Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 33, Dubia

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 33

Textus Latinus

p. 798

Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

Dub. I. In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Possunt intelligi plura peccata in una transgressione Adae. Si enim hoc verum est, tunc pari ratione in quolibet uno peccato est multitudo peccatorum, si consideretur illa ratio assignandi diversa peccata in uno peccato, quam Augustinus ponit in littera¹. Quilibet enim, cum peccat, interficit animam suam, quia peccatum est mors animae; quilibet etiam transgreditur mandatum divinum: ergo est ibi homicidium et inobedientia; et sic de aliis. — Item, si fuit ibi pluralitas peccatorum: ergo videtur, quod in quolibet parvulo sit multitudo originalium. Quodsi tu dicas, quod non fuit transfusum originale ratione omnium, sed ratione alicuius; quaeritur ergo tunc, ratione cuius principaliter fuerit transfusum, scilicet utrum ratione gulae, vel superbiae, vel inobedientiae. Et quod ratione inobedientiae, videtur: ad Romanos quinto²: Per inobedientiam peccatum intravit in mundum. — Quod autem fuerit gula, videtur per ipsum textum³: Quacumque die comederitis, morte moriemini. Et ratio concordare videtur, quia originale peccatum transfunditur mediante propagatione carnis, ergo transfunditur ratione peccati carnalis: ergo si non fuit ibi peccatum carnale nisi gula, ergo etc. — Quod autem fuerit superbia, videtur auctoritate Hugonis, in septima parte primi libri de Sacramentis⁴: «Propter elationem animus obscuratus est; quia enim per elationem tumuit, ignorantia percussus, lumen veritatis amisit». Et parum ante hoc⁵: «Quia spiritus, per superbiam contra Creatorem tumens, obedientiam non tenuit, idcirco Creator spiritum ignorantia, carnem vero concupiscentia damnavit».

Quaeritur ergo, ratione cuius horum originale principaliter transfunditur, cum omnia haec dicat Augustinus fuisse in primo peccato.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod peccatum Adae sicut et alia peccata in uno genere est principaliter; nihilominus tamen ex quadam adaptatione secundum diversos effectus et circumstantias, diversa dicitur in se claudere peccatorum genera, non quia in ipsa sit culparum multiplicitas, loquendo essentialiter, sed per quandam adaptationem et quandam metaphoram. Nihilominus tamen, sicut supra⁶ explanatum fuit, in consummatione et perpetratione unius peccati contingit diversa reperire peccata, ut superbiam vel avaritiam in primordio, et gulam in progressu, et inobedientiam in consummatione peccati primorum parentum, et maxime Evae.

Ad illud ergo, quod quaeritur, utrum ratione horum omnium, vel ratione alicuius istorum specialiter transfundatur originale peccatum; dico, quod ratione omnium, sed differenter; nam superbia respicit illam transfusionem originalis quasi causaliter, et gula quasi materialiter, et inobedientia quasi formaliter. Peccatum enim Adae, formaliter loquendo, fuit peccatum inobedientiae; materialiter vero, quia fuit esus ligni, fuit peccatum gulae; sed causaliter, quia fuit propter acquirendam excellentiam, fuit peccatum superbiae. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta⁷.

