← Back to Distinction 31

Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 31

Textus Latinus
p. 685

Quaestio III. Utrum habitus scientiae evacuetur in patria.

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

1. Per auctoritatem Apostoli primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio1: Sive prophetiae evacuabuntur, sive linguae cessabunt, sive scientia destruetur; sed quod destruitur simpliciter evacuatur: ergo etc.

2. Item, secundum quod vult Magister Hugo de sancto Victore in Didascaleo2: «Scientiae inventae sunt propter indigentias et necessitates supplendas ex parte animae, vel ex parte corporis»; si ergo in patria tolletur omnis indigentia, videtur, quod evacuetur omnis scientia.

3. Item, anima beata omnia cognoscit in Verbo et aperte et continue, ita quod ab illo aspectu non potest separari3: ergo videtur, quod nullus alius habitus cognitionis, vel aspectus beatae animae conveniat: videtur ergo, quod habitus cognitionis, qui est in via, simpliciter tollatur in patria, alioquin erit ibi frustra.

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

p. 686

minus est evacuabilis habitus fidei quam habitus scientiae. Si ergo habitus fidei evacuabitur in statu patriae4, videtur similiter, quod et habitus scientiae.

5. Item, habitus scientiae est per collationem causae ad effectum et per quandam ratiocinationem et decursum5; sed impossibile est in patria huiusmodi decursum reperire: ergo necesse est, habitum scientiae simpliciter tolli et evacuari.

Sed contra: 1. Anselmus in libro de Similitudinibus6: «Tunc iusti cuncta scient, quae Deus fecit scienda; ibi a singulis omnes, ibi ab omnibus singuli cognoscentur, nec unquam omnino latebit, qua patria, qua gente, qua stirpe quis editus sit»: si ergo notitia talium manebit, multo fortius manebit scientia, quae est habitus cognitivus universalium: ergo non videtur, quod scientia philosophica habeat evacuari in patria.

2. Item, sicut dicit Philosophus7: «Scientia non destruitur nisi aut propter corruptionem a parte scibilis, aut ex parte medii, aut propter oblivionem a parte scientis»; sed nullum horum erit in patria: ergo nullo modo videtur, quod ibi destruatur et evacuetur scientia.

3. Item, Christus erat comprehensor, et tamen nihilominus habuit scientiam competentem statui viae8; Angeli etiam sunt comprehensores, et tamen nihilominus habent habitum scientiae, quo cognoscunt res in proprio genere: ergo gloria secum compatitur scientiam: ergo nec destruit nec evacuat ipsam.

4. Item, maioris dignitatis est scire syllogizare et aliquid demonstrare, quam posse localiter moveri atque discurrere; sed ab ipsis Beatis non tolletur agilitas ad motum9: igitur nec habitus disponens ad syllogizandum et demonstrative aliquid cognoscendum: ergo non videtur, quod scientia evacuetur.

5. Item, si scientia evacuaretur et tolleretur in transitu de hac vita, igitur esset computanda inter bona transitoria: igitur sicut reprehensibiles sunt et stulti qui laborant esse divites10, sic videntur omnes esse stulti, qui laborant esse scientes, cum aequalis conditionis sit vetula et unus rusticellus, sicut est unus magnus clericus; quodsi hoc minus convenienter dicitur, videtur, quod scientia non evacuetur.

Conclusio.

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

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic est triplex modus dicendi. — Quibusdam enim videtur, quod habitus harum scientiarum acquisitarum, sive liberalium sive aliarum, omnino evacuentur et simpliciter destruantur. Hic enim habitus habet imperfectionem sibi iunctam inseparabiliter; et ideo ei alius habitus longe perfectior succedet, non solum ille quo quis cognoscet omnia in Verbo limpide et aperte, sed etiam habitus, qui erit per species et similitudines universi ordinis causarum mundi; qui datus fuit ipsis spiritibus angelicis et dabitur omnibus glorificatis11, per quem cetera cognoscent, etiam eadem ipsa, quae modo cognoscunt, multo excellentius atque nobilius. Alioquin si non daretur eis alius habitus novus ab isto, non esset in Beatis rerum creatarum secundum proprium genus perfecta cognitio; quod contra veritatem est et contra Anselmum. Et sic concedunt, in patria tolli istum habitum scientiae propter nobiliorem habitum supervenientem. — Et licet haec scientia destruatur, non tamen frustra laborat qui eam acquirit, quoniam per ipsam manuducitur homo ad cognitionem Dei et ad promotionem fidei, et ita ad augmentum meriti et per consequens ad complementum praemii. Et propterea, sicut non frustra credit aliquis, licet fides evacuetur in patria; sic etiam non frustra addiscit, licet ibi, ut dicunt, simpliciter evacuetur ista scientia.

