Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum anima separata cognoscat ea quae circa nos geruntur.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 3–6 of page 1047 and notes 1–11 of page 1048. Notes 1 and 2 of page 1047 anchor in the preceding quaestio and are rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur de cognitione animae separatae per comparationem ad statum viatorum; et quaeritur, utrum anima separata cognoscat ea quae circa nos geruntur. Et quod sic, videtur saltem de bonis.

1. Gregorius³: « Quid est quod non vident qui videntem omnia vident »? Sed tales sunt animae beatae: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc etiam videtur de reprobis: quia Gregorius narrat in Dialogo⁴, quod quidam malus homo praedixit locum suae sepulturae; et solvit, quod hoc fuit virtute animae, quae iam abstrahebatur a corpore: si ergo plus est cognoscere futura quam praesentia, et tanto magis cognoscit, quanto magis est abstracta; patet etc.

3. Item, communiter de utraque videtur: quia utraque habet potentiam intelligendi, quae non indiget adminiculo exterioris luminis⁵, nec est arctata ad aliquid: ergo potest per istam cognoscere quae circa nos geruntur.

4. Item, quanto substantia liberior, tanto facilius et certius⁶ exit in actum suum: ergo cum anima separata a corpore sit multo liberior quam ei coniuncta, si poterat coniuncta cognoscere quae sunt circa nos, poterit et separata.

Contra: 1. Quod beatae animae non cognoscant, videtur: quia beatae animae magis adhaerent Deo quam aliqui viatores; sed aliqui viatores ita adhaerent Deo, quod parum vel nihil sciunt de his quae hic geruntur: ergo etc.

2. Item, de damnatis videtur: quia lumen cognitionis non accrescit in damnatis, immo potius obscuratur; sed cum damnati erant hic, non poterant cognoscere ea quae fiunt apud inferos: ergo nec modo poterunt cognoscere ea quae fiunt apud nos.

3. Item, quod nec isti nec illi, videtur: quia tam isti quam illi habent potentiam cognoscendi finitam; sed ad hoc, quod aliquid cognoscatur de novo, necesse est praesentari ipsi virtuti cognoscenti: ergo si a nobis multum distant et absentes sunt, patet¹ etc.

4. Item, tam isti quam illi diligunt nos; sed qui diligit alterum congaudet in bonis et contristatur in malis: ergo si mali non debent cognoscere unde gaudeant, nec boni unde doleant; videtur, quod nec isti nec illi nos cognoscant. Et hoc confirmatum est per illud quod dictum est Iosiae, quarti Regum vigesimo secundo². Dixit enim Dominus, quod auferret eum, ne videret mala gentis suae.

Conclusio

Animae separatae, tam bonae quam malae, variis modis, praesertim per relationem aliorum, vel per revelationem Dei, quaedam de viatoribus cognoscere possunt.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est aliquid cognoscere dupliciter, scilicet propria consideratione et alterius instructione. Cognitio per propriam considerationem est duplex: aut enim est rei ut praesentis et per certitudinem; aut est rei ut absentis et per quandam coniecturationem. Similiter per instructionem cognitio est duplex: aut enim est per relationem³ alterius, aut per revelationem Dei.

Cum igitur sit quadruplex modus cognoscendi, primus non est in animabus separatis quantum ad actus nostros, quamdiu sunt in locis sibi deputatis; distant enim a nobis, nisi fortassis divina permissione veniant ad nos. — Secundus vero, qui est per quandam coniecturationem, sicut nos facimus de illis quos novimus, cum sint nobis absentes, in damnatis esse potest, non in bonis, quia huic admixtus est error et dubietas. — Tertius per relationem potest esse in bonis, quibus referunt Angeli boni⁴, et in malis, quibus referunt daemones, vel ipsi damnati. — Quartus vero per illustrationem et revelationem tantum in bonis. Unde Augustinus, in libro de Cura pro mortuis agenda⁵: « Possunt, inquit, spiritus mortuorum aliqua, quae hic aguntur, quae necessarium est eos nosse, non solum praesentia, sed etiam praeterita et futura, Spiritu Dei revelante, cognoscere ». Et Gregorius in Dialogo⁶: « Fit in electis quoddam mirabile, ut etiam illos quos hic nunquam viderunt vel noverunt bonos agnoscant ». Non tamen omnia cognoscunt, sed quaedam per revelationem.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnia vident boni, quia vident videntem omnia; dicendum, quod Gregorius intelligit de his quae sunt eorum saluti necessaria⁷.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illo qui praevidit locum, dicendum, quod hoc potuit esse ex multa sollicitudine et animae abstractione, vel etiam aliqua facta interius revelatione.

Ad 3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non indigent organo et sunt liberrimae; dicendum, quod quamvis non indigeant organo ad cognoscendum ea quorum habent species, indigent tamen ad accipiendum de novo et cognoscendum, maxime singularia⁸.

Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:

Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod Sancti sunt ab his abstracti; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia, quamdiu sunt in carne, impediuntur a contemplatione Dei ex consideratione multa nostrorum actuum, sed iam beati non impediuntur.