Dub. II. Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de peccato Adae: Non est putandum, peccatum Adae gravius fuisse quam peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia maius malum est quod corrumpit totam naturam, quam quod corrumpit p. 799unam solam personam; sed peccatum Adae totam naturam corrumpebat, peccatum in Spiritum sanctum unam solam personam: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haec quaestio determinata fuit supra⁸, cum agebatur de peccato Adae; et ideo breviter dixisse sufficiat, quod ex diversis causis unum peccatum dicitur esse maius altero. — Propter quod notandum, quod multis modis dicitur peccatum unum esse maius sive gravius altero. Primo modo causalitate; et sic peccatum diaboli dicitur esse maius, cuius invidia mors introivit in orbem terrarum⁹. Secundo modo generalitate; et sic peccatum primi parentis dicitur fuisse maius, quia in totum genus humanum se diffudit. Tertio modo enormitate; et sic peccatum Iudae dicitur esse maximum, quia vendidit Deum. Quarto modo ingratitudine; et sic peccatum illius dicitur esse maius, qui plura percepit dona gratiarum. Quinto modo periculositate; et sic peccatum ignorantiae dicitur esse maximum, quia periculosum. Sexto modo inseparabilitate; et sic peccatum cupiditatis dicitur esse maximum, quia cum alia vitia cum homine consenescant, sola avaritia iuvenescit¹⁰. Septimo modo importunitate; et sic superbia dicitur esse maximum, quia etiam ex ipsis bonis operibus consurgit. Octavo modo pronitate; et sic luxuria dicitur esse gravius, ad quam homines magis sunt proni. Nono modo maioris gratiae impugnatione; et sic peccatum in Spiritum sanctum dicitur esse maximum. Decimo modo ratione maioris offensae; et sic peccatum idololatriae dicitur esse maximum. Undecimo modo ratione facilitatis resistendi; et sic dicit Magister, quod peccatum Adae fuerit gravissimum. Duodecimo modo ratione maioris improbitatis atque libidinis; et sic cuiusque generis peccatum maius potest fieri altero¹¹. — Hi duodecim modi consueverunt a doctoribus assignari. Fortassis et alii apparebunt modi, sed isti sufficiant tanquam magis consueti. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur.

Dub. III. Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod peccatum commissum est ab homine, quando tota natura in eo consistebat; ideo tota natura in eo corrupta est. Ex hoc enim videtur, quodsi Adam perpetrasset aliud peccatum quam illud, cum in eo esset tota natura, quod totam naturam corrupisset. Sed contra: ponatur, quod Adam solo consensu peccasset, tunc corpus in actu¹² peccati animae non communicasset: ergo caro non fuisset infecta: ergo nec originalis culpa transfusa. — Item, poenitentia in integrum restituit ea quae mens perdidit, quamvis non restituat ea quae sunt corporis: ergo si homo tantum mentaliter peccasset, omnino per poenitentiam resurgeret: non ergo videtur, quod originalem culpam transfunderet.

Propter hoc est quaestio, utrum si peccasset alio genere peccati, originale transfudisset.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc duplex fuit opinio. Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod cum omne peccatum sit «praevaricatio legis divinae et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum¹³», et per omne peccatum avertatur anima a Deo et fiat ei rebellis; quod quocumque genere peccati Adam peccasset, rebellionem carnis et spiritus incurrisset. — Item, cum omne peccatum sit iniustitia, quocumque genere peccati peccasset Adam, privatus fuisset iustitia, quam habebat. — Item, cum omne peccatum mortale sit mors animae, per quodlibet¹⁴ incurrisset carnis mortalitatem. Cum igitur ista faciant originale transfundi, tenuerunt, quod Adam transfudisset originale, quocumque genere peccati peccasset; et hoc videtur sonare verbum Magistri. Secundum hanc positionem de facili respondetur ad illud quod obiicitur, quia, sicut videmus, quod pro peccatis spiritualibus caro cruciatur in inferno, et hoc, quia nihil aliud est carnem cruciari quam voluntatem cruciari in carne; sic et in proposito voluerunt dicere, quod esse potuit, ut pro peccato, quod commisisset spiritualiter, puniretur corporaliter.

Alius modus dicendi est, quod si Adam mortaliter peccasset, et¹⁵ mandatum illud non fuisset transgressus, non transfunderet originale. Et ratio huius est, quia pro sola transgressione illius mandati comminatus est ei Dominus mortem, sicut patet secundo Genesis¹⁶. Et secundum hanc positionem verbum Magistri, quod dicitur in littera, intelligitur, praesupposita transgressione illius mandati, cui adiuncta erat mortalitatis poena. — Primus tamen modus dicendi videtur esse probabilior. Quamvis enim Scriptura non comminetur mortem nisi pro illa inobedientia, non absurde tamen illa comminatio intelligitur se extendere ad omnem mortalem culpam. Quod autem istorum verius sit, dubium est; nec ibi est magna vis facienda, quia modica est utilitas et nulla sciendi necessitas¹⁷.

