cap. 10, 23. — Sententia Gregorii, quam Hugo a S. Vict. in I. *de Sacram.* p. X. c. 6. fere eisdem verbis affert, ac hic S. Bonav., in Gregorii II. *Homil. in Ezech.* homil. 4. n. 12, unde sumta est, sic sonat: *Per incrementa temporum crevit scientia spiritualium Patrum. Plus namque Moyses quam Abraham, plus Prophetae quam Moyses, plus Apostoli quam Prophetae in omnipotentis Dei scientia eruditi sunt. Fallor, si haec ipsa Scriptura non loquitur: Pertransibunt, inquit, plurimi, et multiplex erit scientia* (Dan. 12, 4.)... *Certe Veritas dicit: Multi reges et Prophetae voluerunt videre quae videtis, et audire quae auditis, sed non viderunt* (Luc. 10, 24.). *Plus ergo* [Apostoli] *quam Prophetae de divina scientia noverunt* etc. — Superius pro *illuminationis* edd. *luminis*.

en: Chapter 10, 23. — The sentence of Gregory, which Hugh of St. Victor in book I. *On the Sacraments* p. X. c. 6. cites in nearly the same words as St. Bonaventure does here, in Gregory's *Homilies on Ezekiel* (book II.) homily 4. n. 12, whence it is taken, runs thus: *Through the increments of times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers grew. For Moses [was instructed] more than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets in the knowledge of almighty God. I am mistaken if this very Scripture does not say it: Many, it says, shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold* (Dan. 12, 4.)... *Surely Truth says: Many kings and Prophets desired to see the things which you see, and to hear the things which you hear, but they did not see them* (Luke 10, 24.). *Therefore the [Apostles] knew more of divine knowledge than the Prophets* etc. — Above, for *illuminationis* the editions [read] *luminis*.

la: Psalm. 118, 100; seq. testimonium ibid. v. 99; tertium Act. 2, 15, ubi respicitur Ioel 2, 28. — In initio arg. pro *profectum* Vat. *processum*; in fine arg. pro *plenitudinem* cod. K *claritatem*.

en: Psalm 118, 100; the following testimony in the same place, v. 99; the third, Acts 2, 15, where there is reference to Joel 2, 28. — At the beginning of the argument, for *profectum* the Vatican [edition reads] *processum*; at the end of the argument, for *plenitudinem* codex K [reads] *claritatem*.

la: Ioan. 1, 17: *Quia Lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est.* Hebr. 10, 1: *Umbram enim habens Lex futurorum bonorum* etc. — Pro *umbratilis*, quod fide codd. K V Z restauravimus, codd. N W *umbrantis*, alii codd. *umbratis*, edd. 1, 2 *obumbrantis*, Vat. *obumbrans*. Mox pro *fit* codd. A H U *fuit*.

en: John 1, 17: *Because the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.* Hebrews 10, 1: *For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come* etc. — For *umbratilis*, which on the faith of codices K V Z we have restored, codices N W [read] *umbrantis*, other codices *umbratis*, editions 1, 2 *obumbrantis*, the Vatican [edition] *obumbrans*. Soon after, for *fit* codices A H U [read] *fuit*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. dub. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 24. dub. 2.

la: Vide supra pag. 301, nota 3.

en: See above, page 301, note 3.

la: Ut dicit Magister supra d. XXIII. c. 8: *Probatur futura resurrectio, quia ita crediderunt Patriarchae et alii Sancti.* — Paulo superius edd. verbo *confirmatur* praefigunt *magis*.

en: As the Master says above, d. XXIII. c. 8: *The future resurrection is proved, because the Patriarchs and other Saints believed it so.* — A little above, before the word *confirmatur* the editions prefix *magis*.

la: Codd. A K *maioris*. Mox pro *planiorem* codd. K Z aa bb *pleniorem*. Non ita multo post pro *propter* cod. K *per*.

en: Codices A K [read] *maioris*. Soon after, for *planiorem* codices K Z aa bb [read] *pleniorem*. Not much later, for *propter* codex K [reads] *per*.

la: Codd. A K *profectum temporis efficiuntur*. — Cfr. August., *Epist.* 102. (alias 49.) n. 12, ubi concludit: *Aliis tunc nominibus et signis, aliis autem nunc; et prius occultius, postea manifestius... una tamen eademque religio vera significatur et observatur.*

en: Codices A K [read] *profectum temporis efficiuntur*. — Cf. Augustine, *Letter* 102. (otherwise 49.) n. 12, where he concludes: *By some names and signs then, but by others now; and earlier more hiddenly, afterward more manifestly... yet one and the same true religion is signified and observed.*

la: In edd. legitur sic: *Cum ergo dicitur... magis occultum; dicendum, quod si intelligatur a parte rei cognitae... magis manifestum. Si vero a parte cognoscentis, hoc modo non habet veritatem; et sic est in proposito.* In principio solut. pro *occulta*, quod in edd. desideratur, cod. F *occultum*.

en: In the editions it reads thus: *When therefore it is said... more hidden; it must be said that if it be understood on the part of the thing known... more manifest. But if on the part of the knower, in this mode it does not hold true; and so it is in the matter proposed.* At the beginning of the solution, for *occulta*, which is lacking in the editions, codex F [reads] *occultum*.