Aliis autem aliter videtur dicendum esse, videlicet quod scientia non omnino evacuetur. Est enim ibi considerare habitum et usum. In patria autem tollitur quantum ad usum, qui imperfectionis est, et manet quantum ad habitum, qui facit ad ipsius animae decorem et pulcritudinem. Si enim manebunt ibi cicatrices vulnerum et notae cogitationum12 ad commendationem meriti et decorationem merentium; magis rationabile videtur, quod maneant ibi habitus scientiarum, quae faciunt ad ipsius animae decorem et ornatum.

p. 687

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

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

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hugone, quod scientiae inventae sunt propter indigentiam; dicendum, quod Hugo non assignat totam causam, sed assignat causam, quae movit homines secundum statum praesentis vitae ad inventionem scientiae. Quamvis enim homines moti fuerint propter indigentias amovendas, huiusmodi13 habitus magis ordinari habent ad intelligentias nostras perficiendas; quod quidem non tantum competit statui viae, sed etiam patriae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima omnia cognoscit in Verbo actu etc.; dicendum, quod sicut fuit dictum14 de Christo, quod anima Christi non solummodo habuit cognitionem rerum in Verbo, sed etiam secundum se per habitum sibi innatum; et beatis Angelis convenit idem propter perfectionem cognitionis, non solum respectu diversitatis cognoscibilium, sed etiam quantum ad varium cognoscendi modum: ita etiam in Beatis intelligendum est esse, quia cognitio rerum in Verbo et in proprio genere simul se compati possunt quantum ad habitum et quantum ad actum, quia una ad alteram ordinatur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides plus habet de veritate et lumine quam habitus scientiae; dicendum, quod etsi illud possit concedi, tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod habeat evacuari, quia lumen fidei, in quantum huiusmodi est, habet sibi inseparabiliter adiunctum aliquid, quod non est compossibile cum statu gloriae, sicut in praecedentibus15 ostensum fuit. Non sic autem est de habitu scientiae, qui, quantum est de sua ratione, tanto perfectior est, quanto certior et clarior; ideo non sic habet tolli quantum ad habitum, sicut fides ad praesentiam gloriae.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod scientia est per collationem causae ad effectum et per quendam decursum collativum; dicendum, quod ipse arguit de scientia quantum ad modum, quem in praesenti habet, de quo dictum est16, ratione cuius concessum est, scientiam evacuari, et ratione cuius Apostolus eam in futuro asserit destruendam.

Scholion

I. Primam opinionem hic explicatam sequitur B. Albert. (hic a. 10.), qui, de tertia opinione tacens, secundam reprobat et addit: «Ego puto, melius esse, quod consentiatur Magistro hic in littera dicenti17 (*), quod omnino destruetur; quia nos post mortem... necessario alium modum cognoscendi habebimus rerum in propria natura, quem habent daemones et Angeli a creatione; et puto, quod ille tunc dabitur nobis per species, scilicet quae sunt similitudines ordinis universi causarum mundi; qui modus nobilior est quam iste» etc. Quod autem ipse putat, Magistrum idem docere; error esse videtur, cum eiusdem verba (hic c. 2, in fine) potius tertiae sententiae faveant, ut etiam auctor noster asserit. S. Thom. aliique communiter tertiam opinionem approbant.

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

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether the habit of knowledge is voided in the fatherland.

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

1. By the authority of the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians, 131: Whether prophecies, they shall be made void; or tongues, they shall cease; or knowledge, it shall be destroyed; but what is destroyed is simply voided: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, according to what Master Hugh of St. Victor holds in the Didascalicon2: "The sciences were invented for supplying the wants and necessities on the part of the soul, or on the part of the body"; if therefore in the fatherland every want is taken away, it seems that all knowledge is voided.