p. 800

Dub. IV. Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si homo iuste in carne vixerit, non continuo meretur eam mortem non perpeti, quam traxit a propagatione peccati. Hoc enim videtur inconvenienter dictum. Si enim nulla poena debetur homini nisi merito culpae, et homo in carne adeo potest iuste vivere, ut sit dignus statim evolare¹⁸; videtur, quod in eo non sit meritum alicuius poenae, nec mortis nec alterius. — Item, si mors debetur cuilibet iusto pro peccato, videtur igitur, quod nulla gratia fuerit in Martyribus, qui mortui sunt pro Christo, sicut nec in latronibus, qui suspenduntur pro latrocinio.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: si mors debetur homini pro originali peccato, et unicum est in homine originale peccatum¹⁹, quae iustitia fuit in Lazaro, qui bis mortuus est?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nulla unquam iustitia absolvit hominem a debito mortis, pro eo quod omnis iustitia, quae est in nobis, respicit voluntatem et est personalis; mors vero est poena naturalis; et ideo per nullam iustitiam dignus est homo a morte absolvi; nec Deus sua benignitate aliquem a morte liberavit, tum propter illius sententiae firmitatem, qua dictum est Genesis tertio²⁰: Pulvis es, et in pulverem etc.; tum etiam, ut fides locum habere possit.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de Martyribus, dicendum, quod illud quod uno modo est debitum, si ex caritate fiat, potest fieri gratum²¹; Martyres autem quia mortem voluntarie sustinuerunt, quam effugere potuerunt, immo morti pro Christo se ante tempus obtulerunt, mors, quae alias esset poena, fuit eis valde meritoria, quia Deus eam valde reputat pretiosam, ex hac duplici causa, quae tacta est.

Ad illud de Lazaro dicendum, quod prima mors fuit ad manifestandum gloriam Dei²²; et illud supplicium recompensatum est per consequens beneficium, quia hoc ipso, quod suscitatus est, fuit ei ampliatum merendi spatium; et melius erat ei sic bis mori, quam si semel mortuus fuisset. Ideo cum hoc alicui praestatur, ut suscitetur, magis sibi reputet praestari beneficium, quam inferri supplicium²³.

---

English Translation

Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

Doubt I. In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says: Several sins can be understood in the one transgression of Adam. For if this is true, then by parity of reason in any one sin there is a multitude of sins, if one considers that manner of assigning diverse sins in one sin, which Augustine sets down in the text¹. For everyone, when he sins, slays his own soul, because sin is the death of the soul; everyone also transgresses the divine command: therefore there is there homicide and disobedience; and so of the others. — Likewise, if there was there a plurality of sins: then it seems that in every infant there is a multitude of original sins. But if you say that the original [sin] was not transmitted by reason of all [of these], but by reason of some one [of them]; it is then asked by reason of which it was principally transmitted, namely whether by reason of gluttony, or of pride, or of disobedience. And that it was by reason of disobedience, seems [true]: to the Romans, in the fifth chapter²: Through disobedience sin entered into the world. — But that it was gluttony, seems [true] from the text itself³: On whatever day you shall eat, you shall die the death. And the reasoning seems to agree, because original sin is transmitted by the mediation of the propagation of the flesh, therefore it is transmitted by reason of a carnal sin: therefore if there was there no carnal sin except gluttony, therefore etc. — But that it was pride, seems [true] by the authority of Hugh, in the seventh part of the first book On the Sacraments⁴: «On account of elation the mind was darkened; for because it swelled through elation, smitten by ignorance, it lost the light of truth». And a little before this⁵: «Because the spirit, swelling through pride against the Creator, did not keep obedience, therefore the Creator condemned the spirit with ignorance, but the flesh with concupiscence».

It is asked therefore by reason of which of these the original [sin] is principally transmitted, since Augustine says that all these were in the first sin.