la: Gen. 1, 1. — Seq. testimonium est loc. cit. v. 45. — Gregor., I. *Homil. in Ezech.* homil. 1. n. 1, ait: *Prophetiae tempora tria sunt, scilicet praeteritum, praesens et futurum... Prophetia de futuro est: Ecce, Virgo concipiet et pariet filium* (Isai. 7, 14.). *Prophetia de praeterito: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram* (Gen. 1, 1.). *De illo enim tempore dixit homo, quo non erat homo. Prophetia de praesenti est, quando Paulus Apostolus dicit: Hi autem omnes prophetent, intret autem quis infidelis vel idiota, convincitur ab omnibus, iudicatur ab omnibus; occulta enim cordis eius manifesta fiunt... pronuntians, quod vere Deus in vobis sit* (I. Cor. 14, 24. seq.). — Paulo superius cod. G verbo *futurorum* praefigit *respectu*, et paulo inferius edd. verbis *passus* et *mortuus* praemittunt *homo*; ibidem pro *Deus fuit* edd. et plures codd. *Deus fuerit*. Post pauca pro *nec ad huius cognitionem* cod. U *nec ad hanc cognitionem*. Deinde codd. F U (N primitus) omittunt *sensu*, et circa finem solut. post *potius* edd. inserunt *tamen*.

en: Gen. 1, 1. — The following testimony is in the place cited, v. 45. — Gregory, book I. *Homilies on Ezekiel* homily 1. n. 1, says: *The times of prophecy are three, namely past, present, and future... Prophecy concerning the future is: Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son* (Isaiah 7, 14.). *Prophecy concerning the past: In the beginning God created heaven and earth* (Gen. 1, 1.). *For man spoke of that time when man did not exist. Prophecy concerning the present is, when the Apostle Paul says: But if all prophesy, and there come in one that is an unbeliever or unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all; for the secrets of his heart are made manifest... declaring that God is in you indeed* (1 Cor. 14, 24. f.). — A little above, codex G prefixes *respectu* to the word *futurorum*, and a little below the editions prefix *homo* to the words *passus* and *mortuus*; in the same place for *Deus fuit* the editions and several codices [read] *Deus fuerit*. After a few words, for *nec ad huius cognitionem* codex U [reads] *nec ad hanc cognitionem*. Then codices F U (N originally) omit *sensu*, and near the end of the solution after *potius* the editions insert *tamen*.

la: Respicitur illud Matth. 5, 15: *Neque accendunt lucernam et ponunt eam sub modio, sed super candelabrum, ut luceat* etc. — Mox pro *veritatem* cod. U *virtutem*.

en: There is reference to that text of Matthew 5, 15: *Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine* etc. — Soon after, for *veritatem* codex U [reads] *virtutem*.

la: Psalm. 118, 99. — Aliquanto superius pro *derivatur* edd. *communicatur*. — *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

en: Psalm 118, 99. — A little above, for *derivatur* the editions [read] *communicatur*. — *See the scholion on the preceding question.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{547,548,549}-{L,R}-*.png`, read L-then-R, body then footer) over the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 38064–38188) for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Vol III is two-column; PDF-priority inversion applied throughout the Respondeo/ad-argumenta bands. English is a fresh literal translation paragraph-for-paragraph. This chunk was built from scratch (no skeleton existed at `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a2-q2.md`).

**Chunk convention.** ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO II (`articulus: 2`, `quaestio: 2`). The ARTICULUS II opener was folded into a2-q1; this q2 begins cleanly at its own QUAESTIO II header. No standalone divisio chunk.

**Alignment check.** PASS. The q2 opener reads *Secundo quaeritur, utrum fides profecerit quantum ad illuminationis plenitudinem* — about faith's progress as to the fullness of the light, matching the title. Title verified eyes-on at the QUAESTIO II header (p.547 R band): printed *An fides profecerit quoad illuminationis plenitudinem* → rendered `title_la: "Utrum fides profecerit quoad illuminationis plenitudinem"` (Quaracchi prints *An…* in the rubric; the corpus convention normalizes the question-rubric to *Utrum…*, matching the a2-q1 hand-off proposal, which is hereby CONFIRMED). No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Page span.** pp. 547–549 (pdf = printed + 22 → 569–571). q2 begins on p.547 (R column, lower, after q1's Scholion I–II which prints atop p.547 R), fills p.548 entirely, and ends on p.549 (R column, solution 4) immediately before QUAESTIO III. Running heads verified: p.547 `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`; p.548 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.549 `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` (p.549's running head names QUAEST. III because q3 opens lower on that same page).

