[Tractatus secundus: Responsiones ad quasdam raciones sophisticas adductas ad muniendum errorem Ioannis 22i de visione animarum sanctarum in celo.]

[REPLY TO CERTAIN FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS

put forward to support the error of John XXII concerning the vision of the holy souls in heaven]

Text edited by Jan Ballweg, revised by John Kilcullen and John Scott

[s 249] [Prologus] [Prologue]

[s 250] “Qualis rector est civitatis, tales inhabitantes in ea”, quia subiectis existit quodammodo naturale (vel ut placeant, vel ut displiceant) suis se rectoribus conformare. Affectant autem rectores precipue ut secte sue (quantum ad ea que fidei et religionis existimant) subiecti fervencius acquiescant. Et ideo cum rector infectus fuerit heretica pravitate, quia ei placere desiderant, pravitate consimili involventur, quia exemplum erroris vehementer ostenditur quando errans timore potencie honoratur. "What manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein" [Ecclesiasticus 10:2], because it is in a way natural for subjects, whether they like it or not, to conform themselves to their rulers. But rulers desire especially that subjects acquiesce enthusiastically in their own choice in matters they judge to concern faith and religion. And so when the ruler has been infected with heretical wickedness the subjects will be embroiled in similar wickedness because they wish to please him and because the example of the error is shown strongly when the one in error is honoured out of fear of his power.

[s 251] Cum igitur rector in Avinionica civitate circa visionem animarum sanctarum in celo dampnabiliter (ut fertur) noscatur errare, consequens est ut qui ei cupiunt placere errorem istius non metuant publicare et racionibus et auctoritatibus scripturarum communire. Sane licet plures in sacris literis eruditi prefati rectoris errorem de visione animarum sanctarum in celo in diversis operibus reprobaverunt luculenter fundamentaque suorum sequacium eliserunt evidenter, asserciones tamen et motiva quorundam qui, in favorem rectoris predicti, quod anime sancte in celo non vident deum publice predicare, asserere, et docere presumunt in presenti opusculo confutare conabor. Non tamen principalem errorem improbare studebo, quia in aliis operibus inquisicionibus eius poterit improbacio reperiri. Sed ad quasdam raciones sophisticas quas ad muniendum predictum errorem adducunt satagam respondere, et quorundam errores quos incidentaliter dogmatizant breviter reprobabo. Since therefore, as is reported, the ruler of the city of Avignon is known to be in reprehensible error concerning the vision of holy souls in heaven, the consequence is that those who wish to please him are not afraid to publish his error and support it with texts of the Scriptures. Now although many learned in sacred letters have in various works excellently condemned that ruler's error about the vision of holy souls in heaven and have manifestly shattered the foundations his followers depend on, yet in this present work I will try to confute the assertions and arguments of some of those who in support of the said ruler presume to preach publicly, to affirm and to teach that holy souls in heaven do not see God. However, I will not try to refute his main error because the refutation of his inquiries can be found in other works. But I will try to reply to certain sophistical arguments which they bring forward to strengthen the said error, and I will briefly reject errors some people incidentally propound.

[s 252] Capitulum 1 Chapter 1

[s 253] Quod igitur anime sancte in celo non videant deum quidam sic probare nituntur. Tempus credendi et tempus beatifice deum videndi non compaciuntur se invicem, secundum doctrinam Apostoli in multis locis, quia fidei succedit visio. Sed tempus credendi (secundum omnes sanctos) durabit usque ad diem iudicii. Igitur anime sanctorum usque tunc deum non vident, nec videbunt. So some people try to prove as follows that holy souls in heaven do not see God [before judgment Day]. The time of believing and the time of seeing God beatifically are not compatible with one another, according to the teaching of the Apostle in many places, because vision comes after faith [i.e. the time of believing]. But according to all the saints the time of believing will last until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, until then the souls of the saints do not see God and will not see him.

Quamvis istius racionis solucio exquisita in tractatu contra tractatum predicti Rectoris, in quo probare conatur quod anime sancte in celo non vident deum, potuerit inveniri, ipsam tamen volo hic aliter pertractare. Although a thorough solution of that argument can be found in the tract against that ruler's tract in which he tries to prove that holy souls in heaven do not see God, yet I want to deal with it in another way here.

[s 254] Maior itaque racionis prescripte sensum habet falsum, nam si intelligatur quod tempus credendi et tempus deum beatifice videndi nullo modo sint simul, pro diversis falsa est: quia constat quod, quantum ad angelos, est nunc tempus beatifice deum videndi, pro Christo est eciam nunc tempus deum beatifice videndi, quia Christus et angeli nunc beatifice vident deum; et tamen pro viatoribus tempus est nunc credendi. Si autem intelligatur quod, in eodem, tempus credendi et tempus deum beatifice videndi non compaciuntur se, conceditur. Thus: the major premise of the above argument has a false sense. For if it is understood [to mean] that the time of believing and the time of seeing God beatifically in no way occur at the same time, for diverse persons it is false. For it is certain that, in respect of the angels, now is the time of seeing God beatifically, for Christ now is also the time of seeing God beatifically, because Christ and the angels now see God beatifically; and yet for those on the way [i.e. in this life] now is the time of believing. If, however, it is understood [to mean] that in the same person the time of believing and the time of seeing God beatifically are not compatible with each other, this is conceded.

[s 255] Cum autem dicitur, quod tempus credendi durabit usque ad diem iudicii, [verum est in viatoribus], sed in celo non est tempus nunc deum credendi esse trinum et unum.
When it is said, however, that the time of believing will last until the Day of Judgment, this is true for those on the way, but in heaven it is not now the time for believing that God is one and three.

Sed quod nunc sit fides in omnibus vivis et defunctis probatur per illud Apostoli ad Ephesios 4o, “Dedit quosdam quidem apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, alios vero evangelistas, alios autem pastores et doctores, ad societatem sanctorum in opus ministerii et edificacionem corporis Christi, donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnicionis Filii dei, in virum perfectum, in mensuram etatis plenitudinis Christi”. Iste autem occursus non erit ante diem iudicii; igitur fides durabit in omnibus tam vivis quam defunctis usque ad diem iudicii. But that all the living and the dead have faith [i.e. are in the time of believing] now is proved by what the Apostle says in Ephesians 4[:11-13]: "The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, toward fellowship with the saints in the work of the ministry and building up the body of Christ, until all of us come together to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ." That "coming together", however, will not take place before the Day of Judgment; therefore faith [the time of believing] will last in all, both living and dead, right up to the Day of Judgment.

[s 256] Ad hanc probacionem est facile respondere, quia Apostolus in verbis predictis intendit ostendere quod usque ad diem iudicii durabit prelacio, glossa teste, que super verbo “donec”, ait quod “tamdiu durabit hec prelacio et ordinacio, donec in die iudicii nos 'omnes', qui sumus 'in unitate fidei'”, et cetera. Prelacio autem illa de qua Apostolus loquitur non est nunc in celo quantum ad animas sanctas. Igitur per verba Apostoli non potest probari quod fides sit nunc in celo, sed quod fides est et erit usque ad diem iudicii in vita mortali. Et hoc est verum, quod in vita mortali durabit fides usque ad diem iudicii. It is easy to reply to that proof, because the Apostle's intention in the above words is to show that prelacy will last until the Day of Judgment. The gloss on the word "until" above attests to this. It says that, "This prelacy and office will last this long, until on the Day of Judgment 'all of us' who are 'in unity of faith' …" etc. The prelacy about which the Apostle is speaking does not exist now in heaven with respect to the holy souls. Therefore it can not be proved by the Apostle's words that there is now faith [time of believing] in heaven, but that faith exists and will exist until judgment Day in mortal life. And this is true, because in mortal life faith will last until judgment Day.

[s 257] Sed forte diceret aliquis quod glossa asserit ibi quod fides remanebit in omnibus quousque omnes occurramus in unitate fidei, quia dicit quod prelacio durabit “donec, in die iudicii... omnes... in unitate fidei, id est in una et non discrepanti fide... occurramus". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod omnes salvandi occurrent in die iudicii in una et non discrepanti fide, igitur usque ad illum occursum omnes tenebunt fidem, igitur ante illum occursum nullus salvandus erit sine fide, et per consequens non videbit deum. But someone might say that the gloss there asserts that faith will remain in everyone till the time when "all of us come to the unity of faith" because it says that prelacy will last "until on the Day of Judgment all in unity of faith, that is in one faith that does not differ, come together". We gather from these words that all who are to be saved will come together on the Day of Judgment in the one faith that does not differ; therefore all will maintain the faith until that coming together; therefore before that coming together no one who is to be saved will be without faith [i.e. they will be in the time of believing]; and consequently they will not see God.

[s 258] Sed ad hoc respondetur quod male allegatur glossa, quia non est intencio glosse quod durabit prelacio donec omnes occurramus in unitate fidei (quia multi in fine prelacionis occurrent non in fide sed in clara visione), sed est intencio quod prelacio durabit donec omnes qui sumus, quamdiu sumus in vita presenti, in una et non discrepanti fide [occurramus. Aliqui] occurrent in clara visione et aliqui occurrent in fide. Et quod sic debeat intelligi glossa patet, quia dicit, “Donec in die iudicii omnes, qui sumus in unitate fidei, et in una et non discrepanti fide”, quamdiu scilicet sumus in vita presenti, non autem pro vita post mortem: nec umquam dixit Apostolus quod fides in omnibus defunctis salvandis remanebit. But to this it is answered that the gloss is cited inappropriately, because the meaning of the gloss is not that prelacy will last until we all come together in unity of faith (because when prelacy comes to an end many will come together not in faith but in clear vision), but its meaning is that prelacy will last until all of us [come together] who are (as long as we are in this present life) in the one faith that does not differ. [Some] will come together in clear vision and some will come together in faith. And it is clear that the gloss should be understood in this way because it says "until on the Day of Judgment all of us who are in unity of faith and in the one faith that does not differ", that is, as long as we are in the present life, but not for life after death: the Apostle did not ever say that faith will remain in all the dead who are to be saved.

[s 259]Capitulum 2 Chapter 2

[s 260] Rursus, pro errore predicto taliter allegatur. Ad hoc, scilicet quod anime sancte in celo deum minime sunt visure, est oracio ecclesie, que dicit pro defunctis, “Qui nos precesserunt et dormiunt in sompno pacis”, pro quibus orat ecclesia ut lucem videndi deum deus eis concedat in futurum, scilicet post diem iudicii. Et si dicatur eis quod hec oracio est pro defunctis quorum anime sunt in purgatorio, hoc improbare conantur, dicentes quod hoc non est verum, quia in oracione ecclesie premittitur quod “dormiunt in sompno pacis”, et non pene et affliccionis. Ex quibus clare patet quod oracio illa non fit pro animabus in purgatorio existentibus sed pro illis animabus que sunt in pace et quiete et expectant post ultimum iudicium, et non ante, dei visionem et suam beatificacionem. Again, it is argued as follows for the above error. In support of this, that holy souls in heaven will not see God, is the prayer the Church makes for the dead "who have gone before us and sleep the sleep of peace". For these the Church prays that God will grant them the light to see God in the future, that is after the Day of Judgment. And if it is said to them [those who so argue] that this prayer is for the dead whose souls are in purgatory, they try to refute this, saying that it is not true because in the prayer of the Church it is set down earlier that "they sleep the sleep of peace", and not of punishment and affliction. It is quite clear from these words [they say] that the prayer is not made for souls in purgatory but for those souls that are in peace and at rest and are expecting the vision of God and their own beatification, after the final judgment and not before.

Senses of "Peace"

[s 261] Ut istius allegacionis perversitas clarius demonstretur, est primo sciendum quod pacis vocabulum accipitur multipliciter in scripturis. Uno enim modo importat concordiam unius ad alterum, teste glossa <que> super illud Apostoli ad Romanos 15o, “Deus autem spei repleat vos omni gaudio et pace in credendo”, que ait: “‘Repleat vos pace’ habita ‘in credendo’, id est det vobis pacem, id est concordiam adinvicem”. Et super illud ad Romanos 14o, “Non est enim regnum dei esca et potus, sed iusticia et pax”, dicit glossa “‘Pax’, id est concordia, que est effectus iusticie”. In order for the perversity of that argument to be demonstrated more clearly it should first be known that the word "peace" is used in many ways in the scriptures. For in one way it denotes the concord between one person and another, as the Gloss on the verse of the Apostle in Romans 15[:13], "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing", attests. It says: "that he may fill you with the peace acquired in believing, that is, that he may give you peace, that is, mutual concord." And on Romans 14[:17], "For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace", the Gloss says, "peace, that is, concord, which is the effect of righteousness."