I respond: It must be said that the sin of Adam, like other sins, is principally in one genus; nevertheless, by a certain adaptation according to diverse effects and circumstances, it is said to contain within itself diverse genera of sins, not because in it there is a multiplicity of faults, speaking essentially, but by a certain adaptation and a certain metaphor. Nevertheless, as was explained above⁶, in the consummation and perpetration of one sin it happens that diverse sins are found, such as pride or avarice in the beginning, and gluttony in the progress, and disobedience in the consummation of the sin of the first parents, and especially of Eve.

To that therefore which is asked, whether by reason of all these, or by reason of some one of these specially the original sin is transmitted; I say that by reason of all, but differently; for pride regards that transmission of the original [sin] as it were causally, and gluttony as it were materially, and disobedience as it were formally. For the sin of Adam, formally speaking, was the sin of disobedience; but materially, because it was the eating of the tree, it was the sin of gluttony; but causally, because it was for the sake of acquiring excellence, it was the sin of pride. — And thus the answer to the objections becomes plain⁷.

Doubt II. Likewise it is asked about that which he says concerning the sin of Adam: It is not to be thought that the sin of Adam was graver than the sin against the Holy Spirit. For this seems false, because a greater evil is that which corrupts the whole nature, than that which corrupts p. 799one single person; but the sin of Adam corrupted the whole nature, the sin against the Holy Spirit one single person: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that this question was determined above⁸, when treatment was made concerning the sin of Adam; and therefore let it suffice to have said briefly that from diverse causes one sin is said to be greater than another. — On account of which it must be noted that in many ways one sin is said to be greater or graver than another. In the first way by causality; and thus the sin of the devil is said to be greater, by whose envy death entered into the world⁹. In the second way by generality; and thus the sin of the first parent is said to have been greater, because it diffused itself into the whole human race. In the third way by enormity; and thus the sin of Judas is said to be the greatest, because he sold God. In the fourth way by ingratitude; and thus the sin of him is said to be greater, who received more gifts of graces. In the fifth way by perilousness; and thus the sin of ignorance is said to be the greatest, because it is perilous. In the sixth way by inseparability; and thus the sin of cupidity is said to be the greatest, because while the other vices grow old together with man, avarice alone grows young¹⁰. In the seventh way by importunity; and thus pride is said to be the greatest, because it arises even from good works themselves. In the eighth way by proneness; and thus lust is said to be graver, to which men are more prone. In the ninth way by the impugning of a greater grace; and thus the sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be the greatest. In the tenth way by reason of a greater offense; and thus the sin of idolatry is said to be the greatest. In the eleventh way by reason of the ease of resisting; and thus the Master says that the sin of Adam was the gravest. In the twelfth way by reason of greater wickedness and lust; and thus a sin of any genus can become greater than another¹¹. — These twelve ways are wont to be assigned by the doctors. Perhaps other ways too will appear, but let these suffice as the more customary. — And by this the answer to that which is objected becomes plain.

Doubt III. Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that the sin was committed by man, when the whole nature consisted in him; therefore the whole nature was corrupted in him. For from this it seems that, if Adam had perpetrated another sin than that one, since the whole nature was in him, he would have corrupted the whole nature. But on the contrary: let it be posited that Adam had sinned by consent alone, then the body would not have communicated in the act¹² of the sin of the soul: therefore the flesh would not have been infected: therefore neither would the original fault have been transmitted. — Likewise, penance restores in full those things which the mind lost, although it does not restore those things which are of the body: therefore if a man had sinned only mentally, he would altogether rise again through penance: it does not therefore seem that he would transmit the original fault.

On account of this there is a question, whether, if he had sinned by another genus of sin, he would have transmitted the original [sin].