**Footer ownership (page-split map).** NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart.
- **p.547** has 4 footers (nn.1–4). Split by body anchor: **nn.1–2 belong to d25-a2-q1** (n.1 *nos modo* → q1 sol 3, n.2 *Levit. 19,18; diligere inimicum* → q1 sol 4); **nn.3–4 belong to this q2** (n.3 *Cap. 10, 23 — Sententia Gregorii* → q2 arg 1 *super illud Lucae*; n.4 *Psalm. 118,100 / profectum-processum* → q2 arg 2 *David propheta*). This chunk renders **p.547 nn.3–4** (markers `[^p547-3]`, `[^p547-4]`). q1 owns nn.1–2 (DONE in d25-a2-q1).
- **p.548**: nn.1–7 all owned by this q2 (`[^p548-1]`…`[^p548-7]`). p.548 has no chunk boundary — entire page is q2.
- **p.549**: nn.1–3 owned by this q2 (`[^p549-1]` *Gen. 1,1 / Gregor. Homil. in Ezech.* → q2 sol 3 *prophetavit Moyses*; `[^p549-2]` *Matth. 5,15 lucerna/modio* → q2 sol 4 *sub modio*; `[^p549-3]` *Psalm. 118,99 + Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* → q2 sol 4 *cum David: Super omnes docentes me*). **nn.4–8 belong to d25-a2-q3** (they gloss q3's args/sed-contra: n.4 *Cfr. quaest. praeced. — In maiori pro certius*, n.5 *Edd. tanto cerlius — mirabilia/miracula*, n.6 *Strabum et Lyranum in Cantic. 6,9 — Glossa exponit*, n.7 *Cfr. supra d.23 a.1 q.3 — Z addit videtur*, n.8 *Vide supra d.24 a.1 q.1 in corp.*). Split by body anchor; documented for hand-off.

Apparatus count rendered = **12** (p.547 ×2 [nn.3–4] + p.548 ×7 + p.549 ×3 [nn.1–3]).

**Scholion disposition.** q2 has **NO scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). Eyes-on the PDF (p.549 R bands) and raw OCR: there is NO printed SCHOLION header between q2's solution 4 (*…Super omnes docentes me intellexi etc.*) and QUAESTIO III — the text runs straight into the QUAESTIO III header. **This OVERRIDES the coordinator's prediction of `has_scholion: true`.** The redirect the coordinator anticipated is real but is an *apparatus* cross-reference, not a separate scholion: it is q2's own footer **p.549 n.3** (*…Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*), attached to q2's *cum David* marker, pointing back to the article-level Scholion at q1 (whose §I explicitly says these matters are insinuated *hic et in seqq. quaestionibus* and §II that q2/q3 are treated together). So "praecedentem quaest." from q2's standpoint = q1; the redirect chains q2→q1's scholion. q3 will carry the same disposition (no own scholion).

**Seam status.**
- *Open seam (with d25-a2-q1):* continuous. q1 closes at raw ~38063 (*…non quantum ad privilegium speciale quarundam personarum.*, p.547 R after Scholion I–II); QUAESTIO II header begins raw ~38064. Grammatically clean break at the question header.
- *Close seam (with d25-a2-q3):* q2 ends right before QUAESTIO III header (raw ~38191, p.549 R). q2's last sentence (*…potest dicere cum David: Super omnes docentes me intellexi etc.*) is grammatically complete; QUAESTIO III opener (*Tertio quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad assensus certitudinem…*) begins cleanly. No cascade-merge splice.

**[?] flags:** none. (450 dpi legible throughout; running-head digits OCR-mangled — trusted via +22 offset + running-head text.)

**HAND-OFF → d25-a2-q3 (next chunk):**
- QUAESTIO III header raw **~38191** (running-head `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` at raw ~38170 on p.549). Body opener *Tertio quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad assensus certitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Certius assentitur ei quod clarius cognoscitur…* — title eyes-on at QUAESTIO III header (p.549 L band) = printed *Utrum fides creverit quoad assensus certitudinem* → render `title_la: "Utrum fides creverit quoad assensus certitudinem"`.
- **`has_scholion` for q3: likely `false`.** q3 carries the *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* redirect (it appears at q2's p.549 n.3 already, and q1's article-level Scholion §I–II explicitly covers q2 AND q3 *in seqq. quaestionibus*). Confirm eyes-on: read the p.55N band between q3's ad-argumenta and the d.25 DUBIA for any printed SCHOLION header (OCR garbles `SCHOLION`→`S0H0LI0N`); expect NONE.
- **Footer hand-off:** p.549 **nn.4–8** (n.4 *Cfr. quaest. praeced. et supra d.24 a.1 q.1 ad 3.* onward) belong to q3's args/sed-contra. q2 took only p.549 nn.1–3. p.550+ NOTAE through the d.25 DUBIA boundary are all q3's, per-page restart.
- **q3 is the LAST question of ARTICULUS II.** After q3, only the **d.25 DUBIA** block remains (raw **~38302**, header after Art. II q3). q3's body span = raw ~38191 → (DUBIA − 1). Page span: q3 begins on p.549 (L column, lower) and runs onto p.550+.
- Template for q3 = this chunk (`vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a2-q2.md`) or `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a1-q3.md` (the `Vide scholion` no-own-scholion redirect pattern).

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. 25, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 549 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum fides creverit quoad assensus certitudinem.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad assensus certitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Certius assentitur ei quod clarius cognoscitur; sed fides secundum diversitatem temporum profecit in claritate cognoscendi: ergo in certitudine assentiendi.

2. Item, certius assentitur rei, quanto certior est in se; sed necessarium certius est quam contingens: ergo fides, quae est de necessario, certior est quam fides, quae est de contingenti. Sed fides, qua credimus, Christum esse passum, est de necessario; fides, qua crediderunt, Christum esse passurum, fuit de contingenti[^p549-4]: ergo certior est fides post adventum Christi quam ante.