[s 262] Aliter accipitur pax pro reconciliacione ad deum, que est per caritatem. Sic accipitur pax cum dicit Apostolus ad Romanos 1o, “Gracia vobis et pax a deo Patre”, et cetera, teste glossa, que ait ibidem, “Sicut gracia dei est qua donantur nobis peccata, ita pax est qua ex inimicis reconciliamur deo”. Sic eciam accipit pacem Apostolus in eadem epistola, c. 5o, dicens, “Iustificati ergo ex fide, pacem habeamus”, teste glossa que ait ibidem, “Habeamus pacem ad deum quia ei reconciliati sumus”. Sic eciam accipitur pax ad Colossenses 3o, cum dicit Apostolus, “Pax Christi exultet in cordibus vestris”, teste glossa, que dicit ibidem, “‘Pax Christi’, id est quam Christus habuit in se et haberi precepit, vel quam inter deum et hominem fecit, ‘exultet in cordibus vestris’, id est sit in cordibus vestris causa exultacionis, quod utique erit, si habeatur caritas, que veram habet pacem, quam puro corde custodit. Pax enim dici non potest que non habet caritatem, caritas vero semper secum habet pacem”. In another way "peace" means reconciliation with God, which occurs through love, and "peace" is taken in this way when the Apostle says in Romans 1[:7], "Grace to you and peace through God our Father". The gloss attests to this; it says at that point, "As the grace of God is the means by which our sins are pardoned, so is peace the means by which from being enemies we are reconciled to God." The Apostle also takes "peace" in this way in chapter 5 of the same letter when he says [Romans 5:1], "Therefore since we are justified by faith we have peace"; the gloss attests to this when it says on this verse, "we have peace with God because we are reconciled to him." "Peace" is also taken this way in Colossians 3[:15] where the Apostle says, "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts." The gloss attests to this; it says on this verse, "'Let the peace of Christ', that is, [the peace] which Christ had in himself and commanded to be had or [the peace] which he made between God and man, 'rule in your hearts', that is, let it be in your hearts on account of that rule, because it certainly will be if you have love, which has [as a characteristic] true peace which it [love] guards by a pure heart. For that cannot be called peace that does not have love, but love always has peace with it."

[s 263] Tercio accipitur pax pro tranquillitate mentis, et iste modus accipiendi pacem predictis modis minime contrariatur, quamvis inter ipsum et alios aliqua distinccio valeat assignari; et ideo tam isto modo quam secundo modo accipitur pax cum dicit Apostolus ad Romanos 1o, “Gracia vobis et pax”, teste glossa, que ibidem ait, “‘Et pax’, id est reconciliacio ad deum et tranquillitas mentis”. Sic eciam accipitur in aliis salutacionibus epistolarum beati Pauli, sicut glossa asserit manifeste. Thirdly, "peace" means tranquillity of mind, and that way of taking it is not opposed to the earlier ways, although some distinction between that way and the others can be reckoned; and therefore "peace" is taken both in that way and in the second way when the Apostle says in Romans 1[:7], "Grace to you and peace." The gloss attests to this; it says about that verse, "'And peace', that is, reconciliation with God and tranquillity of mind." It ["peace"] is also taken in that way in other salutations in the letters of blessed Paul, as the gloss clearly asserts.

[s 264] Sed sicut mentis tranquillitas est duplex, una scilicet perfecta, que omnem anxietatem et affliccionem excludit, alia imperfecta, que aliquam affliccionem secum compatitur, ita pax est duplex: una que omnem affliccionem excludit, de qua dicitur in Psalmo, “Mansueti autem hereditabunt terram, et delectabuntur in multitudine pacis”. Alia est pax que non omnem anxietatem et affliccionem excludit, quam pacem optabat Apostolus discipulo suo Timotheo dicens, “Gracia” (supple, “sit tibi”) “misericordia et pax”, id est tranquillitas mentis et prelibacio vite eterne: sit tibi secundum vitam eternam pax, que tranquillitate mentis potest haberi. Unde et tranquillitatem mentis sancti quamplurimi habuerunt in hac vita, et tamen omni affliccione minime caruerunt.   But just as tranquillity of mind is of two kinds, one that is perfect and excludes all anxiety and affliction, and the other that is imperfect and is consistent with some affliction, so peace is of two kinds, one which excludes all affliction and about which it is said in the Psalm [36:11], "But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace." The other is a peace that does not exclude all anxiety and affliction. The Apostle was wishing for this latter peace for his disciple Timothy when he said, (understand: let there be to you) "grace, mercy and peace", that is tranquillity of mind and a foretaste of eternal life; let there be to you the peace of eternal life which can be had by tranquillity of mind. So very many saints both had tranquillity of mind in this life and yet by no means lacked all affliction.

[s 265] Unde et Christus dixit apostolis, “Pacem meam do vobis”, quibus tamen dixit, “In mundo pressuram habebitis”, quibus antea dixit, “Hec locutus sum vobis ut in me pacem habeatis”. Whence Christ also said to the apostles, "My peace I give you." Nevertheless it was to these [apostles], to whom he had earlier said, "I have said this to you so that in me you may have peace", that he said, "In the world you face persecution."

Sic igitur predictis modis accipitur pacis vocabulum in scripturis, licet eciam aliter accipi possit. Ex predictis aliisque quampluribus, que causa abbreviacionis omitto, liquide constat quod non omnis pax omnem penam, affliccionem et anxietatem excludit, sed aliquam secum compatitur. The word "peace" therefore is taken in the above ways in the scriptures, although it can also be taken in other ways. It is manifestly clear from the foregoing [points] and very many others which I omit for the sake of brevity that not every [kind of] peace excludes all punishment, affliction and anxiety, but it is consistent with some [of them].

First reply to argument

[s 266] Ad allegacionem itaque suprascriptam contingit dupliciter respondere. Uno modo quod in illa oracione, “Memento eciam, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos precesserunt cum signo fidei et dormiunt in sompno pacis”, orat ecclesia pro illis qui in purgatorio puniuntur, quia, licet graviter affligantur, pacem tamen que est reconciliacio ad deum noscuntur habere. Qui enim in caritate cum venialibus decesserunt reconciliacionem ad deum quam habuerunt in hac vita minime perdiderunt, et ideo in purgatorio existentes pacem habent ad deum, licet graviter affligantur, quemadmodum apostoli et prophete et martyres et alii sancti, quando eciam affligebantur gravissime, pacem et reconciliacionem habuerunt ad deum.
[s 267] Et ideo concedendum est quod anime in purgatorio existentes dormiunt in sompno pacis, licet non dormiant in sompno illius pacis que omnem penam et affliccionem excludit. Quare pro illis ecclesia convenienter orat, ut scilicet post unam pacem divina clemencia aliam eis largiatur; unde et istam duplicem pacem, quarum una est post aliam, quam tamen non excludit oracio predicta ecclesie, aperte insinuat, cum ecclesia dicit in deo, scilicet fide, “et dormiunt in sompno pacis: ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, ut indulgeas deprecamur”. It is possible, therefore, to reply to the above argument in two ways. In one way, that in the prayer, "Remember, O Lord, your servants and maid-servants who have gone before us with the sign of faith and are sleeping the sleep of peace", the Church is praying for those who are being punished in purgatory, because although they are seriously afflicted they are known nevertheless to have the peace that is reconciliation with God. For those who have died in a state of love [but] with venial sins have by no means lost the reconciliation with God they had in this life. And so while they are in purgatory they have peace with God even if they are seriously afflicted, just as the apostles, the prophets, the martyrs and the other saints, when they were being very seriously afflicted, had peace and reconciliation with God. And so it should be granted that souls in purgatory are sleeping the sleep of peace, although they are not sleeping the sleep of that peace which excludes all punishment and affliction. Therefore the Church appropriately prays for them that after the one peace the divine clemency will bestow the other [peace] on them. So the Church clearly implies that double peace, of which one is after the other and which the aforesaid prayer of the Church does not exclude, when it says in God, that is in faith, "… and they are sleeping the sleep of peace. We beseech you, O Lord, to bestow on them and on all resting in Christ a place of consolation, of light and of peace."

[s 268] Hiis verbis liquide constat quod ecclesia pro illis qui dormiunt in sompno pacis tantum exorat ut eis locum pacis indulgeat. Dormiunt igitur in sompno pacis, et tamen orat ecclesia ut ad locum pacis perveniant: quia licet dormiant in sompno pacis que est reconciliacio ad deum, ad locum tamen pacis que omnem anxietatem et affliccionem excludit nullatenus intraverunt. Et ita patet aperte quod predicta allegacio ex ignorancia multiplicis nominis pacis procedit. Si enim isti inter pacem et pacem scivissent distinguere, siluissent. It is quite clear from these words that the Church prays for those who are sleeping the sleep of peace only so that [God] will bestow on them a place of peace. So they are sleeping the sleep of peace, and yet the Church prays that they might come to a place of peace: because although they are sleeping the sleep of the peace which is reconciliation with God, they have nevertheless not entered that place of the peace which excludes all anxiety and affliction. And so it is very clear that the aforesaid argument advances in ignorance of the variety [of meanings] of the noun "peace". For if they had known how to distinguish between different [kinds of] "peace", they would have been silent.

Senses of "rest"

[s 269] Sicut autem est distinguendum inter pacem et pacem, ita eciam distinguendum est inter quietem et quietem. De multiplici enim quiete legitur in scriptura divina, sed de duplici quiete tantummodo ad presens loqui sufficiat. Est enim quedam quies ab actibus viciorum, de qua dicitur Isaie 1o, “Quiescite agere perverse”, et ista quies non omnem affliccionem et penam excludit, cum ista quies in vita presenti (saltem ad tempus) possit haberi. [s 270] Alia est quies que erit in vita eterna, que omnem penam et affliccionem excludit. Anime igitur in purgatorio existentes in Christo quiescunt ab omnibus actibus viciorum, quia nullum actum viciosum committunt, sed quietem eternam, que omnem penam et affliccionem excludit, minime sunt adepte. Orat igitur ecclesia ut anime, quiescentes in Christo ab omnibus actibus viciorum, ad locum refrigerii qui caret omni affliccione ducantur. Now just as distinctions have to be made of kinds of peace, so it is also necessary to make distinctions of kinds of rest. For we read in divine scripture about a variety [of meanings] of "rest"; but it is enough now to speak only about a double sense of "rest". For there is a kind of "rest" from vicious acts about which Isaiah 1[:16] speaks, "Cease to do evil"; and that rest does not exclude all affliction and punishment, since that rest can be had (temporarily, at least) in this present life. Another "rest" is that which will exist in eternal life, which does exclude all punishment and affliction. So those souls living in Christ in purgatory are resting from all vicious acts, because they do not commit any vicious acts, but they have not acquired the eternal rest that excludes all punishment and affliction. Therefore the Church prays that souls resting in Christ from all vicious acts may be led to a place of consolation where there is no affliction.

[s 271] Cum igitur dicunt isti quod anime in purgatorio non dormiunt in sompno pacis, si intelligant (ut series dictorum suorum insinuat) quod nullo modo dormiunt in sompno pacis, errant aperte, quia hoc non esset aliud quam dicere quod non essent reconciliate ad deum: sed anime ille dormiunt in sompno pacis, quamvis sint in affliccione et pena, quia non omnis pax penam et affliccionem excludit. So if, when they say that souls in purgatory do not sleep the sleep of peace, they mean, as the context of their remarks implies, that in no way do they sleep the sleep of peace, they are obviously in error, because this would be to say precisely that they have not been reconciled to God; but those souls are sleeping the sleep of peace, even if they are in affliction and punishment, because not all peace excludes punishment and affliction.

Second reply

[s 272] Aliter ad allegacionem predictam potest dici quod ecclesia in oracione predicta non solum orat pro animabus in purgatorio existentibus, sed eciam orat pro animabus sanctis in celo, ut scilicet anime sancte que dormiunt in sompno pacis, resumptis corporibus, ad locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, que ultimum gradum essencialem et accidentalem pacis eterne quem umquam habiture sunt includit, perveniant, quam pacem anime in celo ante diem iudicii non habebunt. Quamvis enim nunc videant deum et sint beate, beatitudo tamen earum, et per consequens pax earum eterna, erit post iudicium augmentata, quia tunc clarius videbunt deum, et de resumpcione corporum et complecione civitatis eterne et aliis pluribus tunc gaudebunt. In another way it can be said to the above argument that in the aforesaid prayer the Church is not praying only for souls in purgatory but is also praying for holy souls in heaven, that is that when holy souls that are now sleeping the sleep of peace have resumed their bodies they might come to a place of consolation, light and peace -- a peace that includes the highest essential and accidental degree of eternal peace that they will ever have. Souls in heaven will not have this peace before the Day of Judgment. For although they see God now and are blessed, nevertheless their beatitude, and consequently their eternal peace, will be increased after the judgment because then they will see God more clearly and will rejoice then at the resumption of their bodies, at the completion of the eternal city and at many other things.

[s 273]Capitulum 3 Chapter 3

[s 274] Amplius quidam predictum errorem, quod anime in celo non vident deum, sic probare nituntur. Ambrosius in libro De bono mortis dicit quod anime purgate post claustrum corporum visione spirituali, que est per speciem, vident deum, et certum est, quod nulla species est ita medium efficax sicut humanitas Christi hominis, et cetera. Further, some people try as follows to prove the aforesaid error that the souls in heaven do not see God. In his book, "On the Good of Death", Ambrose says that after the prison of their bodies purified souls see God by a spiritual vision which is per speciem, and it is certain that no species is so effective a medium as the humanity of Christ the man, etc.