I respond: It must be said that concerning this there was a twofold opinion. For some wished to say that, since every sin is «a transgression of the divine law and a disobedience to the heavenly commandments¹³», and through every sin the soul is turned away from God and becomes rebellious to him; that by whatever genus of sin Adam had sinned, he would have incurred the rebellion of the flesh and the spirit. — Likewise, since every sin is injustice, by whatever genus of sin Adam had sinned, he would have been deprived of the justice which he had. — Likewise, since every mortal sin is the death of the soul, by any [such sin]¹⁴ he would have incurred the mortality of the flesh. Since therefore these things cause the original [sin] to be transmitted, they held that Adam would have transmitted the original [sin], by whatever genus of sin he had sinned; and this seems to be the import of the word of the Master. According to this position it is easily answered to that which is objected, because, as we see, that for spiritual sins the flesh is tormented in hell, and this, because it is nothing else for the flesh to be tormented than for the will to be tormented in the flesh; so also in the matter at hand they wished to say that it could be, that for a sin which he had committed spiritually, he would be punished corporally.

Another manner of speaking is, that if Adam had sinned mortally, and¹⁵ had not transgressed that command, he would not transmit the original [sin]. And the reason of this is, that for the sole transgression of that command the Lord threatened him with death, as is plain in the second [chapter] of Genesis¹⁶. And according to this position the word of the Master, which is said in the text, is understood, the transgression of that command being presupposed, to which the punishment of mortality was joined. — Yet the first manner of speaking seems to be the more probable. For although Scripture threatens death only for that disobedience, yet not absurdly is that threat understood to extend to every mortal fault. But which of these is truer, is doubtful; nor is there great force to be made there, because the utility is slight and there is no necessity of knowing it¹⁷.

p. 800

Doubt IV. Likewise it is asked about that which he says: If a man has lived justly in the flesh, he does not forthwith merit not to suffer that death which he drew from the propagation of sin. For this seems unfittingly said. For if no punishment is owed to a man except by the merit of fault, and a man can live so justly in the flesh that he is worthy to fly away at once¹⁸; it seems that in him there is not the merit of any punishment, neither of death nor of another. — Likewise, if death is owed to every just man for sin, it seems therefore that there was no grace in the Martyrs, who died for Christ, just as neither in the thieves, who are hanged for theft.

In connection with this it is asked: if death is owed to a man for original sin, and there is only one original sin in a man¹⁹, what justice was in Lazarus, who died twice?

I respond: It must be said that no justice ever absolved a man from the debt of death, on account of the fact that all justice which is in us regards the will and is personal; but death is a natural punishment; and therefore by no justice is a man worthy to be absolved from death; nor did God by his benignity free anyone from death, both on account of the firmness of that sentence, by which it was said in the third [chapter] of Genesis²⁰: Dust you are, and into dust etc.; and also that faith might have place.

To that which is asked concerning the Martyrs, it must be said that that which in one way is a debt, if it be done out of charity, can become acceptable²¹; but the Martyrs, because they voluntarily endured death, which they could have escaped, nay rather offered themselves to death for Christ before their time, the death which otherwise would be a punishment was for them greatly meritorious, because God reckons it greatly precious, from this twofold cause which has been touched upon.

To that concerning Lazarus it must be said, that the first death was for the manifesting of the glory of God²²; and that suffering was recompensed by a consequent benefit, because by this very thing, that he was raised up, a span for meriting was enlarged for him; and it was better for him thus to die twice, than if he had died once. Therefore when this is granted to anyone, that he be raised up, let him rather reckon that a benefit is bestowed upon him, than that a suffering is inflicted²³.