3. Item, certius[^p549-5] est aliquid, quanto pluribus testibus confirmatur: sed fides Ecclesiae pluribus testibus confirmata est, quam fuerit fides Synagogae[^p549-6], sive quantum ad mirabilia, sive quantum ad martyria, sive quantum ad Prophetarum oracula.

4. Item, quanto fides firmius adhaeret, tanto certior est, sed quanto fides est devotior, tanto firmius adhaeret; sed secundum diversitatem temporum crevit fidei devotio: ergo crevit ipsius fidei certitudo. Quod autem secundum diversitatem temporum fidei devotio creverit, manifestum est: quia devotionem ipsius Ecclesiae admiratur Synagoga in Canticis quasi per totum, secundum quod Glossae exponunt; et hoc ipsum expresse videri potest in choris Martyrum, Virginum et Confessorum, qui amplius abundant post Christi adventum quam ante.

**Sed contra:** 1. Tota certitudo ipsius fidei pendet ex divina Veritate dictante[^p549-7]; sed ipsi divinae Veritati dictanti nulla omnino potest accrescere certitudo: ergo pari ratione nec ipsi fidei assentienti.

2. Item, cognitio fidei est conformis divinae praescientiae, a qua recipit illuminationem[^p549-8]; sed divina praescientia aeque certa est de futuro, antequam eveniat, sicut et de praeterito, postquam evenit:

<!-- page 550 -->

ergo videtur, quod fides Patrum praecedentium adventum Christi habebat tantam certitudinem, quantam habet fides eorum qui sunt subsecuti.

3. Item, aeque certa est ipsa fides de eo quod cognoscit, sicut et prophetia; sed «prophetia est divina inspiratio, rerum eventum immobili veritate denuntians[^p550-1]», quae adeo est certa de futuro, sicut et de praeterito — unde et futura frequenter annuntiat per modum praeteriti — ergo pari ratione videtur, quod et fides in Patribus praecedentibus adventum Christi aeque certa fuerit, sicut et in consequentibus.

4. Item, sicut in fide nostra nullus cadit error, nulla dubitatio, sic nec in fide praecedentium Patrum: si ergo «*albius* dicitur quod est nigro impermixtius[^p550-2]», et *certius* quod remotum est ab omni dubitatione; et aeque erat remota fides antiquorum Patrum ab errore et dubitatione, sicut et nostra: ergo aequaliter erat certa: ergo fides non crevit quantum ad certitudinem.

### Conclusio.

> Fidei certitudo in comparatione ad Veritatem dictantem non crevit, licet in comparatione ad ipsum credentem crescere possit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de certitudine fidei est loqui dupliciter secundum duplicem comparationem. Habet enim fides comparari ad ipsam Veritatem dictantem, habet etiam comparari ad ipsum intellectum assentientem. Si loquamur de certitudine fidei per comparationem ad Veritatem dictantem, sic eius certitudo nec habet minui nec augeri, quia, cum ipsa Veritas divina certissima sit et falli non possit; quantum est ex parte rationis dictantis, in fide quacumque, qua assentit divinae Veritati propter se et super omnia, status est certitudinis, nec habet ex illa parte fides proficere in certitudine, sicut ostendunt rationes ad secundam partem inductae. — Si autem loquamur de certitudine fidei[^p550-3] per comparationem ad ipsum credentem, sic concedi potest, quod fides crescit quantum ad certitudinem, tum propter clariorem cognitionem tum propter maiorem devotionem. Illa enim fides certior est, quae apertius cognoscit et devotius acquiescit. Et quantum ad haec duo fides secundum diversitatem temporum crescit, secundum quod dicit magister Hugo de sancto Victore in libro de Sacramentis[^p550-4]: «Duo, inquit, sunt, secundum quae fides crescere dicitur, *cognitio* et *affectus*. Secundum *cognitionem* fides crescit, quando eruditur ad scientiam; secundum *affectum* vero, quando ad devotionem excitatur et roboratur ad constantiam». Et utroque modo crevit fides secundum diversitatem temporum. Quod enim creverit quantum ad *devotionem*, satis ostendunt Martyrum passiones; quod quantum ad *scientiam*, satis ostendunt Doctorum eruditiones. — Unde Hugo[^p550-5] dicit, quod illud signatum fuit in Numerorum decimo tertio de botro, qui portabatur in vecte, de quo ait sic: «Botrus siquidem in vecte Christus in cruce est, cuius mysterium in sacramento duo populi portant. Qui *praecesserunt* portaverunt, sed non viderunt; quia praecedentes adventum eius sacramenta passionis ipsius portaverunt, sed non omnes per cognitionem intelligere valuerunt. *Secundi* autem portant et vident, quia fideles post adventum Christi sacramentum passionis eius per fidem suscipiunt et per revelatam cognitionem iam aperte cognoscunt». Sic igitur patet, quod etsi certitudo fidei a parte *Veritatis dictantis* non habet incrementum, habet tamen proficere ex parte *ipsius credentis*.

Et secundum hoc patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam. Patet etiam responsio ad obiecta: quia rationes ad primam partem procedunt secundum unam viam, et rationes ad secundam partem procedunt per aliam, sicut manifestum est pertractanti.