Sed ista allegacio predictum errorem aperte convincit. [s 275] Nam qui videt deum per speciem clare videt deum; videre enim per speciem distinguitur contra videre deum “per speculum et in enigmate”, et per consequens distinguitur contra noticiam illam que est per fidem, quod Apostolus 2a ad Corinthios 5o aperte insinuat, dicens, “Per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem”, ubi dicit glossa: “Et est illuminacio per fidem, et illuminacio per speciem. Modo per fidem tantum illuminamur, non per speciem. Homini enim vitam mortalem adhuc agenti non potest contingere, ut dimoto atque discusso omni nubilo fantasiarum corporalium, serenissima incommutabilis veritatis luce pociatur et, mente penitus a consuetudine vite humane alienata, constanter et indeclinabiliter illi adhereat”.

But [in fact] that argument plainly convicts the aforesaid error. For whoever sees God by per speciem [in this context, by direct vision, "sight"] sees God clearly; for to see God by sight is distinguished from seeing God "through a glass and in a dark manner" [1 Corinthians 13:12]; and consequently it is distinguished from that knowledge which comes through faith. The Apostle clearly implies this when he says in 2 Corinthians 5[:7], "For we walk by faith, and not by sight". The gloss on this says, "And there is illumination by faith and illumination by sight; now we are illuminated by faith only, not by sight. For it is not possible for a man still living a mortal life, with all the clouds of bodily fantasies eliminated and scattered, to take possession of the calm light of unchangeable truth, and to adhere to it constantly and inflexibly, with his mind completely withdrawn from the customs of human life".

[s 276] Ex hiis verbis aperte colligitur quod visio dei per speciem a cognicione per fidem distinguitur, et quod visio dei per speciem cum fide non manet. Quare si secundum beatum Ambrosium (ut iste allegat) anime purgate post claustrum corporum visione que est per speciem vident deum, sequitur quod non ambulant tunc per fidem: si autem per fidem tunc non ambulant, clare vident deum. Igitur anime sancte in celo clare nunc vident deum. We clearly gather from these words that the vision of God by "sight" is distinguished from the knowledge by faith and that the vision of God by "sight" does not remain with faith. Therefore if, as [this arguer] alleges, according to Ambrose, "after the prison of their bodies purged souls see God by a [spiritual] vision which is by 'sight'", it follows that they are then not walking by faith; if, however, they are not then walking by faith, they see God clearly; therefore the holy souls in heaven now see God clearly.

[s 277] Cum autem iste dicit, quod nulla species est ita medium efficax sicut est humanitas Christi hominis, multipliciter errat.

However when he says that no species [meaning now "means of apprehension"] is as effective a means as the humanity of Christ the man, he errs in many ways.

[s 278] Primo in hoc quod adducit in probacione quod visio dei per speciem de qua loquuuntur sancti sit per creaturam mediam representantem divinam essenciam, quod falsum est: quia species illa per quam dicunt sancti sanctos in celo videre deum non est aliqua creatura, sed est ipsa divina essencia, teste glossa, que super illud Apostoli, “Per fidem enim ambulamus, non per speciem”, dicit primo, “Non per presenciam eorum”. [s 279] Ambulare igitur per speciem est ambulare per presenciam divine essencie, ut scilicet ipsa divina essencia per seipsam et non per creaturam aliquam videatur. Hoc eciam glossa 2a ad Corinthios 12o, super illud Apostoli, “Scio hominem in Christo ante annos quattuordecim, sive in corpore”, et cetera, asserit manifeste, et loquens de visione intellectuali divine essencie non per aliquam creaturam, ait: Ubi et deus videtur non per corporalem visionem, “ut in Sina” Moyses, “vel per spiritualem, ut vidit Isaias et Iohannes in Apocalypsi, sed per speciem et non in enigmate”.
. [s 280] Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod visio qua deus videtur per speciem non est per aliquam creaturam sed per ipsam divinam essenciam. Unde et glossa ibidem subdit, “Hoc modo visionis petivit Moyses videre deum, id est in substancia qua deus est, quem multis figuris viderat et facie ad faciem ei locutus fuerat, quia ibi, id est in illa specie, qua deus est” cercius videtur. Ecce quod aperte asseritur quod quando videtur deus in sua substancia, videtur in specie qua deus est; et per consequens visio dei per speciem non est per mediam creaturam, sed est per ipsam divinam essenciam. [s 281] Unde et glossa subdit ibidem, quod “ubi, id est in qua claritate speciei, nemo vivens in istis sensibus deum videt. Hoc est tercium celum, scilicet visio qua deus videtur facie ad faciem. Et iste est paradisus (si dici potest) paradisorum”. Ex quibus verbis patet quod visio dei non per mediam creaturam est visio qua deus in claritate speciei sue videtur, et per consequens visio dei per speciem est visio dei non per mediam creaturam. First, in what he brings forward in his proof, that  the vision of God per speciem about which the saints speak is through an intermediary creature representing the divine essence; this is false, because that species through which the saints say the saints in heaven see God is not some creature but is the divine essence itself, as is attested by the gloss on the Apostle's statement [2 Cor. 5:7], "For we walk by faith, not by sight". The gloss says first, [the walking] "is not by means of their [own] presence". Therefore to walk per speciem is to walk by means of the presence of the divine essence, namely so that the divine essence is seen by means of itself and not by means of some creature. The gloss on the Apostle's statement in 2 Cor. 12[:2], "I know a person in Christ who 14 years ago … whether in body" etc, affirms this plainly; and speaking of an intellectual vision of the divine essence not by means of some creature, it says: In which also God is seen not by bodily vision, "as Moses saw on Sinai, or by spiritual [vision] as Isaiah, and John in Revelations [saw] but by 'sight' and not obscurely." We are given to understand by these words that the vision by which God is seen by "sight" is not by means of some creature but by means of the divine essence itself. So the gloss also adds in that same place, "By this kind of vision Moses sought to see God, that is in the substance in which God is, whom he had seen in many forms, and he had spoken to him face-to-face, because in that way, that is in that species in which God is, he is seen" more certainly. Notice that it is openly asserted that when God is seen in his own substance he is seen in the species by which God is; and consequently the vision of God by "sight" is not by means of an intermediary creature but by means of the divine essence itself. Whence the gloss also puts down at this point that "there, that is in that clarity of species, no one living with their senses sees God. This is the third heaven, namely the vision by which God is seen face-to-face, and this is, if it can be said, the paradise of paradises." It is clear from these words that the vision of God not by an intermediary creature is the vision by which God is seen in the clarity of his species; and consequently the vision of God per speciem is the vision of God not through an intermediary creature.

[s 282] Quod glossa super illud 1a ad Corinthios 13o, “Videmus nunc per speculum in enigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem”, testatur aperte dicens, “'Tunc autem' videbimus ‘facie ad faciem’, id est manifeste, a simili recto vultu se intuencium. Est enim quedam visio huius temporis, et altera futuri. Ista est per fidem, illa erit per speciem”. Ex quibus verbis evidenter habetur quod visio dei per speciem distinguitur a visione per fidem, et visio dei per speciem est illa quam vocat ibi Apostolus “facie ad faciem”; non est per mediam creaturam. [s 283] Igitur visio dei per speciem de qua loquitur Apostolus et alii sancti non est per humanitatem Christi nec per aliquam aliam creaturam. Errat igitur iste, cum dicit visionem dei per speciem esse per mediam creaturam. The gloss on the verse 1 Corinthians 13[:12], "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face," plainly attests to this too when it says, "But then we will see face-to-face, i.e. manifestly, like those who see one another full in the face. For there is a vision for this time and another for the future; this one is by faith, that one will be by 'sight'." These words establish evidently that the vision of God by "sight" is different from the vision by faith; and the vision of God by "sight" is what the Apostle calls in that place "face-to-face"; it is not by means of an intermediary creature. Therefore the vision of God by "sight", about which the Apostle and other saints speak, does not occur by means of the humanity of Christ, nor by means of any other creature. He errs, therefore, when he says that the vision of God by "sight" occurs through an intermediary creature

Sic secundum alios errat cum asserit quod nulla species est ita medium efficax sicut humanitas Christi hominis: tum quia secundum eos natura aggregata est medium magis efficax quam humanitas Christi; tum quia secundum eosdem visio intuitiva dei qua anima Christi videt deum est medium ita efficax ad videndum deum sicut humanitas Christi — qui enim videt humanitatem Christi non necessario videt illam visionem qua anima Christi videt deum et qua necessario videt divinam essenciam secundum ipsos. Igitur visio dei creata est medium magis efficax quam humanitas Christi.
According to others he errs in a similar way when he affirms that no species is as effective a means as the humanity of Christ the man. This is because, first, according to them, nature as a whole is a more effective means than the humanity of Christ; also because, according to them, the intuitive vision of God, by which the soul of Christ sees God, is as effective a means for seeing God as is the humanity of Christ -- for he who sees the humanity of Christ does not, according to them, necessarily see that vision by which the soul of Christ sees God and by which he necessarily sees the divine essence. Therefore the created vision of God is a means more effective than the humanity of Christ.

[s 284] Capitulum 4 Chapter 4

[s 285] Item, pro conclusione predicta taliter allegatur beatus Bernardus; fecit enim sermones specialiter quod anime sancte non vident ante diem iudicii divinam essenciam immediate, sed bene vident Christi humanitatem; igitur non est dicendum quod anime sancte in celo nunc vident deum.   Again, blessed Bernard is brought forward as follows for the aforesaid conclusion. He made sermons particularly to the effect that the holy souls do not see the divine essence before the Day of Judgment immediately, but do indeed see Christ's humanity; therefore it should not be said that the holy souls in heaven now see God.

Sed istam allegacionem repellere non est difficile, eo quod in manifesto falso fundatur. Non enim sermonem fecit Bernardus quod anime sancte non vident ante diem iudicii divinam essenciam immediate; illam enim visionem numquam negat a sanctis in celo, licet a sanctis ante diem iudicii negaret beatitudinem consummatam. But it is not hard to refute that argument, since it is based on a manifest falsity. For Bernard did not make a sermon to the effect that holy souls do not see the divine essence before the Day of Judgment immediately. For he never denies that vision to the saints in heaven, though he would deny to the saints the consummation of their blessedness before the Day of Judgment.

[s 286] Porro quia verba beati Bernardi ex quibus huiusmodi ignari occasionem possunt assumere opinandi quod beatus Bernardus senserit animas nunc in celo non videre deum vel divinam essenciam immediate in quodam opere sunt tractata et exposita diligenter, ipsorum ordine non duxi presentibus inserendum. Sentenciam tamen aliquorum verborum ipsius que predictum errorem sonare videntur censui recitandam, et quomodo debent intelligi brevissime declarabo. Next, because the words of blessed Bernard, from which such ignorant people can take the opportunity of opining that blessed Bernard thought that souls now in heaven do not see God or the divine essence immediately, have been carefully treated and expounded in a certain work, I have not considered it necessary to insert them here in their order; nevertheless, I have thought that the meaning of some of his words which seem to suggest the aforesaid error should be reported, and I will make clear very briefly how they should be understood.

[s 287] Beatus igitur Bernardus in quodam sermone de omnibus sanctis, loquens de animabus sanctis in celo, docet et asserit quod anime sancte in celo sunt in atriis, et non sunt in domo dei; habent gustum leticie, sed non habent sacietatem glorie; sunt secure, sed non sunt beate; habent divicias spiritus, sed non ubertatem domus illius torrentem voluptatis. Ex quibus aliisque consimilibus apparet (quod beatus Bernardus in diversis operibus et sermonibus noscitur affirmare) posse inferri videtur quod anime sancte in celo non vident deum nunc, nec ante diem generalis iudicii sunt visure. So in a certain sermon of All Saints blessed Bernard, talking about holy souls in heaven, teaches and affirms that "holy souls in heaven are in the forecourts, and are not in the house of God; they have the taste of joy, but do not have fullness of glory; they are safe, but they are not blessed; they have the riches of the Spirit, but not the richness of that home, a torrent of pleasure." From these and other similar words it can, it seems, be inferred -- what blessed Bernard is known to assert in various works and sermons [perhaps an interpolation] -- that holy souls in heaven do not see God now, and will not see him before the day of General Judgment.

Senses of "blessedness"

[s 288] Sed si varie significaciones vocabulorum quibus utitur beatus Bernardus istis non essent ignote, nullatenus estimarent beatum Bernardum predictum errorem sensisse. Ad cuius evidenciam est sciendum quod sicut nomen beatitudinis in diversis locis multis modis accipitur, sic eciam plura vocabula et termini quibus beatus Bernardus utitur loquendo de ista materia multipliciter accipi possunt, licet quedam illorum non omnibus eisdem modis accipi debeant quibus nomen beatitudinis accipi reperitur. But if the different meanings of the words which blessed Bernard uses were not unknown to them, they would certainly not consider that he had held the aforesaid error. To make this clear it should be known that just as the word "blessedness" is taken in many ways in various places, so also many words and terms that blessed Bernard uses in speaking about this matter can also be taken in many ways (though some of them should not be taken in all the same ways in which the word "blessedness" is found to be taken).