3. Likewise, the blessed soul knows all things in the Word, both openly and continuously, in such a way that it cannot be separated from that gazing3: therefore it seems that no other habit of cognition, or gaze, befits the blessed soul: it seems therefore that the habit of cognition which is on the way is simply taken away in the fatherland, otherwise it will be there in vain.

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

less voidable is the habit of faith than the habit of knowledge. If therefore the habit of faith will be voided in the state of the fatherland4, it seems likewise that the habit of knowledge also will be.

5. Likewise, the habit of knowledge is by the bringing of cause to effect and by a certain reasoning and discursion5; but it is impossible in the fatherland to find a discursion of this kind: therefore it is necessary that the habit of knowledge be simply taken away and voided.

On the contrary: 1. Anselm in the book On Likenesses6: "Then the just shall know all things which God has made to be known; there all shall be known by each single one, there each single one by all, nor shall it ever be wholly hidden by what fatherland, by what people, by what stock anyone was born": if therefore the knowledge of such things will remain, much more strongly will knowledge remain, which is a cognitive habit of universals: therefore it does not seem that philosophical knowledge is to be voided in the fatherland.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher says7: "Knowledge is not destroyed except either by corruption on the part of the knowable, or on the part of the medium, or by forgetfulness on the part of the knower"; but none of these will be in the fatherland: therefore in no way does it seem that knowledge is there destroyed and voided.

3. Likewise, Christ was a comprehensor, and yet none the less had knowledge befitting the state of the way8; the Angels too are comprehensors, and yet none the less have a habit of knowledge by which they know things in their proper genus: therefore glory is compatible with knowledge: therefore it neither destroys nor voids it.

4. Likewise, it is of greater dignity to know how to syllogize and to demonstrate something, than to be able to be moved locally and to range about; but agility for motion will not be taken away from the Blessed themselves9: therefore neither the habit disposing to syllogizing and to knowing something demonstratively: therefore it does not seem that knowledge is voided.

5. Likewise, if knowledge were voided and taken away in the passage from this life, then it would have to be reckoned among transitory goods: therefore just as those are reprehensible and foolish who labor to be rich10, so all seem to be foolish who labor to be knowing, since the old woman and one little rustic are of equal condition with one great clerk; but if this be said less fittingly, it seems that knowledge is not voided.

Conclusion.

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

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that here there is a threefold manner of speaking. — For to some it seems that the habit of these acquired sciences, whether of the liberal or of the others, are wholly voided and simply destroyed. For this habit has an imperfection inseparably joined to it; and therefore there will succeed to it another, far more perfect habit, not only that by which one will know all things in the Word limpidly and openly, but also a habit which will be by the species and likenesses of the universal order of the causes of the world; which was given to the angelic spirits themselves and will be given to all the glorified11, by which they will know the rest, even those very things which they now know, far more excellently and nobly. Otherwise, if there were not given to them another habit, new, besides this one, there would not be in the Blessed a perfect cognition of created things according to their proper genus; which is against the truth and against Anselm. And so they grant that in the fatherland that habit of knowledge is taken away on account of the nobler habit supervening. — And although this knowledge be destroyed, nevertheless he who acquires it does not labor in vain, since by it a man is led by the hand to the cognition of God and to the advancement of faith, and so to the increase of merit and consequently to the completion of the reward. And therefore, just as one does not believe in vain, although faith be voided in the fatherland; so also one does not learn in vain, although there, as they say, this knowledge be simply voided.

But to others it seems that it should be said otherwise, namely that knowledge is not wholly voided. For there is here to consider habit and use. In the fatherland, however, it is taken away as to use, which is of imperfection, and it remains as to habit, which makes for the comeliness and beauty of the soul itself. For if there will remain there the scars of wounds and the marks of thoughts12 for the commendation of merit and the adorning of those who merit; it seems more reasonable that there should remain there the habits of the sciences, which make for the comeliness and ornament of the soul itself.

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

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

2. To that which is objected concerning Hugh, that the sciences were invented on account of want; it must be said that Hugh does not assign the whole cause, but assigns the cause which moved men according to the state of the present life to the invention of knowledge. For although men were moved on account of removing wants, habits of this kind13 have rather to be ordered to the perfecting of our understandings; which indeed belongs not only to the state of the way, but also of the fatherland.