Patet etiam generaliter ex praedictis, quis sit modus proficiendi in ipsa fide. Proficit[^p550-6] enim fides quodam modo *extensive* quantum ad articulorum explicationem; proficit etiam *intensive* quantum ad clariorem illuminationem; proficit etiam *radicative* quantum ad certitudinis et devotionis adhaesionem; et hoc dico respiciendo ad statum communem. — Et per consimilem modum proficere habet in eodem *homine* et etiam in *diversis hominibus*, qui sunt sub eadem Lege, sese gradatim excedentibus secundum fidei profectum. Et hoc est quod dicit Hugo de sancto Victore[^p550-7]: «Secundum incrementa fidei diversa genera hominum inveniuntur. Quidam enim fideles sunt, qui sola pietate credere eligunt, sed

<!-- page 551 -->

utrum credendum sit, vel non credendum, ratione non comprehendunt. Alii vero ratione approbant quod fide iam credunt. Alii vero quod fide credunt et ratione approbant purificatae mentis intelligentia experiuntur. In primis sola fides facit electionem; in secundis ratio adiungit approbationem; in tertiis puritas intelligentiae apprehendit certitudinem». — Et sic patet responsio ad propositam quaestionem[^p551-1].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether faith has grown as to the certitude of assent.*

Third it is asked whether faith has grown as to the certitude of assent. And that it is so, it seems.

1. One assents more certainly to that which is more clearly known; but faith, according to the diversity of times, has progressed in clarity of knowing: therefore [also] in certitude of assenting.

2. Likewise, one assents more certainly to a thing the more certain it is in itself; but the necessary is more certain than the contingent: therefore faith, which is of the necessary, is more certain than faith which is of the contingent. But the faith by which we believe that Christ has suffered is of the necessary; the faith by which they believed that Christ was to suffer was of the contingent[^p549-4]: therefore faith after the coming of Christ is more certain than before.

3. Likewise, a thing is more certain[^p549-5] the more it is confirmed by many witnesses: but the faith of the Church has been confirmed by more witnesses than was the faith of the Synagogue[^p549-6], whether as to wonders, or as to martyrdoms, or as to the oracles of the Prophets.

4. Likewise, the more firmly faith adheres, the more certain it is, but the more devout faith is, the more firmly it adheres; but according to the diversity of times the devotion of faith grew: therefore the certitude of faith itself grew. And that according to the diversity of times the devotion of faith grew is manifest: because the Synagogue admires the devotion of the Church itself in the Canticles, as it were throughout, according as the Glosses expound; and this very thing can be expressly seen in the choirs of Martyrs, of Virgins, and of Confessors, who abound more amply after the coming of Christ than before.

**On the contrary:** 1. The whole certitude of faith itself depends on the divine Truth which dictates[^p549-7]; but to the divine Truth itself which dictates no certitude at all can accrue: therefore by like reasoning neither [can any accrue] to faith itself which assents.

2. Likewise, the cognition of faith is conformed to the divine foreknowledge, from which it receives its illumination[^p549-8]; but the divine foreknowledge is equally certain of the future, before it comes to pass, as of the past, after it has come to pass:

therefore it seems that the faith of the Fathers who preceded the coming of Christ had as great a certitude as the faith of those who followed has.

3. Likewise, faith is as certain of what it knows as prophecy is; but «prophecy is a divine inspiration, announcing the outcome of things with immovable truth[^p550-1]», which is as certain of the future as of the past — whence also it frequently announces future things in the manner of past things — therefore by like reasoning it seems that faith too in the Fathers preceding the coming of Christ was equally certain as in those who followed.

4. Likewise, just as in our faith no error falls, no doubt, so neither [does any fall] in the faith of the preceding Fathers: if therefore «that is called *whiter* which is more unmingled with black[^p550-2]», and that *more certain* which is removed from all doubt; and the faith of the ancient Fathers was equally removed from error and doubt as ours is: therefore it was equally certain: therefore faith has not grown as to certitude.

### Conclusion.

> The certitude of faith, in comparison to the Truth which dictates, has not grown, although in comparison to the believer himself it can grow.

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of the certitude of faith in two ways according to a twofold comparison. For faith has [a relation] to be compared to the Truth itself which dictates, and it has also [a relation] to be compared to the intellect itself which assents. If we speak of the certitude of faith by comparison to the Truth which dictates, then its certitude can neither be diminished nor increased, because, since the divine Truth itself is most certain and cannot be deceived; as far as is on the part of the dictating ground, in any faith whatever, by which it assents to the divine Truth for its own sake and above all things, there is a state of certitude, nor on that side does faith have to progress in certitude, as the reasons adduced for the second part show. — But if we speak of the certitude of faith[^p550-3] by comparison to the believer himself, then it can be granted that faith grows as to certitude, both on account of a clearer cognition and on account of a greater devotion. For that faith is more certain which knows more openly and acquiesces more devoutly. And as to these two faith grows according to the diversity of times, according as master Hugh of St. Victor says in the book *On the Sacraments*[^p550-4]: «Two things, he says, there are according to which faith is said to grow, *cognition* and *affection*. According to *cognition* faith grows, when it is instructed unto knowledge; but according to *affection*, when it is excited to devotion and strengthened unto constancy». And in both modes faith grew according to the diversity of times. For that it grew as to *devotion*, the passions of the Martyrs sufficiently show; that [it grew] as to *knowledge*, the erudition of the Doctors sufficiently shows. — Whence Hugh[^p550-5] says that this was signified in the thirteenth [chapter] of Numbers concerning the cluster of grapes which was carried on a pole, of which he speaks thus: «The cluster on the pole is indeed Christ on the cross, whose mystery in the sacrament two peoples carry. Those who *preceded* carried it, but did not see; because those preceding his coming carried the sacraments of his passion, but not all were able to understand [it] through cognition. But *the latter* both carry and see, because the faithful after the coming of Christ receive the sacrament of his passion through faith and now openly know [it] through revealed cognition». Thus therefore it is plain that, although the certitude of faith on the part of the *Truth which dictates* has no increase, yet it has to progress on the part of *the believer himself*.