---

Apparatus Criticus

Hic c. 2.
Here, c. 2.
Vers. 12. et 19.
Verses 12 and 19.
Gen. 2, 17, ubi Vulgata: In quocumque enim die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. — De ratione addita vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.
Genesis 2:17, where the Vulgate [reads]: For on whatever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death. — On the reasoning added, see above, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 ff.
Cap. 31, ubi textus originalis, post obscuratus est additis verbis per ignorantiam, sic prosequitur: quia enim animus per elationem contra Deum tumuit etc.
C. 31, where the original text, after obscuratus est, with the words per ignorantiam added, continues thus: for because the mind swelled through elation against God etc.
Cap. 27.
C. 27.
Dist. 22. a. 1. q. 1. Cfr. etiam d. 5. a. 1. q. 1, ubi simile de angelorum peccato dicitur. — Mox antiquiores codd. minus recte pro superbiam... avaritiam etc. exhibent superbia... avaritia etc. Pro reperire in cod. dd legitur reperiri.
Dist. 22, a. 1, q. 1. Cf. also d. 5, a. 1, q. 1, where the like is said concerning the sin of the angels. — Soon after, the older codices less correctly for superbiam... avaritiam etc. exhibit superbia... avaritia etc. For reperire in codex dd is read reperiri.
De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 3. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. p. II. tr. 17. q. 107. m. 4. a. 2. partic. 2; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 1.
On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 106, m. 3, a. 3; B. Albert, here, a. 2; Summa, p. II, tr. 17, q. 107, m. 4, a. 2, partic. 2; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 1.
Dist. 21. a. 3. q. 3. — Mox in Vat. et edd. 3, 4 desunt verba et ideo breviter dixisse sufficiat usque ad maius altero inclusive.
Dist. 21, a. 3, q. 3. — Soon after, in the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4 the words et ideo breviter dixisse sufficiat up to maius altero inclusive are lacking.
Sap. 2, 24.
Wisdom 2:24.
Serm. 48. ad Fratres in eremo (inter opera Augustini): Omnia in homine senescunt vitia, sola avaritia iuvenescit. — Paulo inferius pro maximum codd. et edd. 1, 2 maxima, quod minus congruum est.
Sermon 48, to the Brothers in the desert (among the works of Augustine): All the vices grow old in man, avarice alone grows young. — A little below, for maximum the codices and editions 1, 2 read maxima, which is less congruous.
Edd., excepta 1, ab altero. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 137. m. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. II. tr. 18. q. 120. m. 1. a. 3. partic. 3; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 2.
The editions, except the first, read ab altero. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 137, m. 5; B. Albert, here, a. 3; Summa, p. II, tr. 18, q. 120, m. 1, a. 3, partic. 3; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 2.
Pro in actu Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 actum.
For in actu the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 read actum.
Ambros., de Paradiso, c. 8. n. 39.
Ambrose, On Paradise, c. 8, n. 39.
Edd., excepta 1, pro quolibet; eaedem omittunt etiam animae.
The editions, except the first, [read something else] for quolibet; the same also omit animae.
Cod. cc et ed. 1 sed.
Codex cc and edition 1 read sed.
Vers. 17.
Verse 17.
Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 3. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 106, m. 3, a. 3; B. Albert, here, a. 2; St. Thomas, here on the text.
Id est intrare in caelum. — De prima parte proposit. vide supra pag. 135, nota 2.
That is, to enter into heaven. — On the first part of the proposition, see above, p. 135, note 2.
Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. — Mox pro fuit in Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 facta fuit; subinde pro qui codd. B H K Q aa bb et alii quod.
Cf. above, a. 2, q. 2. — Soon after, for fuit in the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 [is] facta fuit; thereupon for qui codices B, H, K, Q, aa, bb and others [read] quod.
Vers. 19. — Ratio secundo loco adducta affertur etiam ab August., II. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 31. n. 50, et XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 4, ubi etiam ea tanguntur, quae mox de morte Martyrum dicuntur, nec non ab Anselm., de Concord. praesc. Dei cum lib. arb. q. 3. c. 9.
Verse 19. — The reason adduced in the second place is brought forward also by Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins etc., Bk. II, c. 31, n. 50, and On the City of God, Bk. XIII, c. 4, where also those things are touched upon which presently are said about the death of the Martyrs, and likewise by Anselm, On the Concord of God's Foreknowledge with Free Choice, q. 3, c. 9.
Id est gratiam sibi comparans. — Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 gratuitum. Mox Vat. omittit morti.
That is, procuring grace for oneself. — The Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 [read] gratuitum. Soon after, the Vatican edition omits morti.
Ioan. 11, 4: Infirmitas haec non est ad mortem, sed pro gloria Dei, ut glorificetur Filius Dei per eam.
John 11:4: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it.
Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 105. m. 2. per totum; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.
Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 105, m. 2, throughout; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 5.

← Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 2