[s 289] Nomen autem beatitudinis aliquando operacionem intellectualem vere optimam secundum speciem noscitur importare. Et illo modo quicumque videt deum est beatus (sive optima operacio intellectualis nature secundum speciem sit visio dei sive fruicio, quia nec visio de fruicione, nec fruicio talis a visione divine essencie, separatur). Now the noun "blessedness" is known sometimes to denote [1] an intellectual operation which is truly best of its kind. And in that way whoever sees God is blessed (whether the operation that is best in its kind of an intellectual nature is (a) the vision of God or (b) the enjoyment of God, because the vision of the divine essence is not separate from the enjoyment of it nor is such enjoyment separate from the vision).

Aliter accipitur beatitudo pro statu huiusmodi operacionis intellectualis nature optimo secundum speciem et omne bonum tam essenciale quam accidentale quod umquam eidem nature intellectuali perveniet includente; sic dicitur beatitudo esse status omnium bonorum aggregacione perfectus, cui scilicet nichil deest de omnibus bonis que umquam habebit. [s 290] Et istam beatitudinem vocat beatus Bernardus beatitudinem consummatam, et a quibusdam integra beatitudo In another way "blessedness" is taken [to mean] [2] the state that is best (according to its kind) of such operation of an intellectual nature that includes every good, both essential and accidental, that will ever come to that same intellectual nature. Thus "blessedness" is said to be a state perfect by the aggregation of all goods [Boethius, Cons. III.2.3], that is, it lacks none of the goods it will ever have. And blessed Bernard calls that blessedness "consummate blessedness"; and by some people [it is called] "complete blessedness".

[missing text] tam primo modo quam secundo modo dicta, est redempta. Sic beatus Iacobus loquitur, cum dicit, “Beatus vir qui suffert temptacionem, quoniam cum probatus fuerit, accipiet coronam vite”. Similiter eciam loquitur Psalmista, cum dicit, “Beati immaculati in via", "Beati qui scrutantur testimonia eius”. [s 291] Sic dixit Christus Petro, “Beatus es Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi”. Et alibi ait, “Beati pauperes", "Beati qui lugent", "Beati mites”, et cetera.

[3] [Text seems to be missing here] ... in both the first and second senses [of what term?], is redeemed. Blessed James speaks in this way when he says [James 1:12], "Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life." The psalmist speaks in a similar way when he says [Psalm 119:1-2], "Blessed are those whose way is blameless … blessed are those who keep his decrees." Christ spoke thus to Peter [Matthew 16:17], "Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you." And elsewhere [Matthew 5:3-5] he says, "Blessed are the poor … blessed are those who mourn … blessed are the meek" etc.

[For sense [3] the editor of Ly suggests: "the state of the perfect existing in grace, such as the just in this life and the souls of those in purgatory after death." The word "redeemed" suggests something like: "blessed" in being on the way to the blessedness (in both first and second senses) of heaven.]

Quandoque autem propter prosperitatem mundanam dicuntur aliqui esse beati, teste Psalmista qui dicit, “Beatum dixerunt populum cui hec sunt”. Sic eciam secundum unum sensum potest intelligi illud Malachie 3o, “Nam beatos dicimus arrogantes”. Sometimes, however, some are said to be blessed [4] on account of worldly prosperity, as the psalmist attests when he says (Psalm 144:15), "They have called the people happy, that hath these things." In that way, according to one sense [of "blessedness"], the verse in Malachi 3[:15], "For we call the arrogant happy (blessed)", can be understood.

[s 292] Prima beatitudo omnem molestiam, anxietatem, penam et affliccionem excludit nunc de facto, licet desiderium maiorem perfeccionem vel aliquod commodum acquirendi compatitur; et ideo interdum non vocatur beatitudo consummata, scilicet que est status omnium bonorum essencialium et accidentalium aggregacione perfectus. Secunda beatitudo omnem molestiam, affliccionem, anxietatem, et eciam desiderium acquirendi maiorem perfeccionem vel commodum futurum excludit; et ideo beatitudo consummata et integra potest merito appellari. Tercia beatitudo nec desiderium gradum perfeccionis nec commodum aliquod acquirendi vel anxietatem et penam excludit. Quarta beatitudo falsa est, quamvis appareat beatitudo multis. The first [kind of] blessedness excludes now as a matter of fact all trouble, anxiety, punishment, and affliction, although it is consistent with a longing to obtain a greater perfection or some advantage; and therefore it is sometimes not called "consummate blessedness", which is a state perfect by the aggregation of all goods, essential and accidental. The second [kind of] blessedness excludes all trouble, affliction and anxiety, and also the longing to acquire greater perfection or a future advantage, and so it can deservedly be called "consummate or complete blessedness". The third [kind of] blessedness excludes neither the longing to acquire a grade of perfection or some advantage nor anxiety and punishment. The fourth [kind of] blessedness is false, although it may appear blessedness to many.

[s 293] Quemadmodum autem “beatitudo” diversas significaciones habet, sic eciam termini tales, “domus dei”, “regnum celorum”, “inebriatus amore dei”, et plures alii, quibus utitur beatus Bernardus diversimode accipi possunt. Quandoque enim important beatitudinem que est status omnium bonorum aggregacione perfectus, que omne desiderium commodum quodcumque vel maiorem gradum perfeccionis habendi excludit. Aliter termini tales important beatitudinem primo modo dictam, que desiderium habendi maiorem gradum perfeccionis beatitudinis essencialis et commodum futurum nequaquam excludit. And just as "blessedness" has various meanings, so also such terms as "house of God", "kingdom of heaven", "drunk with love of God" and many others blessed Bernard uses can be taken in a variety of ways. For sometimes they denote the blessedness that is a state perfect by the aggregation of all goods, which excludes all longing to have any advantage at all or a greater grade of perfection. In another sense such words denote blessedness used in the first way which by no means excludes a longing to have a greater grade of the perfection of essential blessedness and [to have] future advantage.

St Bernard's opinion

[s 294] Per istam distinccionem respondetur ad omnes auctoritates beati Bernardi que sonare videntur quod anime sancte in celo non vident deum: quia numquam negat eis visionem divine essencie, licet neget eis esse in domo dei, glorie sacietatem habere, esse beatas, habere torrentem voluptatis; et quedam alia negat eis. Ex quibus videtur inferri quod anime sancte in celo non vident deum, sed si verba bene intelligantur sane ex eis hoc inferri non potest. Bernardus enim huiusmodi terminos “domus dei”, “torrens voluptatis” et consimiles accipit primo modo, scilicet secundum quod beatitudinem consummatam, que est status omnium bonorum accidentalium et essencialium importare noscuntur. [s 295] Non accipit huiusmodi terminos secundum quod important precise beatitudinem que est optima operacio intellectualis nature, qualis est visio divine essencie, vel fruicio que sine visione minime reperitur. Nichil aliud igitur beatus Bernardus intelligit nisi quod anime sancte in celo ante diem iudicii, quamvis videant divinam essenciam, non tamen carent omni desiderio habendi maiorem gradum visionis eiusdem, nec carent omni expectacione delectacionis future non habite, quia expectant resumpcionem corporum et complecionem civitatis eterne, de quibus sunt delectacionem non modicam habiture. [s 296] Unde quamvis habeant stolam anime, corporis tamen stolam non habent. . It is by means of this distinction that reply is made to all the texts of blessed Bernard that seem to suggest that holy souls in heaven do not see God, because he never denies to them vision of the divine essence even if he denies that they are in the house of God, that they have fullness of glory, that they are blessed, and that they have the "torrent of pleasure"; and he denies them some other things. From these things it seems to be inferred that holy souls in heaven do not see God, but if the words are understood well this certainly can not be inferred from them. For Bernard takes terms of this kind, "house of God", "torrent of pleasure" and the like, in the first [rather, second] sense, that is, as they are known to denote "consummate blessedness", which is a state of [having] all goods, accidental and essential. He does not take terms of this kind so that they denote precisely the blessedness which is the best operation of an intellectual nature, as is the vision of the divine essence (or the enjoyment of it, which is not found without the vision). Bernard means, therefore, only that although the saints in heaven see the divine essence before the Day of Judgment, nevertheless they do not lack all longing to have a better grade of that vision nor do they lack all expectation of future delight they do not [yet] have, because they are awaiting the resumption of their bodies and the completion of the eternal city, from which they will have no small delight. So although they have the robe of their soul, nevertheless they do not [yet] have the robe of their body.

Beatus igitur Bernardus in verbis de hac materia a sanctis aliis in sentencia discordare nolebat, sed eandem sentenciam quam expressit beatus Gregorius cum dixit 4o libro Dialogorum, loquens de animabus sanctis in celo: “Hoc eis nimirum crescit in iudicio, quod nunc animarum stola, postmodum vero eciam corporum beatitudine perfruuntur; [s 297] unde in ipsa carne gaudebunt in qua dolores pro Domino cruciatusque pertulerunt. Pro hac quippe geminata eorum gloria scriptum est, ‘In terra sua duplicia possidebunt’. Hoc eciam ante resurreccionis diem de sanctorum animabus scriptum est: ‘Date sunt illis singule stole albe, et dictum est illis ut requiescerent tempus adhuc modicum, donec impleatur numerus conservorum et fratrum eorum’. Qui itaque nunc singulas acceperunt, binas in iudicio stolas habituri sunt, quia modo animarum tantummodo, tunc autem animarum simul et corporum gloria letabuntur” **[cf. NM p. 889] In his words on this matter, therefore, Bernard did not want to be opposed in opinion to the other saints, but the same opinion that blessed Gregory expressed --- when, speaking about holy souls in heaven in book 4 of his Dialogues, he said, "This undoubtedly increases for them in their judgment, that now they enjoy the blessedness of the robe of souls but afterwards they [will] also enjoy the blessedness of bodies; whence they will rejoice in that flesh in which they bore sorrows and sufferings for the Lord. Indeed it is about their two-fold glory that it is written [Isaias 61:7], 'They shall possess a double portion in their land'. This also is written [Apocalypse 6:11] about the souls of the saints before the day of resurrection, 'And single white robes were given to every one of them, and it was said to them that they should rest for a little time, till the number of their fellow-servants and brethren is filled up.' And so those who have now received single robes will have two robes in the judgment, because now they rejoice only in the glory of their souls but then they will rejoice in the glory of their souls and their bodies at the same time"

[s 298] — hanc, inquam, sentenciam beatus Bernardus aliis verbis (licet quantum ad aliquid obscurioribus) volebat exprimere, cum dixit in quodam sermone de omnibus sanctis “tres sunt sanctarum animarum status: primus videlicet in corpore corruptibili, secundus sine corpore, tercius in corpore iam glorificato; primus in milicia, secundus in requie, tercius in beatitudine consummata”. Hic secundus status est in requie que omnem penam et affliccionem excludit, in quo stola anime est collata; sed secundus status non est in beatitudine consummata, quia adhuc stola corporis non habetur. Vocat autem Bernardus beatitudinem consummatam cui nichil deest umquam habendum. Et isto modo secundum beatum Gregorium et Bernardum secundus status animarum sanctarum non est in beatitudine consummata, quia adhuc deest stola corporis que post iudicium est habenda. Tercius autem status est in beatitudine consummata, quia nichil umquam habendum tunc deerit; tunc enim habebuntur stole bine. --- this opinion, I say, blessed Bernard wanted to express (though in other, and to some extent more obscure, words), when in a certain sermon of All Saints he said that "The status of holy souls is threefold, namely the first in a corruptible body, second without a body, third in a now glorified body; the first on active service, the second in rest, the third in consummate blessedness." Here the second state is in the rest that excludes all punishment and affliction and in it the robe of the soul is conferred; but this second state is not consummate blessedness, because the robe of the body is not yet possessed. Bernard calls that blessedness consummate in which nothing that is ever to be possessed is lacking. And according to blessed Gregory and Bernard the second state of holy souls is not consummate blessedness in this sense, because the robe of their body is still lacking and is not to be possessed until after the Judgment. The third state, however, is consummate blessedness because nothing that they should ever have will then be lacking; for then the two robes will be possessed.

[s 299] Eandem eciam sentenciam expressit beatus Bernardus cum post verba predicta subiunxit, “Primus denique in tabernaculis, secundus in atriis, tercius in domo dei”. Hic enim secundus status est in atriis, quia anime sancte ante diem iudicii ad ultimum gradum beatitudinis nequaquam pervenient nec stolam corporis de communi lege sunt antea habiture. [s 300] Tercius autem status est in domo dei, hoc est, tunc ad tantam gloriam anime et corporis inducentur quod numquam ulteriorem percipient. Blessed Bernard also expressed the same opinion when he added to the aforesaid words, "The first [state], finally, is in tents, the second in the forecourts, the third in the house of God." For this second state is in the forecourts because holy souls will by no means come to the highest grade of blessedness before the Day of Judgment and in the normal course of providence they will not possess the robe of their body before then. The third state, however, is in the house of God, that is, they will then be led into so great a glory of soul and body that they will never receive a higher one.