And according to this the response to the question proposed is plain. The response to the objections is also plain: because the reasons for the first part proceed according to one way, and the reasons for the second part proceed by another, as is manifest to one who examines [them].

It is also plain in general from the foregoing what is the mode of progressing in faith itself. For faith progresses[^p550-6] in a certain way *extensively* as to the explication of the articles; it progresses also *intensively* as to a clearer illumination; it progresses also *radically* as to the adherence of certitude and devotion; and this I say with regard to the common state. — And in a like manner it has to progress in the same *man* and also in *diverse men*, who are under the same Law, gradually exceeding one another according to the progress of faith. And this is what Hugh of St. Victor says[^p550-7]: «According to the increments of faith diverse kinds of men are found. For some are faithful, who choose to believe by piety alone, but

whether a thing is to be believed, or not to be believed, they do not comprehend by reason. But others approve by reason what they already believe by faith. But others experience, by the understanding of a purified mind, what they believe by faith and approve by reason. In the first faith alone makes the choice; in the second reason adds approval; in the third the purity of understanding apprehends certitude». — And thus the response to the question proposed is plain[^p551-1].

---

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced., et supra d. 24. a. I. q. I. ad 3. — In *maiori* pro *certius* edd. *tanto certius*, et pro *assentitur rei*, quam lectionem, o codd. A G Z bb in textum intulimus, alii codd. et edd. *assentitur ei*.

en: Cf. the preceding question, and above, d. 24. a. I. q. I. ad 3. — In the *major* [premise], for *certius* the editions [read] *tanto certius*, and for *assentitur rei*, which reading, with codices A G Z bb, we have brought into the text, other codices and editions [read] *assentitur ei*.

la: Edd. *tanto certius*. Paulo inferius pro *mirabilia* codd. K T *miracula*.

en: The editions [read] *tanto certius*. A little below, for *mirabilia* codices K T [read] *miracula*.

la: Exempli gratia illa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum in Cantic. 6, 9: *Ecclesia gentium ita firmiter instituta... illis novissimis temporibus iam intuens Synagoga tam bene operatam operantemque ipsam sanctam Ecclesiam tam diffusam, tot sapientissimos sine schismate sequi unam fidem, praeterea vivorum et mortuorum miracula et multa alia christianae fidei argumenta, iam convicta, poenitens et compuncta dicit admirative: Quae est ista* etc. — Codd. Z bb *Glossa exponit*. Post *Synagoga* edd. subiiciunt *ut patet*.

en: For example, that ordinary [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra on Canticles 6, 9: *The Church of the gentiles, so firmly established... in those last times now beholding the Synagogue, [seeing] the same holy Church so well wrought and working, so widespread, so many most wise men following one faith without schism, besides the miracles of the living and the dead and many other arguments of the Christian faith, now convicted, penitent and stricken, says in wonder: Who is she* etc. — Codices Z bb [read] *Glossa exponit*. After *Synagoga* the editions add *ut patet*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 23. a. I, q. 3. in corp. et q. 4. — In conclus. post *ergo pari ratione* cod. Z addit *videtur, quod*.

en: Cf. above, d. 23. a. I, q. 3. in the body, and q. 4. — In the conclusion, after *ergo pari ratione* codex Z adds *videtur, quod*.

la: Vide supra d. 24. a. I. q. I. in corp.

en: See above, d. 24. a. I. q. I. in the body.

la: Ut Cassiodorus ait, de quo vide supra pag. 513, nota 1. — Circa finem arg. pro *in Patribus* edd. *in pluribus Patribus*.

en: As Cassiodorus says, concerning whom see above, page 513, note 1. — Near the end of the argument, for *in Patribus* the editions [read] *in pluribus Patribus*.

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 4. (c. 5.). — Subinde verbo *remotum* Vat. praemittit *magis*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* III. c. 4. (c. 5.). — Thereupon, to the word *remotum* the Vatican [edition] prefixes *magis*.

la: Cod. Z *divinae fidei*.

en: Codex Z [reads] *divinae fidei*.

la: Libr. I. p. X. c. 4, ubi textus origin. post *et affectus* addit: *id est constantia vel firmitas credendi*.

en: Book I. p. X. c. 4, where the original text after *et affectus* adds: *that is, the constancy or firmness of believing*.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 7, qui locus in textu origin. habetur sic: *Botrus... sacramenta passionis eius omnes quidem per fidem portaverunt, sed non omnes per cognitionem... portaverunt intelligere meruerunt. Sequentes autem et portant et vident, quia fideles, qui post adventum eius in carne subsequuntur, sacramentum passionis eius et per fidem suscipiunt et per revelatam iam cognitionem agnoscunt.* Cfr. supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 3. ad 6. — Testimonium Scripturae est Num. 13, 24. — Pro *signatum fuit* cod. H *figuratum fuit*.