3. To that which is objected, that the soul knows all things in the Word in act, etc.; it must be said that, just as was said14 of Christ, that the soul of Christ not only had a cognition of things in the Word, but also in itself by a habit innate to it; and the same befits the blessed Angels on account of the perfection of cognition, not only in respect of the diversity of the knowable, but also as to the varied mode of knowing: so also it is to be understood to be in the Blessed, because the cognition of things in the Word and in their proper genus can be compatible together both as to habit and as to act, because the one is ordered to the other.

4. To that which is objected, that faith has more of truth and light than the habit of knowledge; it must be said that, although that may be granted, nevertheless from this it does not follow that it should be voided, because the light of faith, inasmuch as it is such, has inseparably joined to it something which is not compossible with the state of glory, as was shown in the preceding15. But it is not so with the habit of knowledge, which, as far as is of its own character, is the more perfect the more certain and clearer it is; therefore it is not to be taken away as to habit in the way that faith is at the presence of glory.

5. To that which is objected, that knowledge is by the bringing of cause to effect and by a certain collative discursion; it must be said that he argues of knowledge as to the mode which it has in the present, of which it has been said16, by reason of which it was granted that knowledge is voided, and by reason of which the Apostle asserts that it is to be destroyed in the future.

Scholion

I. The first opinion here explained is followed by B. Albert (here, a. 10), who, keeping silent about the third opinion, rejects the second and adds: "I think it better that the Master be agreed with, who here in the letter says17 (*) that it will be wholly destroyed; because we after death... shall necessarily have another mode of knowing things in their proper nature, which the demons and Angels have from creation; and I think that that mode will then be given to us by species, namely which are the likenesses of the universal order of the causes of the world; which mode is nobler than this one" etc. But that he thinks the Master teaches the same; this seems to be an error, since the words of the same (here, c. 2, at the end) rather favor the third opinion, as our author too asserts. St. Thomas and others commonly approve the third opinion.