Et hanc sentenciam aliis verbis voluit explicare cum dicit, “In tabernaculis gemitus est penitencie, in atriis gustus leticie, in te sacietas glorie”. He anime sancte in secundo statu gustant leticiam de visione essencie divine, sed adhuc desiderium habent amplius degustandi, et ita sacietatem que omne desiderium firmiter excludit minime sunt adepte. [Hanc adepture sunt] “in te”, hoc est in deo, quando confert gloriam corporis et stolam anime prehabitam perficiet. [s 301] Et hec est “sacietas glorie”, illa scilicet sacietas que omne desiderium cuiuscumque future delectacionis excludit, quam eciam “sacietatem uberem”, “domus dei”, “torrentem voluptatis” vocat. And it was this opinion that he wanted to express in other words when he said, "In tents there is the groaning of repentance, in the forecourts the taste of joy, in you fullness of glory." In the second state these holy souls taste the joy of the vision of the divine essence, but they still have a longing to taste more, and so the fullness which firmly excludes all longing they have not acquired. [This will be acquired] "in you", that is, in God, when he confers the glory of a body and perfects the robe of the soul which was had earlier. And this is "fullness of glory", namely the fullness that excludes all longing for any future delight, which he also calls "rich fullness", "the house of God", a "torrent of pleasure".

Nec ex verbis eiusdem contra veritatem catholicam iam divulgatam predictam, iam a sanctis patribus explicatam, ulla calumpnia colligatur, sed verba ipsius aliorum sanctorum patrum assercionibus et scripture divine sentenciis concordentur. No calumny can be extracted from his words against the aforesaid Catholic truth already widely published, already explained by the holy fathers, but his words are in agreement with the assertions of other holy fathers and with the judgments of divine scripture.

[s 302] Capitulum 5 Chapter 5

[s 303] Item pro sepe dicto errore arguitur sic. Apostolus dicit, 1a ad Corinthios 9o, quod “omnes quidem currunt, sed unus accipit bravium”, ubi dicit glossa quod licet unus hic accipiat bravium, sed in alia vita omnes simul, et ita ante diem iudicii nulla anima sancta habebit bravium visionis divine essencie. Again, it is argued as follows for the often-stated error. In 1 Corinthians 9[:24] the Apostle says that "all run indeed, but one receives the prize". The gloss on this says that although one receives the prize here, in the other life all [receive it] together, and so before the Day of Judgment no holy soul will have the prize of the vision of the divine essence.

[s 304] Sed isti, ut suos errores scripturis autenticis valeant confirmare, alias scripturas autenticas que verum sensum scripturarum que pro eis sonare videntur aperte declarant nolunt attendere. Si enim glossam super ista verba Apostoli, ad Hebreos 11o, “Et hii omnes testimonio fidei probati, non acceperunt repromissionem, deo pro nobis melius aliquid providente, ut non sine nobis consummarentur”, legissent et racione intellexissent, glossam super verbis Apostoli “unus accipit bravium” pro suo errore nullatenus allegassent. [s 305] Quia tamen glossa, quam isti pervertunt et truncant, dicit ibidem: “Ostendit hoc exemplo quanta est utilitas legis nostre, in qua non uni sed omnibus promissa est palma, quod non est in illo stadio in illo spectaculo. Ibi enim unus tantum accipit bravium, et ceteri victi discedunt, qui similiter laboraverunt. Hic autem non est sic: quotquot enim currunt, si perseveranter currunt, accipiunt, et qui prior venerit, expectat ut coronetur” bravio illo, quod est stola corporis, “cum posteriori”. But these people, so that they can [seem to] confirm their errors by authentic scriptures, refuse to attend to other authentic scriptures which make plainly clear the true sense of the scriptures which seem to favour them. For if they had read and understood with their reason the gloss on the Apostle's words in Hebrews 11[: 39-40], "And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise: God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us", they would not have brought forward in support of their error the gloss on the Apostle's words "one receives the prize". That is because the gloss, which they pervert and cut short, says at that place: "It is shown by this example how greatly beneficial our law is, in which the palm is promised not to one person but to everyone, which is not so in that stadium, in that amphitheater. For there only one receives the prize and the rest who have worked just the same go away defeated, but it is not so here; for as many receive [the prize] as run, if they run with perseverance, and whoever comes first waits to be crowned," with that prize which is the robe of the body, "together with the one who comes later."

[s 306] Quod glossa super verbum prescriptum Apostoli, cum dicit ad Hebreos 11o, “Hii omnes testimonio fidei probati”, eciam asserit evidenter, dicens, “‘Et hii’ quasi dicat, tanta per fidem antiqui fideles operati sunt vel passi pro fide, ‘et’ tamen ‘hii omnes probati testimonio fidei’, id est quod fides de hiis perhibuit, ‘non’ adhuc ‘receperunt repromissionem’, id est plenam corporis et anime beatitudinem, id est duas stolas etsi singulas, ‘deo aliquid pro nobis melius providente, ut non consummarentur’ et perficerentur, ‘sine nobis’, ut in communi gaudio omnium, maius fieret gaudium singulorum. [s 307] Et si enim singulas acceperunt, non tamen geminam stolam habebunt usque ad communem resurreccionem, ut omnium consummacio fidelium simul fiat”. Hiis verbis patenter ostenditur quomodo glossa intelligi debeat cum dicit, “Qui prior venerit expectat ut coronetur cum posteriori”, quia expectat quantum ad unam stolam corporis, et non expectat quantum ad aliam stolam, scilicet quantum ad stolam anime. Merito igitur glossa ista, concordans expresse cum beato Gregorio 4o libro Dialogorum, sicut supra allegatum extitit, istis fantasticis scripturarum meretricibus, qui homini heretico placere desiderant, debet preferri, et illis specialiter quia deus confundet eos. Veritas est carius amplectenda et virilius defendenda. The gloss on the above words of the Apostle in Hebrews 11[:39], "All these being approved by the testimony of faith …", also clearly demonstrates this when it says, "'And these,' as if to say, earlier believers achieved such great things through faith or endured so much for faith and yet 'all these, being approved by the testimony of faith", that is, what faith has asserted of them, 'received not the promise' yet, that is, full beatitude of body and soul, that is, the two robes (though each received one), 'God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be consummated' and made complete 'without us', in order that, in the common joy of all, the joy of each one would be made greater. For though each received one robe, yet they will not have the twin robes until the common resurrection, so that the consummation of all believers will happen at the same time." These words show clearly how the gloss should be understood when it says, "Whoever comes first waits to be crowned together with the one who comes later", because he waits for the one robe of the body and does not wait for the other robe, that is the robe of the soul. It is just, therefore, that that gloss, in express agreement with blessed Gregory in the fourth book of his Dialogues, cited above, should be preferred to those fantasists who prostitute the scriptures, who want to please a heretical man, and particularly to those because God will confound them. Truth should be embraced more dearly and defended more courageously.

[s 308] Capitulum 6 Chapter 6

[s 309] Adhuc pro eodem errore taliter allegatur 2a ad Timotheum 4o. Scribit Apostolus, “Reposita est michi corona iusticie, quam reddet michi Dominus in illa die, iustus iudex”. Ex quibus nituntur isti concludere quod Apostolo ante diem iudicii corona iusticie, que est visio divine essencie, non reddetur, et racione consimili non aliis reddetur. Further,  2 Tim. 4[:8] is alleged as follows for the same error. The Apostle writes: "There is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that day". From this they strive to conclude that the crown of justice, which is a vision of the divine essence, will not be given to the Apostle before the Day of Judgment, and, by a similar argument, it will not be given to others.

[s 310] Sed ista verba Apostoli, recte intellecta, pro predicto errore non faciunt. Nam dupliciter possunt intelligi, uno modo de die resolucionis beati Pauli, ut iste sit sensus, “Reposita est michi corona iusticie”, quam, quantum ad stolam anime, “reddet michi Dominus in illa die” resolucionis mee, de qua prius dixerat, “Ego enim iam delibor, et tempus resolucionis mee instat”. Et secundum istum intellectum pro eodem accipit tempus sue resolucionis et illam diem in qua redditurus erat sibi Dominus coronam iusticie. But understood correctly those words of the Apostle ["in that day"] do not support the above error. For they can be understood in two ways, in one way about blessed Paul's day of dissolution, so that this is the sense, "There is laid up for me a crown of justice", [the crown] which, with respect to the robe of the soul, the Lord will give to me on that day of my dissolution, about which he [the Apostle] had said earlier [2 Tim. 4:6], "For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand." According to that interpretation he takes as the same the time of his dissolution and that day on which the Lord was going to give him the crown of justice.

[s 311] Aliter possunt verba predicta intelligi de ultima die iudicii, et tunc intendit Apostolus loqui de corona iusticie quantum ad stolam corporis, quia stola corporis Apostolo et aliis de communi lege ante diem generalis iudicii non reddetur. In another way the above words can be understood of the last Day of Judgment, and then the Apostle means by the crown of justice the robe of the body, because the robe of the body will not be given to the Apostle and to others, in the ordinary course of providence before the day of General Judgment.

Et hoc est quod quidam volunt dicere, quod Apostolus loquitur de supposito toto et integro, ex corpore et anima composito, cui corona iusticie ante diem generalis iudicii non reddetur: quia licet anima prius sit coronam iusticie habitura, totus tamen homo integer ex corpore et anima constitutus non stolam anime nec stolam corporis ante diem generalis iudicii habebit. Unde, quamvis anima beati Pauli nunc videat deum et ita habeat stolam unam, tamen beatus Paulus integer ex anima et corpore constitutus nunc non videt deum, quia nec nunc est ex anima et corpore constitutus. And what some want to say is that the Apostle is talking about the whole and complete person, composed of body and soul, to whom the crown of justice will not be given before the day of General Judgment. Because though the soul will have the crown of justice earlier, nevertheless the whole complete man composed of body and soul will have neither the robe of the soul nor the robe of the body before the day of General Judgment. So although the soul of blessed Paul now sees God and so has one robe, yet blessed Paul, as a whole, composed of soul and body, does not now see God, because he is not now composed of both soul and body.

[s 312]Capitulum 7 Chapter 7

[s 313] Sed contra illud ultimum de suppositis, et in fulcimentum erroris predicti, taliter allegatur. Beatus Iohannes vidit “animas interfectorum propter verbum dei” usque ad diem iudicii “sub altari”, id est, sub humanitate Christi. Et certum est quod subieccione potestatis et dignitatis erunt sub humanitate Christi eciam post diem iudicii vel post iudicium. Quod ergo tunc ascendant super altare, ideo erit post diem iudicii per ascensum contemplacionis et ad videndum iudicium immediate. But in reply to that last point about persons [de suppositis], and in support of the aforesaid error, it is argued as follows. Blessed John [Rev. 6:9] "saw the souls of them that were slain for the word of God" "under the altar", that is, under the humanity of Christ, right up to the Day of Judgment. And it is certain that they will be under the humanity of Christ, in subjection to his power and dignity, even after the Day of Judgment or after the judgment. That they rise then above the altar will therefore be, after the Day of Judgment, because of their rising by contemplation and to see the judgment directly.

[s 314] Sed illa allegacio sic dicentes involvit dupliciter, primo quia capitaneo suo obviant, quod eos ipsi reddit obnoxios, secundo quia agnitam veritatem impugnant, quod deo reddit eos obnoxios. Quod enim capitaneo suo reddat eos obnoxios patet aperte, quia cuidam errori suo obviant manifeste. Ipse enim tenet, dogmatizat, et predicat quod Christus post diem generalis iudicii non regnabit. Isti vero hoc docent aperte, quod anime post diem iudicii generalis subieccione potestatis et dignitatis erunt sub humanitate Christi, et per consequens post iudicium generale erit potestative super animas regressurus. Secundo, ista allegacio deo, cuius veritati resistunt, reddit ipsos obnoxios, eo quod, scripturam divinam ad perversum conantes trahere intellectum, dicunt animas sanctas in celo non videre deum. But that argument entangles those expressing it in two ways, first, because it opposes their leader, which exposes them to him, second because they attack a known truth, which exposes them to God. It is clear and plain that it exposes them to their leader, because they manifestly oppose a certain error of his. For he holds, propounds and teaches that Christ will not reign after the Day of Judgment, but they plainly teach that after the day of General Judgment souls will be under the humanity of Christ, in subjection to his power and dignity, and consequently after the General Judgment he [Christ] will come back with power over souls. Secondly, that argument exposes them to God, whose truth they resist, in that, attempting to impose a perverted meaning on divine scripture, they say that holy souls in heaven do not see God.