en: Book I. *On the Sacraments* p. X. c. 7, which passage in the original text reads thus: *The cluster... all indeed carried the sacraments of his passion through faith, but not all... who carried [them] deserved to understand [them] through cognition. But those who follow both carry and see, because the faithful, who follow after his coming in the flesh, both receive the sacrament of his passion through faith and now acknowledge [it] through revealed cognition.* Cf. above, d. 13. a. 2. q. 3. ad 6. — The testimony of Scripture is Num. 13, 24. — For *signatum fuit* codex H [reads] *figuratum fuit*.

la: Codd. A K hic et in seqq. constanter *Profecit*. Deinde pro *extensive* cod. G *extensione* et similiter *intensione* pro *intensive*, pariterque post pauca codd. I Z (H a prima manu) *radicatione* pro *radicative*.

en: Codices A K here and in what follows constantly [read] *Profecit*. Then for *extensive* codex G [reads] *extensione* and likewise *intensione* for *intensive*, and equally after a few words codices I Z (H by a first hand) [read] *radicatione* for *radicative*.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 4: *Secundum incrementum fidei tria genera credentium inveniuntur. Quidam enim fideles... eligunt, quod tamen, utrum sit credendum, an non credendum sit, ratione non comprehendunt. Alii ratione approbant quod fide credunt. Alii puritate cordis et munda conscientia interius iam gustare incipiunt quod fide credunt. In primis sola pietas facit electionem* etc. — Circa initium testimonii cum edd. recepimus *diversa* (pro *tria* in textu origin.), quod in codd. desideratur.

en: Book I. *On the Sacraments* p. X. c. 4: *According to the increment of faith three kinds of believers are found. For some are faithful... who choose, yet whether a thing is to be believed, or is not to be believed, they do not comprehend by reason. Others approve by reason what they believe by faith. Others, by purity of heart and a clean conscience, now begin inwardly to taste what they believe by faith. In the first piety alone makes the choice* etc. — Near the beginning of the testimony we have, with the editions, received *diversa* (for *tria* in the original text), which is lacking in the codices.

en: *See the scholion on question 1 of this article.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{549,550,551}-{L,R}-*.png`, read L-then-R, body then footer) over the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 38191–38301) for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Vol III is two-column; PDF-priority inversion applied throughout the Respondeo/ad-argumenta bands. English is a fresh literal translation paragraph-for-paragraph. This chunk was built from scratch (no skeleton existed at `vol3/bon-sent-III-d25-a2-q3.md`).

**Chunk convention.** ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO III (`articulus: 2`, `quaestio: 3`) — the LAST question of ARTICULUS II (*De profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum*). q3 begins cleanly at its own QUAESTIO III header. No standalone divisio chunk.

**Alignment check.** PASS. The q3 opener reads *Tertio quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad assensus certitudinem* — the certitude-of-assent theme, matching the title. Title verified eyes-on at the QUAESTIO III header (p.549 L band): printed *Utrum fides creverit quoad assensus certitudinem* → rendered `title_la: "Utrum fides creverit quoad assensus certitudinem"` (the printed rubric here already reads *Utrum…*, not *An…*). No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Page span.** pp. 549–551 (pdf = printed + 22 → 571–573). q3 begins on p.549 (L column, lower, after q2's solution 4 which closes atop p.549 L), fills p.550 entirely, and closes at the TOP of p.551 (R column: *…in tertiis puritas intelligentiae apprehendit certitudinem». — Et sic patet responsio ad propositam quaestionem¹*) immediately before DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI. Running heads verified: p.549 `DIST. XXV. ART. II. QUAEST. III.`; p.550 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.551 `DIST. XXV. DUBIA.` (p.551's running head names DUBIA because the d.25 Dubia opens lower on that same page).

**Footer ownership (page-split map).** NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart.
- **p.549** has 8 footers (nn.1–8). Split by body anchor: **nn.1–3 belong to d25-a2-q2** (DONE — n.3 carries q2's own *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* redirect); **nn.4–8 belong to this q3** (n.4 *Cfr. quaest. praeced. et supra d.24 a.1 q.1 ad 3 / assentitur rei→ei* → q3 arg 2 *de contingenti*; n.5 *Edd. tanto certius / mirabilia→miracula* → q3 arg 3 *certius*; n.6 *Strabum et Lyranum in Cantic. 6,9 — Glossa exponit* → q3 arg 4 *Synagogae*; n.7 *Cfr. supra d.23 a.1 q.3 — Z addit videtur quod* → q3 sed-contra 1 *Veritate dictante*; n.8 *Vide supra d.24 a.1 q.1 in corp.* → q3 sed-contra 2 *illuminationem*). This chunk renders **p.549 nn.4–8** (markers `[^p549-4]`…`[^p549-8]`). q2 owned nn.1–3 (DONE in d25-a2-q2 — picked up from that hand-off).
- **p.550**: nn.1–7 all owned by this q3 (`[^p550-1]`…`[^p550-7]`). p.550 has no chunk boundary — entire page is q3.
- **p.551**: **n.1 only** is owned by this q3 (`[^p551-1]` *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* → q3's body-close marker on *Et sic patet responsio ad propositam quaestionem¹*). **nn.2–10 belong to d25-dubia** (they gloss Dub. I/II body: n.2 *Libr. I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 4. Vide supra a. 2. q. 3.*, n.3 *Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 3.*, n.4 *Vide supra d. 24. a. 3. q. 2.*, nn.5–10 onward). Split by body anchor; documented for hand-off. ⚠ NOTE: q3's p.550 n.7 (the Hugo *Secundum incrementum fidei tria genera…* quote) WRAPS its text into the top of p.551's footer band (*…In primis sola pietas facit electionem etc. — Circa initium testimonii…*); that wrapped continuation is part of `[^p550-7]`, not a separate p.551 note.