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

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 8.
    Verse 8.
  2. Sive Erudit. didascalicae lib. I. c. 6; cfr. I. Excerpt. c. 5.
    Or Erudit. didascalicae I, c. 6; cf. Excerpt. I, c. 5.
  3. Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Mox post conveniat cod. F subiungit ex sua dilectione. In fine arg. pro erit cod. A est, cod. Z esset.
    Cf. above, d. 14, a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 1, and following. — Presently, after conveniat codex F adds ex sua dilectione. At the end of the argument, for erit codex A reads est, codex Z esset.
  4. Vide supra q. I.
    See above, question 1.
  5. Cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. c. 2. — Pro decursum, quod vocabulum omnes codd. hic et infra passim adhibent, edd. hic et saepe discursum, quo termino technico posteriores auctores communiter utuntur.
    Cf. Aristotle, Posterior [Analytics] I, c. 2. — For decursum, which word all the manuscripts use here and below throughout, the editions read here and often discursum, which technical term later authors commonly employ.
  6. Cap. 59. In textu origin. post scienda additum est: tam ea quae praeterita sunt, quam ea quae postmodum sunt futura; deinde etiam pro nec unquam exhibetur nec quemquam. — Liber de Similitudinibus falso tribuitur Anselmo; est potius Eadmeri (†1121), Anselmi discipuli et amici. — De scientia ut habitu cognitivo universalium vide Aristot., I. Poster. c. 24. (c. 31.), II. c. 18. (c. 15.); VI. Ethic. c. 3. et 6; I. Metaph. c. 1.
    Chapter 59. In the original text, after scienda there is added: both those things which are past, and those which afterwards are to be future; then also for nec unquam there is presented nec quemquam. — The book On Likenesses is falsely attributed to Anselm; it is rather by Eadmer (†1121), the disciple and friend of Anselm. — On knowledge as a cognitive habit of universals see Aristotle, Posterior [Analytics] I, c. 24 (c. 31), II, c. 18 (c. 15); Ethics VI, c. 3 and 6; Metaphysics I, c. 1.
  7. Sententialiter I. Poster. c. 6. Cfr. de Praedicam. c. de Eis quae ad aliquid; VIII. Topic. c. 2; cfr. etiam de Longitud. et brevit. vitae, c. 2, nec non Fragment. de divis. 66.
    In substance, Posterior [Analytics] I, c. 6. Cf. Categories, the chapter On Things in Relation to Something; Topics VIII, c. 2; cf. also On Length and Shortness of Life, c. 2, and likewise Fragment on Division, 66.
  8. Vide supra d. 14. a. 3. q. 1. De cognitione Angelorum vide II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq.
    See above, d. 14, a. 3, q. 1. On the cognition of the Angels see II Sent. d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 4, a. 3, q. 1, and following.
  9. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 49. p. II. a. 2. princip. a. 1. q. 1. — In edd. 1, 2 sic concluditur: ergo non videtur evacuandus; in Vat. ergo non videtur evacuandus, et sic non videtur, quod etc.
    Cf. IV Sent. d. 49, p. II, a. 2, principal a. 1, q. 1. — In editions 1, 2 it is concluded thus: therefore it does not seem to be voided; in the Vatican edition: therefore it does not seem to be voided, and so it does not seem that etc.
  10. Cfr. I. Tim. 6, 9. — Paulo superius pro igitur esset cod. K igitur videtur esse.
    Cf. I Timothy 6, 9. — A little above, for igitur esset codex K reads igitur videtur esse.
  11. Codd. X aa glorificaturis, Vat. glorificandis. Mox pro eadem ipsa cod. Z haec eadem. Inferius ante perfecta cognitio cod. U interiicit propria et.
    Codices X aa read glorificaturis, the Vatican edition glorificandis. Presently, for eadem ipsa codex Z reads haec eadem. Below, before perfecta cognitio codex U inserts propria et.
  12. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1: Sunt ergo ea quae sunt in voce, earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae, et ea quae scribuntur, eorum quae sunt in voce etc. — Loco cogitationum in nonnullis codd. cognitionum scriptum videtur; Vat. habet operationum. Post pauca pro quae faciunt codd. A H I L U V quae faciant.
    Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 1: Therefore the things which are in the voice are marks of the passions which are in the soul, and the things which are written are [marks] of those which are in the voice, etc. — In place of cogitationum in some manuscripts cognitionum seems to be written; the Vatican edition has operationum. After a little, for quae faciunt codices A H I L U V read quae faciant.
  13. Edd. addunt tamen. Subinde pro ordinari habent cod. K ordinantur.
    The editions add tamen. Then for ordinari habent codex K reads ordinantur.
  14. Vide locc. citt. supra pag. 686, nota 5.
    See the passages cited above, p. 686, note 5.
  15. Quaest. 1. et d. 24. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3. et q. 3. ad 2. — Mox pro de habitu cod. F de statu.
    Question 1, and d. 24, a. 2, q. 1, to the 3rd, and q. 3, to the 2nd. — Presently, for de habitu codex F reads de statu.
  16. Vat. omittit de quo dictum est. In fine solut. pro asserit cod. Z astruit.
    The Vatican edition omits de quo dictum est. At the end of the solution, for asserit codex Z reads astruit.
  17. Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. III. tr. 20. c. 2: Scientia destruetur non secundum substantiam, sed secundum modum et usus quosdam, non omnes.
    William of Auxerre, Summa, p. III, tr. 20, c. 2: Knowledge will be destroyed not according to substance, but according to mode and certain uses, not all.
  18. Vide exemplum, infra d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. ad 3. ex Aristot. allatum.
    See the example, below, d. 34, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, to the 3rd, adduced from Aristotle.
  19. Vers. 10. — Glossa supra allata est in corp. 1. quaest. Quam Glossam Petr. Lombard. hic ponit et diversas de evacuatione scientiae opiniones recenset. Deinde dicit: De actu quidem et usu ipsius scientiae probabile est, quod evacuetur; de ipsa vero scientia non adeo; scientia enim est ipsa mentis qualitas, cuius actus est visio ipsa, qua videmus nunc, a qua ad aliam perducemur etc. Clarius docet hic in lit. c. 2. — Mox pro debet poni et communius sustineri edd. debet et potest rationabilius sustineri.
    Verse 10. — The Gloss adduced above is in the body of question 1. This Gloss Peter Lombard sets down here and reviews the various opinions concerning the voiding of knowledge. Then he says: Concerning the act indeed and the use of knowledge itself it is probable that it is voided; but concerning knowledge itself, not so; for knowledge is the very quality of the mind, whose act is the very vision by which we see now, from which we shall be led on to another, etc. He teaches more clearly here in the letter, c. 2. — Presently, for debet poni et communius sustineri the editions read debet et potest rationabilius sustineri.
← Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 31, Art. 3, Q. 1→