[s 315] Ut autem appareat quod predictum errorem ex verbis scripture que allegant elicere nequeant: Primo namque allegant non integre, sed truncate, verborum seriem libri Apocalypsis ex quibus prefatum errorem conantur concludere. Et quod errorem suum ex eis trahere nequeant est monstrandum; secundo, quomodo verba illa intelligi debeant est pandendum. Series igitur verborum ex quibus isti probare nituntur quod anime sancte in celo nunc non vident deum talis est: “Et cum aperuisset sigillum quintum, vidi sub altare dei animas interfectorum propter verbum dei et propter testimonium quod habebant, et clamabant voce magna dicentes, ‘Usquequo, Domine, sanctus et verus, non iudicas et non vindicas sanguinem nostrum de hiis qui habitant in terra? Et date sunt illis singule stole albe; et dictum est illis ut requiescerent adhuc tempus modicum, donec impleantur conservi eorum et fratres eorum, qui interficiendi sunt sicut et illi”. [We will adduce some arguments] to make it clear , however, that they can not draw the above error from the words of scripture that they bring forward. For in the first place they bring forward not the whole quotation from the book of the Apocalypse but only part of it, and from that they try to infer the aforesaid error. And it must be shown that they can not draw that error from the quotation; second, it must be explained how the words should be understood. So, the quotation from which they try to prove that holy souls in heaven do not now see God is the following [Apoc. 6:9-11]: "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar of God the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice saying: How long O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on these that dwell on the earth? And single white robes were given to every one of them; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up."

[s 316] Ex quibus isti eliciunt quod anime sancte in celo modo non vident deum, ex quibus beatus Gregorius et alii sancti patres volebant concludere, quod anime sancte in celo beatitudinem anime (que est visio dei, vel non sine visione dei), et non corporis, sunt adepte. In verbis autem premissis, licet innotum aperte sit quod anime sancte sub altare dei, quod tamen erunt post iudicium iuxta altare dei mencio non habetur. Nec valet: “Modo sunt sub altare dei, igitur post iudicium erunt iuxta altare dei”, quemadmodum non sequitur, “Nunc requiescunt (sicut ex verbis eisdem colligitur), igitur post iudicium minime requiescent”. [s 317] Quod enim nunc requiescant patet, cum in verbis prescriptis sic legatur, “Et dictum est illis ut requiescerent adhuc tempus modicum donec impleantur conservi eorum”, et cetera: ex quibus tamen concludi non potest quod, completo numero conservorum, nullatenus requiescent, quemadmodum ex hoc quod dicitur Matthei 1o, “Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum” concludi non potest quod primogenito nato cognoscebat eam — et ideo, consimiliter, ex hoc, quod beatus Iohannes vidit animas interfectorum, [quod] non erunt sub altare dei (licet, sicut postea ostendetur, concedi possit, sub sano intellectu, quod anime sancte post iudicium generale erunt sub altare dei). [s 318] Ex hiis patenter habetur quod per verba Apocalypsis suprascripta concludi non potest quod anime sancte in celo nunc non vident deum ex hoc quod nunc sunt sub altare dei, et quod clamant, et quod respondetur eis quod requiescant donec impleatur numerus conservorum et fratrum ipsorum: ex quibus non sequitur quod nunc non vident deum. From these words they elicit [the conclusion] that holy souls in heaven do not see God now. From these words [however] Blessed Gregory and other holy fathers wished to conclude that holy souls in heaven have attained the blessedness that is the vision of God (or is not without the vision of God) but not the blessedness of body. In the above quotation, though it is clearly indicated that the holy souls are "under the altar" of God, yet there is no mention that after the judgment they will be upon the altar of God. Nor is the argument valid: "Now they are under the altar of God, therefore after the judgment they will be upon the altar of God", just as this does not follow, "Now they rest" (as we gather from the same quotation) "therefore after judgment they will not rest". For it is clear that they now rest, since we read in the above quotation: "… and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants … should be filled up," etc. Nevertheless it can not be concluded from this that they will not rest when the number of their fellow servants has been completed, just as from the fact that it is said in Matthew 1[:25], "And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son", it can not be concluded that after her firstborn son was born he did know her -- similarly, therefore, from the fact that blessed John saw the souls of them that had been slain, [that] [Ly: to be now under the altar it cannot be concluded that after the Judgement] they will not be under the altar of God (though it can be conceded under a sound interpretation, as will afterwards be shown, that after the General Judgment holy souls will be under the altar of God). These [points of logic] clearly establish that by means of the words of the Apocalypse quoted above it can not be concluded that holy souls in heaven do not see God now from the fact that they are now "under the altar" of God, that they cry out and that the reply is made to them that they will rest until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren is filled up: from these things it does not follow that they do not see God now.

[s 319] Ut autem habeatur verus intellectus verborum prescriptorum est sciendum quod illud quod est sub aliquo quodammodo videtur absconditum, sed quod est supra aliquid, patulum et manifestum apparet. Quorum utrumque ipse Salvator insinuat dicens, Matthei 5o, “Non potest civitas abscondi supra montem posita, neque accendunt lucernam et ponunt eam sub modio, sed super candelabrum, ut luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt”. Quia igitur anime nunc in celo sunt multis electis et eciam malis abscondite, ideo nunc dicuntur esse sub altare dei. [s 320] Quia licet deum videant sicuti est et a civibus civitatis superne minime abscondantur, et nobis tamen et illis qui sunt in purgatorio et in inferno nequaquam apparent. In die autem iudicii generalis electis omnibus apparebunt. Reprobati eciam, tam homines quam demones, aperte videbunt eas in celum ascendere. Et ita quodammodo erunt sub altare dei, hoc est, erunt non illo modo abscondite quomodo nunc constat eas abscondi. In order to have a true understanding of the above words it should be known that that which is "under" something seems to some extent hidden, but what is "above" something appears open and manifest. The saviour himself implies both of these when he says in Matthew 5[:14-15], "A city seated on a mountain can not be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house." So it is because the souls now in heaven are hidden from many of the elect and also the wicked that they are said to be now "under the altar" of God. For although they see God as he is and are not at all hidden from the citizens of the celestial city, nevertheless they are not visible to us and to those who are in purgatory or in hell. On the day of General Judgment, however, they will be visible to all the elect. The wicked, too, both men and demons, will openly see them ascend into heaven. And thus they will be under the altar of God in a certain way, that is, they will be hidden not in the way in which certainly they are now hidden.

[s 321] Et iste videtur esse intellectus beati Bernardi, cum loquitur de ista materia. Ipse enim in quodam sermone de omnibus sanctis sic ait: “In hunc ergo locum Salvator descendens ‘contrivit portas ereas et vectes ferreos confregit’, eductosque vinctos de domo carceris, sedentes, hoc est quiescentes, sed in tenebris et umbra mortis, iam tunc quidem sub altare dei collocavit, abscondens eos in tabernaculo suo in die malorum et protegens eos in abscondito tabernaculi sui, donec veniat tempus quo procedant, completo numero fratrum, et percipiant regnum quod eis paratum est ab origine mundi”. Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod, secundum Bernardum, ideo anime sancte sub altare dei sunt quia in tabernaculo dei sunt abscondite, non quidem deo et civibus celestis Ierusalem, sed nobis et aliis qui sunt in purgatorio et in inferno. That seems to blessed Bernard's meaning when he speaks about the matter. For in a certain sermon about all the saints he says the following: "The saviour descended to this place and 'hath broken gates of brass, and burst iron bars' and, leading out from the dwelling of their prison those who were bound and had been sitting, i.e. resting, but in darkness and the shade of death, he placed them then under the altar of God, hiding them in his tabernacle on the day of evils and protecting them in the hidden part of his tabernacle until the time will come when they may come forth, with the number of their brethren filled up, and gain the kingdom which has been prepared for them since the beginning of the world." From these words we gather that, according to Bernard, holy souls are "under the altar" of God for the reason that they have been hidden in the tabernacle of God, not in fact from God and the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, but from us and from others in purgatory or in hell.

[s 322] Etsi enim constet nobis animas apostolorum et quorundam aliorum sanctorum esse in celo, hoc tamen nunc constat in sola fide. In die autem iudicii omnes electi clare videbunt animas que nunc sumunt ibi esse in celo. Et ita quodammodo erunt sub altare, sub isto intellectu, quod nullis electis erunt abscondite. Et tamen tunc poterunt secundum alium intellectum dici sub altare dei, eo quod tunc erunt, sicut modo sunt, sub dei dominio et proteccione. For although it is certain to us that the souls of the apostles and certain other saints are in heaven, yet this is certain now only in faith. On the Day of Judgment, however, all the elect will clearly see the souls that they assume are now there in heaven. And so they will be "under the altar" in a certain way, in the sense that they will be hidden from none of the elect. And yet they can be said to be then "under the altar" in another sense, in that they will be then, as they are now, under God's dominion and protection.

Quare si potest catholice dici quod anime sancte et sancti integri ex corporibus et animabus compositi erunt sub altare, post iudicium generale videntes clare deum, sequitur evidenter ex hoc quod anime sancte in celo nunc non vident deum, cum aperte dicat quod “completo numero fratrum” procedent et percipient "regnum quod eis paratum est ab origine mundi”. Therefore, if it can be said in a Catholic way that holy souls, and the saints complete, composed of bodies and souls, will be "under the altar", seeing God clearly after the General Judgment, it follows plainly from this that the holy souls in heaven do not see God now, since [Bernard] clearly says that "with the number of their brethren filled up" they will come forth and will gain "the kingdom that has been prepared for them since the beginning of the world." [[This seems to be an objection to the position our author holds. Perhaps this paragraph should have been a continuation of the next.]]

[s 323] Sed forte diceretur: Si autem tunc perciperent regnum eis paratum ab origine, nunc non possident, nunc non vident deum. But perhaps it might be said: if, however, they then gained the kingdom prepared for them since the beginning of the world, they do not now possess it, they do not now see God.

[s 324] Ad hoc potest multipliciter responderi, uno modo quod secundum beatum Bernardum sancti integri ex anima et corpore constituti primo percipient regnum eis paratum ab origine mundi, et ita beatus Bernardus non intendit negare animas sanctas percepisse regnum eis paratum ab origine mundi. Et si hoc negaret, determinacioni summi pontificis et doctrine universalis ecclesie contradicere monstraretur. Nam, ut legitur Extra, De hereticis, c. Maiores, Innocencius 3us ait: “Et si originalis culpa remittebatur per circumcisionis mysterium et dampnacionis periculum vitabatur, non tamen perveniebatur ad regnum celorum, quod usque ad mortem Christi fuit omnibus obseratum. [s 325] Sed per sacramentum baptismi, Christi sanguine inebriati culpa remittitur, vitatur periculum et ad regnum celorum eciam pervenitur, cuius ianuam Christi sanguis fidelibus suis misericorditer reseravit.” Hiis verbis patenter habetur seu asseritur quod anime sancte iam pervenerunt ad regnum celorum, et per consequens perceperunt regnum eis paratum ab origine mundi. It is possible to reply to this in many ways, in one way that according to blessed Bernard the saints complete, composed of soul and body, will first gain the kingdom prepared for them since the beginning of the world; and in this way blessed Bernard does not mean to deny that holy souls have gained the kingdom prepared for them since the beginning of the world. And if he denied it, he would be shown to contradict the decree of a highest pontiff and the teaching of the universal Church. For as we read in Extra, de Haereticis c. Maiores, Innocent III says: "Although original blame was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation avoided, nevertheless the kingdom of heaven was not reached, because it was barred to all until the death of Christ; but by the sacrament of baptism the blame of one drunk with the blood of Christ is remitted, danger [of damnation] is avoided, and he also comes to the kingdom of heaven, the door of which the blood of Christ has mercifully opened for his faithful ones." It is clearly held or asserted by these words that holy souls have already come to the kingdom of heaven and, as a consequence, have gained the kingdom prepared for them since the beginning of the world. [The contrast between circumcision, by which the kingdom was not reached, and baptism amounts to nothing if none of the baptised have reached the kingdom either.]

[s 326] Cui alludit doctrina universalis ecclesie, cum in laudem martyrum fideles cantare non cessent, “Istorum est regnum celorum, qui contempserunt vitam mundi et pervenerunt ad premia regni”. The teaching of the universal Church refers to this, since in praise of the martyrs the faithful do not cease to sing, "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven, who have spurned the life of the world and have come to the rewards of the kingdom."