Apparatus count rendered = **13** (p.549 ×5 [nn.4–8] + p.550 ×7 + p.551 ×1 [n.1]).

**Scholion disposition.** q3 has **NO scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). Eyes-on the PDF (p.551 R bands) and raw OCR: there is NO printed SCHOLION header between q3's close (*…Et sic patet responsio ad propositam quaestionem¹*) and the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header — the text runs straight into the Dubia. **This CONFIRMS the coordinator's prediction of `has_scholion: false`.** The redirect is real but is an *apparatus* cross-reference, not a separate scholion: it is q3's own footer **p.551 n.1** (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*), attached to q3's *propositam quaestionem* close marker, pointing back to the article-level Scholion at q1 (whose §I–II explicitly treat q2 AND q3 *in seqq. quaestionibus*). So "1. huius articuli quaest." = a2-q1's scholion, which covers all three questions of ARTICULUS II. (q2 carried the parallel redirect at its p.549 n.3.)

**Seam status.**
- *Open seam (with d25-a2-q2):* continuous. q2 closes at raw ~38190 (*…potest dicere cum David: Super omnes docentes me intellexi etc.*, p.549 L after its solution 4); QUAESTIO III header begins raw ~38191. Grammatically clean break at the question header.
- *Close seam (with d25-dubia):* q3 ends right before the DUBIA header. q3's last sentence (*…in tertiis puritas intelligentiae apprehendit certitudinem». — Et sic patet responsio ad propositam quaestionem.*) is grammatically complete; the d.25 DUBIA running head (`DIST. XXV. DUBIA.` raw ~38302, p.551) and the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header begin cleanly after it. No cascade-merge splice.

**[?] flags:** none. (450 dpi legible throughout; running-head digits OCR-mangled — `DURIA`=DUBIA, `UTTERAM`=LITTERAM, `MACISTRl`=MAGISTRI — trusted via +22 offset + running-head text.)

**★ With q3 done, ARTICULUS II is COMPLETE (3 questions: q1, q2, q3).** Only the **d.25 DUBIA** remains before DISTINCTIO XXV is COMPLETE.

**HAND-OFF → d25-dubia (next chunk):**
- **bon-sent-III-d25-dubia** = DISTINCTIO XXV, DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI — the LAST chunk of d.25, closing the distinction. `type: dubia`, **`has_scholion: false`**, `has_apparatus: true`, apparatus = `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` (the Dubia gloss the LITTERA but the footer block is the commentary's NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart — confirm eyes-on).
- **Raw anchors:** running head `DIST. XXV. DUBIA.` raw **~38302** (p.551); `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header raw **~38308** (OCR `DURIA CIRCA UTTERAM MACISTRl`). **FOUR dubia** (OCR garbles `Dub.`→`Dim.`/`Dun.`): **Dub. I** raw **~38310** (*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.»* — the *magnitudo fidei* per cognitio/articuli vs constantia/devotio); **Dub. II** raw **~38342** (*Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Quibusdam…»* — verify incipit eyes-on); **Dub. III** raw ~38400 (*…de hoc quod dicit de Ioanne…* — concerning John [the Baptist]; verify); **Dub. IV** raw **~38465** (*Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Fides, spes…»* — on the *aequalitas* of faith, hope, charity, and work / habituum ad operationes). ⚠ Re-grep raw 38302–38483 to pin each Dub. header + incipit precisely (two-column OCR interleave scrambles line order).
- **Body range:** raw ~38302 → up to **DISTINCTIO XXVI** header raw **38483** (the next distinction; `DIST. XXVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` running head raw 38583).
- **Page span:** the d.25 Dubia begins lower on **p.551** (after q3's close), runs onto p.552+. pdf = printed + 22. Generate `extract-pages.py --volume vol3 --pages 551-5NN --dpi 450` (551 already cropped) then `colcrop.py vol3 552…`.
- **Footer hand-off (IN to d25-dubia):** p.551 **nn.2–10** (n.2 *Libr. I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 4. Vide supra a. 2. q. 3.* onward — gloss Dub. I/II) + all p.552+ NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM, per-page restart. q3 took only p.551 **n.1** (its *Vide scholion* close redirect). ⚠ Watch the p.550 n.7 wrap (its text continues into the p.551 footer band TOP, *before* n.1) — that wrapped block is q3's, NOT a d25-dubia note.
- Template = any prior Vol III `type: dubia` chunk (e.g. `vol3/bon-sent-III-d24-dubia.md`) for the multi-Dub structure.