Ad 2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habent maius lumen cognitionis; dicendum, quod sicut modo cognoscimus revelatione, ita et ipsi, et consideratione similiter; sed certius considerant⁹ nos, quam nos ipsos, quia nos hactenus cognoverunt, sed non nos ipsos.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dolerent boni; dicendum, sicut iam¹⁰ patebit, quod nec bonis tristitia nec malis gaudium aliquod ex hoc esset¹¹.

---

Question II. Whether the separated soul knows the things that are done about us.

Secondly there is asked, concerning the knowledge of the separated soul, by comparison with the state of wayfarers; and it is asked whether the separated soul knows the things that are done about us. And that it does, seems [true] at least of the good.

1. Gregory³: « What is it that they do not see, who see him who sees all things »? But such are the blessed souls: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this also seems [true] of the reprobate: because Gregory relates in the Dialogue⁴ that a certain wicked man foretold the place of his own burial; and he resolved that this came about by the power of the soul, which was already being drawn away from the body: if therefore it is more to know future things than present ones, and it knows so much the more, the more it is abstracted; it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems [true] of both in common: because both have the power of understanding, which does not need the support of an exterior light⁵, nor is it restricted to any one thing: therefore through that power it can know the things that are done about us.

4. Likewise, the freer a substance is, the more easily and more certainly⁶ does it go forth into its own act: therefore since the soul separated from the body is much freer than [the soul] joined to it, if when joined it could know the things that are about us, it will be able to also when separated.

On the contrary: 1. That the blessed souls do not know [them], seems [true]: because the blessed souls cleave to God more than do some wayfarers; but some wayfarers cleave to God in such a way that they know little or nothing of the things that are done here: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems [true] of the damned: because the light of knowledge does not increase in the damned, but rather is darkened; but when the damned were here, they could not know the things that are done among those below: therefore neither now will they be able to know the things that are done among us.

3. Likewise, that neither these nor those [know], seems [true]: because both these and those have a finite power of knowing; but for something to be known anew, it is necessary that it be presented to the very power that knows: therefore if they are far distant from us and absent, it is clear¹ etc.

4. Likewise, both these and those love us; but he who loves another rejoices with him in good things and is saddened in evil ones: therefore if the evil ought not to know that from which they would rejoice, nor the good that from which they would grieve; it seems that neither these nor those know us. And this is confirmed by that which was said to Josiah, in the fourth [book] of Kings, chapter twenty-two². For the Lord said that he would take him away, lest he should see the evils of his people.

Conclusion

Separated souls, both the good and the evil, can in various ways — especially through the report of others, or through God's revelation — know certain things about wayfarers.

I respond: It must be said that to know something is twofold, namely by one's own consideration and by another's instruction. Knowledge through one's own consideration is twofold: for either it is of a thing as present and through certitude; or it is of a thing as absent and through a kind of conjecture. Likewise, knowledge through instruction is twofold: for either it is through the report³ of another, or through the revelation of God.

Since therefore the manner of knowing is fourfold, the first is not in separated souls as regards our acts, so long as they are in the places assigned to them; for they are distant from us, unless perhaps by divine permission they come to us. — The second however, which is through a kind of conjecture, as we do concerning those whom we know when they are absent from us, can be in the damned, not in the good, because error and doubt are mixed in with it. — The third, through report, can be in the good, to whom the good Angels report⁴, and in the evil, to whom the demons report, or the damned themselves. — The fourth however, through illumination and revelation, is only in the good. Hence Augustine, in the book On the Care to Be Had for the Dead⁵: « The spirits of the dead, he says, can know certain things which are done here, which it is necessary for them to know, not only present things, but also past and future ones, by the Spirit of God revealing them ». And Gregory in the Dialogue⁶: « There comes about in the elect something marvellous, that they recognize as good even those whom they never saw or knew here ». Yet they do not know all things, but certain things through revelation.

To the arguments for the affirmative side:

To 1. To that, then, which is objected, that the good see all things because they see him who sees all things; it must be said that Gregory understands this of those things which are necessary for their salvation⁷.

To 2. To that which is objected concerning the man who foresaw the place, it must be said that this could have come about from great solicitude and abstraction of the soul, or also from some revelation made interiorly.

To 3. 4. To that which is objected, that they do not need an organ and are most free; it must be said that although they do not need an organ for knowing those things of which they have the species, they do nevertheless need one for receiving anew and for knowing, most of all singulars⁸.

To the arguments for the negative side:

To 1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that the Saints are abstracted from these things; it must be said that the case is not alike: because, so long as they are in the flesh, they are impeded from the contemplation of God by much consideration of our acts, but now the blessed are not impeded.

To 2. 3. To that which is objected, that they do not have a greater light of knowledge; it must be said that just as we now know by revelation, so also do they, and by consideration likewise; but they consider⁹ us more certainly than we do ourselves, because they have known us hitherto, but not themselves.

To 4. To that which is objected, that the good would grieve; it must be said, as will presently¹⁰ be clear, that neither would there be any sadness for the good nor any joy for the evil from this¹¹.

---