Sed forte diceret aliquis quod sicut regnum celorum, secundum beatum Gregorium, aliquando presens ecclesia dicitur, ita et regnum celorum locus celestis et naturalis aliquando vocatur, et ideo, quamvis anime sancte non videant deum, potest concedi quod sunt in regno celorum. [s 327] Sed iste asserciones sanctorum patrum perverterent sentenciam. Quandocumque enim sancti loquuntur de regno celorum percipiendo post vitam presentem, accipiunt regnum celorum ut visionem dei claram includit; et sic accipit Bernardus, cum dicit in auctoritate superius allegata quod percipient regnum quod est eis paratum. Sed non tunc primo percipient secundum animam, licet tunc primo percipiant regnum secundum corpus; et ideo totus homo integer non ante percipiet de communi lege regnum celorum. But perhaps someone might say that just as "kingdom of heaven" is sometimes used, according to blessed Gregory, for "the present Church", so also "kingdom of heaven" is sometimes a term for a "heavenly and natural place"; and therefore, although holy souls do not see God, it can be granted that they are in a kingdom of heaven. But those assertions would pervert the opinion of the holy fathers. For whenever the saints talk about receiving the kingdom of heaven after the present life, they take "the kingdom of heaven" as it includes the clear vision of God; and that is how Bernard takes it when he says in the text cited above that "they will receive the kingdom prepared for them"; but they will not then [when the number of fellow servants is filled] receive it for the first time "according to their soul", though they will then receive the kingdom for the first time "according to their body"; and therefore the whole complete person will not, in the ordinary course of providence, receive the kingdom of heaven earlier.

[s 328] Aliter potest dici quod, licet anime sancte iam perceperint regnum quod in visione dei consistit, anime tamen sancte non perceperunt illud regnum quod omnem perfeccionis gradum et delectacionem habendam includit; quod regnum Bernardus intelligit per beatitudinem consummatam, que scilicet omnem delectacionem et perfeccionem umquam habendam includit. Et ita Bernardus aliter accipit quodcumque regnum celorum, ut pro regno futuro accipiatur, quam communiter alii doctores et patres sancti, licet eciam in multis locis sic aliquando regnum celorum utatur. [s 329] Regnum itaque quod est beatitudo cui nichil habendum deest anime sancte ante diem iudicii non habebunt; habent tamen visionem dei nunc, quamvis quasi in abscondito, quod glossa super illud Psalmi, “Abscondes eos in abscondito faciei tue” insinuare videtur, cum dicitur, “Dum mali turbabuntur" ipsi erunt in abscondito faciei tue videntes te. Et ita nunc anime sancte sunt occulte, et ideo sub altare dei, sed in die iudicii erunt manifeste, quemadmodum Christus nunc est occultus, sed tunc erit manifestus, teste glossa, que super illud Psalmi, “Sede a dextris meis”, ait, “Sede secundum quod homo in pectoribus misericordie”, et iterum, “Sede occultus, donec regnes manifestus”. In another way it can be said that, although the holy souls have already received the kingdom that consists in the vision of God, yet the holy souls have not received that kingdom that includes every grade of perfection and delight that is to be had; this latter is the kingdom Bernard understands by "consummate blessedness", which includes every delight and perfection that is ever to be had. And so Bernard takes any "kingdom of heaven", when it refers to a future kingdom, in another way than other doctors and the holy fathers generally [have taken it], though also in many places he does sometimes use "kingdom of heaven" in that way [i.e. like the others]. And so holy souls will not have before the Day of Judgment that kingdom which is the blessedness which lacks nothing that should be had, yet they do have now the vision of God, though, as it were, in a hidden way. The gloss on the verse in Psalms [30(31):21], "Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy face", seems to imply this when it says: "While the evil are being disturbed" they will be in the secret of thy face, seeing you. And so now the holy souls are concealed and therefore "under the altar of God", but on the Day of Judgment they will be manifest, just as Christ is now concealed but will then be manifest, as the gloss on that verse of the Psalms [109:1], "sit thou at my right hand", attests when it says, "sit, as a man, in the heart of mercy … sit concealed until you reign manifest."

[s 330] Cum igitur dicunt isti, “Certum est quod subieccione potestatis et dignitatis erunt anime sancte sub humanitate Christi, eciam post iudicium”, conceditur, quod in hoc non errant, licet in hoc suo magistro (quamvis forsitan ignoranter) inveniantur adversi. Si enim advertissent quod magister eorum tenet quod “Christus post iudicium non regnabit”, ut creditur, tacuissent, quia ipsi cupiunt esse tales qualis doctor est eorum. Sed cum dicunt quod post diem iudicii ascendent super altare ut videant deum immediate, et non ante, errant aperte, sicut alibi est ostensum. Et auctoritas ex Apocalypsi sumpta eis minime suffragatur, sicut ex precedentibus liquide patet. When they say, therefore, "It is certain that the holy souls will be under the humanity of Christ, in subjection to his power and dignity, even after the judgment", this is granted because in this they do not err, though they do find themselves opposed in this to their master [John XXII], perhaps unwittingly. If they had realised that their master holds that Christ will not reign after the judgment, as it is believed, they would have been silent, because they want to be themselves such as their teacher is. But when they say that after the Day of Judgment, and not before, they [the holy souls] will rise "above the altar" in order to see God directly, they are plainly in error, as has been shown elsewhere [chs. 3 and 4 above]. And the text taken from The Apocalypse [i.e. Apoc. 6:9-11] does not help them, as is clear and obvious from what has been said.

[s 331] Capitulum 8 Chapter 8

[s 332] Non solum autem pro errore predicto frivolas allegaciones adducunt, sed eciam ad evacuandas auctoritates errores eorum apertissime convincentes, responsionem vanissimam dare conantur, dicentes quod auctoritates et scripture sanctorum (si que inveniantur) dicentes quod anime nunc videant facialiter deum accipiende sunt et intelligende secundum locucionem devoti affectus, secundum quod sancti meditacione devota frequenter, ubi affectus eorum et secundum affectum loquuntur, accipiunt preteritum pro presenti et presens pro futuro. They do not only bring forward frivolous arguments for the aforesaid error, but they also try to give a most groundless reply in order to nullify the texts which most openly convict their own errors. They say that texts and writings of the saints (if any such are found) that say that souls now see God face-to-face should be taken and understood as the language of devout love [devoti affectus], according as the saints in their devout meditation, when they express their love and speak in love, frequently take the past for the present and the present for the future. [That is, they use present tense for something that will happen in the future (e.g. "the souls see God", meaning "will see"), and past tense for what happens now].

[s 333] Sed ista responsio est tam frivola quod improbacione non indiget, et tamen eam unica racione breviter improbabo. Quod enim sancti loquendo de visione animarum sanctarum non utantur preterito pro presenti et presenti pro futuro sic patenter ostenditur. Ubi sancti loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum non ~~utantur preterito pro presenti~~ tantum ad monstrandum suum affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione eorum pro presenti; ~~igitur~~ non utuntur presenti pro futuro. Sancti autem frequenter cum loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum non solum loquuntur ad monstrandum [suum affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum] veritatem de visione eorum pro presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti. But that reply is so frivolous that it does not need disproof, and yet I will disprove it briefly with a single argument. For that in speaking about the vision of holy souls the saints do not use the past for the present and the present for the future is shown plainly as follows.  When the saints speak of the vision of the holy souls not only to show their feeling toward the saints but also to show the present truth of their vision, they do not use present for future. But often the saints, when they speak of the vision of the holy souls, do not speak only to show [their feeling toward the saints but also to show] the present truth of their vision. Therefore [at least on those occasions] they do not use the present for future but for present.

[s 334] Maior est manifesta, quia si uterentur presenti pro futuro, in nullo monstrarent veritatem pro presenti sed pro futuro magis. Minor eciam legenti auctoritates sanctorum apparet indubia. Nam beatus Gregorius, in 4o libro Dialogorum, cum interrogaretur a Petro, “Quid est”, si anime sancte modo sunt in celo, “quod in die iudicii pro sue iusticie retribucione recipient?”, respondet in hec verba: “Hoc eis nimirum crescit in iudicio, quod nunc animarum stola, postmodum vero eciam corporum beatitudine perfruuntur”. Et tamen post asserit quod animabus nunc date sunt singule stole albe, et infra affirmavit quod non scient omnia. Tunc non loquebatur solummodo secundum affectum, sed veritatem de beatitudine et visione animarum sanctorum pro presenti volebat declarare. Igitur non utebatur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti. The major [premise] is obvious, because if they were using the present for the future they would in no way be showing a present truth but rather a future one. The minor [premise] also appears beyond doubt to anyone reading the texts of the saints. For when blessed Gregory was asked by Peter in the fourth book of his Dialogues, if the holy souls are now in heaven, "What will they receive on the Day of Judgment in return for their justice?" he replies in these words, "This undoubtedly increases for them in the judgment, that now they enjoy the robe of souls but afterwards they [will] also enjoy the blessedness of bodies." And yet he goes on to assert that "white robes have now been given to every one of the souls", and later affirmed that "they will not know everything". At that point he was not talking only out of love, but was wanting to clarify the truth of the blessedness and vision of the souls of the saints in the present. Therefore he was not using the present for the future, but [to describe] the present.

[s 335] Innocencius eciam tercius, sicut legitur Extra, De celebracione missarum, Cum Marthe, dicit quod sancti “oracionibus nostris non indigent, pro eo quod, cum sint perfecte beati, omnia eis ad vota succedunt”. Non tantum voluit suum ad sanctos affectum monstrare, sed eciam de beatitudine eorum presenti declarare vult veritatem. Igitur minime usus est presenti pro futuro vel preterito pro presenti. Innocent III too, as we read in Extra, de celebratione missarum, c. cum Marthae, says that the saints "do not need our prayers because, since they are perfectly blessed, everything comes to them according to their wishes." He did not want only to show his love for the saints, but he also wishes to make clear the truth about their present blessedness. [This must be so, presumably, because he is talking about our present prayers.] Therefore he did not use the present for the future or the past for the present.

[s 336]Capitulum 9 Chapter 9

[s 337] Ceterum ad simplices seducendos dicunt prefati sequaces erroris quod simplices inferiores de quescione predicta non debent se intromittere. Et si aliquis dicat, “Christianus sum. Volo scire fidem et veritatem, ideo moveor ad querendum de hoc, quia simplex sum,” isti respondent taliter dicentes, “Dico tibi, crede explicite quod ecclesia explicavit, et alia implicite, donec ecclesia aliter declaret”. Further, to mislead the simple the followers of this error say that simple [e.g. uneducated] lesser people should not involve themselves in the above question. And if anyone says, "I am a Christian, I want to know the faith and the truth, therefore I am moved to inquire about this because I am simple", they reply by saying this sort of thing, "I tell you, believe explicitly what the Church has set forth, and other things implicitly, until the Church declares otherwise.'"

[s 338] Sed in ista assercione duos errores insinuavit, quorum primus est quod simplices non debent se intromittere de quescione predicta; et iste error in quodam alio tractatu reprobatus existit. But he [i.e. one who says this] implies two errors in that assertion, of which the first is that simple people should not involve themselves in the above question. And that error has been disproved in a certain other tract.

Secundus error est quod simplices nichil debent explicite credere nisi quod ecclesia explicavit, vocando ecclesiam papam et cardinales, quia de illa ecclesia isti loquuntur, sicut ex pluribus assercionibus eorum patenter habetur. [s 339] Sed quod hoc sit erroneum probatur aperte. Nam quilibet Christianus credere debet explicite omne illud de quo in speciali est certus quod ex contentis in scriptura divina sequitur evidenter; sed alii quam papa et cardinales possunt esse certi de multis que sequuntur evidenter ex contentis in scriptura divina que tamen papa et cardinales numquam declaraverunt — immo forte que papa et cardinales numquam in speciali sciverunt sed tantummodo implicite crediderunt; igitur possunt Christiani, et quandoque tenentur, explicite credere aliqua que papa et cardinales numquam explicite declaraverunt. The second error is that simple people should believe explicitly only what the Church has set forth, meaning by "Church" the pope and cardinals, because that is the Church they are talking about, as is shown clearly by many of their assertions. But it is proved plainly that this is erroneous. For every Christian ought to believe explicitly everything about which in particular he is certain that it follows manifestly from things contained in divine scripture. But others apart from the pope and cardinals can be certain about many [truths] that follow manifestly from things contained in divine scripture, [truths] that the pope and cardinals have nevertheless never declared -- [truths] indeed which perhaps the pope and cardinals have never known in particular but have only believed implicitly. Christians therefore can, and sometimes are bound to, believe explicitly some things which the pope and cardinals have never explicitly declared.

[s 340] Maior est manifesta. Quia qui certus est de antecedente et consequencia, certus est de consequente. Et ita qui credit explicite antecedens et certus est de consequencia qua consequens ex antecedente infertur, de consequente dubius esse non potest, cui illud sapientis alludit, “simul inducens cognovit”. Quamvis enim aliquis possit esse de maiore certus et tamen dubius vel contrarie opinionis de conclusione, tamen si certus est de maiore et de minore quas applicat ad conclusionem, de conclusione dubius esse non potest. [s 341] Qui igitur explicite credit aliqua que legit in scriptura divina et de quacumque conclusione est certus quod evidenter sequitur ex illis, de illa conclusione dubius esse non potest, et, per consequens, vel scit eam vel explicite credit. Et ideo si est conclusio que per racionem demonstrari potest, sequitur quod explicite credit eam, nec potest non credere eam explicite quamdiu advertit quod ex contentis in scriptura divina sequitur evidenter. The major is obvious, because whoever is certain about the antecedent [i.e. the premise or premises] and the consequence [consequentia, i.e. the logical form of the argument], is certain about the consequent [de consequente, i.e. the conclusion]. And so whoever explicitly believes the antecedent and is certain about the consequence by which the consequent is inferred from the antecedent can not be doubtful about the consequent. The remark of a wise man, "As soon as he made the induction he knew" [Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, I.1, 71 a20], refers to this. For although someone can be certain about a major [premise] and yet doubt or hold an opposite opinion about the conclusion, nevertheless, if he is certain about major and minor and applies them to the conclusion, he can not be doubtful about the conclusion. If anyone explicitly believes, therefore, things which he reads in divine scripture and is certain about any conclusion that it does follow manifestly from them, he can not be doubtful about that conclusion, and consequently either he knows it or he believes it explicitly. And therefore if it is a conclusion that can be demonstrated by reason, it follows that he believes it explicitly, and he cannot not believe it explicitly, as long as he notices that it follows manifestly from what is contained in divine scripture.

[s 342] Minor quamvis videatur probacione minime indigere tamen auctoritatibus venerabilium patrum probatur aperte. Ait enim Augustinus, ut legitur 24a, q. 3a, c. ult., “Ideo divina providencia multos diversi erroris hereticos esse permittit, ut cum interrogant nos ea que nesciunt [recte nescimus]”, possunt catholici per scripturas divinas ea que nesciverint prius addiscere, et per consequens possunt esse certi per solas scripturas divinas [de hiis] que papa et cardinales nullatenus declarabant.   Although the minor does not seem to need proof, it is nevertheless plainly proved by texts of the venerable fathers. For as we read in 24, q. 3, last chapter, Augustine says, "Divine providence, therefore, permits the existence of many heretics with a variety of errors so that when they ask us things they do not know" [rather, things we do not know] Catholics can learn from the divine scriptures things they did not know before, and consequently can be certain from the divine scriptures of things the pope and cardinals have not made clear.

[s 343] Ad hoc eciam glossa accepta ab Augustino super illud Apostoli, 1a ad Corinthios 11o, “Oportet hereses esse, ut qui probati sunt in nobis manifesti fiant” potest adduci. Ait enim glossa, “Omnes inimici ecclesie vel errore cecati vel malicia depravati prosunt, quia si accipiunt potenciam corporaliter affligendi, exercent eius pacienciam; si vero male senciendo adversantur, exercent eius sapienciam. Ab adversario enim mota quescio, discendi existit occasio. [s 344] Multa quippe ad fidem catholicam pertinencia, dum hereticorum callida inquietudine exagitantur, ut adversus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligencius, et intelliguntur clarius, et predicantur instancius.” Et infra: “Prosunt ergo nobis heretici, non verum docendo, quod nesciunt, sed ad verum querendum et aperiendum catholicos excitando.” Ex hiis verbis patenter colligitur, quod catholici et heretici excitati multas possunt ignotas veritates per scripturas sacras addiscere, licet eas papa et cardinales hactenus non attemptaverint declarare. For this conclusion we can also bring forward a gloss taken from Augustine on the verse of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 11[:19], "For there must be also heresies: that they who are approved may be made manifest among us" For the gloss says, "All the enemies of the Church, whether blinded by error or depraved by evil, are useful because if they have power to afflict [it] corporeally, they exercise its patience, but if they oppose it by thinking wrongly, they exercise its wisdom. For a question raised by an opponent is an opportunity for learning. Obviously, while many things pertaining to Catholic faith are being criticised by the cunning restlessness of heretics, they can be considered more carefully, and understood more clearly and preached more earnestly in order to defend them against those [heretics]. … So heretics are useful to us, not by teaching the truth, which they do not know, but by rousing Catholics to seek and obtain the truth." We gather clearly from these words that Catholics and heretics, when aroused, can learn many [until then] unknown truths from the sacred scriptures, even if the pope and cardinals have not thus far attempted to make them clear.

[s 345] Unde et dicunt nonnulli quod occasione heresum quas magister istorum et rector sollempniter diffinivit et publice predicavit, in nonnullis pullularunt innumere veritates, quarum sunt multe iam redargute in scriptis, que toti communitati Christianorum, tam laicorum, quam clericorum, fidelium inestimabilem fidelitatem seu utilitatem inferent (ut putant firmissime) in futurum, quas tamen veritates eciam precedentes summi pontifices et cardinales catholici nullatenus declararent, quia occasionem declarandi ante tempora illius rectoris minime habuerunt. So some people also say that because of the opportunity [provided by] the heresies which the master and ruler of these people has solemnly defined and publicly preached, in some matters numberless truths have come to light, many of which have now been contradicted in writings, that will in future bring inestimable faith and advantage to the whole community of Christian believers, both lay and clerical, as they most firmly think. Yet earlier Catholic highest pontiffs and cardinals did not declare these truths, because they did not have the opportunity of doing so before the times of that ruler [i.e. John XXII].

[s 346] Sed forte diceret aliquis quod simplices non debent credere nisi ea que eis papa et cardinales tradunt credenda explicite, nec debent investigare secreta scripture, sed communibus debent esse contenti — immo eciam de intellectu proprio non debent presumere ut aliquid credant explicite nisi quod eis papa et cardinales tradiderint. But perhaps someone might say that simple people should believe only what the pope and the cardinals hand on to them as to be believed explicitly, and ought not investigate the secrets of scripture, but should be content with common knowledge; indeed, especially on the basis of their own understanding, they should not presume to believe anything except what the pope and cardinals have handed on to them.

[s 347] Sed qui ista assereret novorum esset inventor errorum. Nam licet simplices non teneantur regulariter explicite credere nisi illa que iam ut credenda a clero sunt explicite declarata, tamen si simpliciter legendo scripturas divinas racionis acumine, quo et simplices non omnino carent, aliquid quod papa et cardinales minime declaraverunt advertunt evidenter sequi ex scripturis divinis, hoc possunt et debent in hoc casu explicite credere, nec tenentur papam et cardinales consulere, quia pape et cardinalibus scripturam sacram preferre tenentur. But anyone who affirmed these things would be an inventor of new errors. For although simple people are as a rule bound to believe explicitly only things that have already been explicitly declared by the clergy as things to be believed, nevertheless if simply in reading the divine scriptures they notice by the sharpness of their reason, which even the simple do not lack completely, that something which the pope and cardinals have not declared does follow manifestly from the divine scriptures, in this case they can and ought to believe it explicitly. And they are not bound to consult the pope and cardinals, because they are bound to put sacred scripture ahead of the pope and cardinals.

[s 348] Sed forte diceret aliquis quod simplices salvantur fide; est tamen quidam modus salvandi quo salvantur in fide maiorum; igitur non debent habere fidem explicitam de aliquo nisi de quo papa et cardinales habent fidem explicitam. Ideo videtur inconveniens dicere quod aliquid sit spectans ad fidem catholicam de quo papa et cardinales non habent fidem explicitam. But perhaps someone might say that simple people are saved by faith; however, there is a certain mode of salvation in which they are saved in the faith of the seniors; therefore they should not have explicit faith in anything except that in which the pope and cardinals have explicit faith. Therefore it seems inappropriate to say that there might be something pertaining to Catholic faith about which the pope and cardinals do not have explicit faith.

[s 349] Sed respondetur quod simplices salvantur in fide propria, quia si ipsi non habent fidem in se, non salvantur. Est tamen quidam modus salvandi quo salvantur in fide maiorum, quia quantum ad multa sufficit eis credere implicite quod maiores credunt explicite: quod verum est, si maiores explicite habent fidem [eandem] quam minores et minores non advertunt aliquid sequi ex scriptura divina nisi quod maiores sequi percipiunt. Cum vero dicitur quod papa et cardinales habent fidem explicitam de omnibus que spectant ad fidem catholicam, [hoc non est verum], licet sepe habuerint fidem explicite de omnibus illis qui necesse fuerit eos credere explicite. But it is answered that simple people are saved by their own faith, because if they do not themselves have faith they are not saved. Nevertheless there is a certain mode of salvation in which they are saved in the faith of the seniors, because with respect to many matters it is enough for them to believe implicitly what the seniors believe explicitly. This is true if the seniors explicitly have the same faith as the lesser ones and the lesser ones do not notice that anything follows from divine scripture except what the seniors perceive. But when it is said that the pope and cardinals have explicit faith in all matters that pertain to Catholic faith, [this is not true], though often they have had faith explicitly about all matters it was necessary for them to believe explicitly.

[s 350] Cum vero assumitur quod simplices non debent investigare secreta scripture, istud non est verum, quia tunc nullus simplex deberet presumere vacare studio scripture sacre, et ita nullus deberet in scriptura sacra studere antequam esset papa vel cardinalis: quia omnis studens in scriptura sacra oportet quod aliquando incipiat; quando autem quicumque incipit studere in scriptura sacra quoad noticiam scripturarum sacrarum est inter simplices computandus; igitur nullus antequam esset papa vel cardinalis deberet incipere studere in sacris scripturis. But when it is assumed [as minor premise of an argument] that simple people should not investigate the secrets of scripture, that is not true, because then no simple person ought to presume to devote themselves to the study of sacred scripture, and so no one ought to be diligent in the study of sacred scripture before he was pope or cardinal. Because anyone studying sacred scripture must begin at some time, but when someone begins to study sacred scripture he must be counted as among the simple people with respect to his knowledge of the sacred scriptures; no one, therefore, before he was pope or cardinal, ought to begin to study the sacred scriptures.

[s 351] Cum autem assumitur quod simplex non debet de intellectu proprio presumere ut aliquid credat explicite nisi quod papa et cardinales tradiderint, dicendum est quod simplices non debent presumere de proprio intellectu, sed debent scripture sacre firmiter adherere, ut quod evidenter conspexerint ex sacris scripturis inferri, hoc explicite credant, sive fuerit sive non fuerit a papa et cardinalibus declaratum. [s 352]Et huius racio est quia papa et cardinales non sunt regula fidei nostre: licet papa catholicus et cardinales catholici debeant esse doctores fidei Christiane, ita ut quicquid secundum regulam fidei docuerint et diffinierint hoc sit a fidelibus firmiter senciendum, si vero aliquid contra regulam fidei scripturamque divinam docere aut diffinire presumpserint, non sunt sequendi, sed a catholicis arguendi et tamquam heretici devitandi.   When it is assumed, however, that on his own understanding a simple person should not presume to believe explicitly anything but what the pope and cardinals have handed on, it must be said that simple people should not make a presumption on their own understanding but should adhere firmly to sacred scripture, so that they may believe explicitly what they have plainly perceived to be inferred from the sacred scriptures, whether it has or has not been declared by the pope and cardinals. And the reason for this is that the pope and cardinals are not the rule of our faith. Although a Catholic pope and Catholic cardinals ought to be teachers of Christian faith, so that whatever they have taught and determined according to the rule of faith ought to be firmly held by the faithful, if however they have presumed to teach or determine anything against the rule of faith and divine scripture, they should not be followed, but should be censured by Catholics and avoided as heretics.

[s 353] Errantes igitur memorati dicentes quod homo Christianus nichil debet explicite credere nisi quod papa et cardinales declarant, qui volunt contra Apostolum papam dominari fidei nostre, et qui non querunt intelligere veritatem sed ea que suo rectori et magistro sunt placita auribus simplicium inculcare, nullatenus sunt audiendi sed sunt tamquam eversores fidei repellendi. The abovementioned exponents of error, therefore, who say that a Christian should believe explicitly nothing except what the pope and cardinals declare, who (against the Apostle [cf. 1 Cor. 2:5: 'Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the truth of God']) wish the pope to lord it over our faith, and who do not seek to understand the truth but seek to instill into the ears of the simple things pleasing to their ruler and master, are by no means to be heard but are to be repelled as destroyers of the faith.

[s 354] Hec autem contra predicta sufficiant. Si autem dicta eorum aliter quam se habet veritas reprobavi, michi nullatenus imputetur, quia sub illa forma michi declarata fuerunt. Intencionis autem mee est solummodo falsam sentenciam et ipsius quicumque assertores fuerint, et non alios, improbare. Si autem dixi aliquid imperite, correccionem caritativam nullatenus recusabo. Let this be enough against the above [errors]. If I have condemned any of their sayings in a way at variance with the truth, however, let it not be imputed to me, because they were declared to me in that form. My intention, however, is only to reject a false opinion and whoever its assertors may have been, and not others. If, however, I have said anything inexpertly, I will not refuse charitable correction.

Explicit

Return to Table of Contents

[Tractatus secundus: Responsiones ad quasdam raciones sophisticas adductas ad muniendum errorem Ioannis 22i de visione animarum sanctarum in celo.]

[REPLY TO CERTAIN FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS

put forward to support the error of John XXII concerning the vision of the holy souls in heaven]

Text edited by Jan Ballweg, revised by John Kilcullen and John Scott

translation by John Kilcullen and John Scott as at March 2009 Copyright © 2008, The British Academy

translation by John Kilcullen and John Scott
as at March 2009
Copyright © 2008, The British Academy