title: Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page, so the markers are page-qualified (p891, p892, p893, p894).

<!-- page 891 -->

Quinto quaeritur, utrum resurrectio sit naturalis, an miraculosa. Et quod *non sit naturalis*, ostenditur:

1. *A parte initii:* quia «a privatione in habitum per naturam non fit regressus[^p891-1]»; sed in morte est summa privatio: ergo resurrectio, cum sit a morte, non est per naturam.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *a parte termini:* quia omne quod natura producit, est corruptibile et mortale; sed corpus glorificatum est immortale et incorruptibile[^p891-2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, tertio ostenditur *a parte modi operandi:* quia natura operatur successive, non subito; sed resurrectio erit subito, *in ictu oculi*[^p891-3]: ergo non est a natura.

4. Item, ostenditur etiam *a parte principii effectivi:* quia «natura est vis insita rebus, ex similibus similia procreans[^p891-4]»; sed in resurrectione non fit simile ex simili: ergo etc.

5. Ultimo ostenditur *a parte omnium horum:* quia est articulus fidei, quae non est de his quae fiunt per naturam, sed supra naturam: ergo etc.

<!-- page 892 -->

**Contra:**
1. Iob comparat resurrectionem hominis germinationi ligni praecisi, Iob decimo quarto[^p892-1]; Apostolus vivificationi grani mortui, primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto; Gregorius, in homilia paschali, generationi circulari corporis arboris ex parvo semine. Et in his ostendere volunt et probare resurrectionem: ergo si ratio et similitudo bona est, quam ponunt; cum omnia haec sint a natura, resurrectio est naturalis.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur, quia dicit Augustinus in libro *de Quantitate animae*[^p892-2]: «Si cursum naturalium rerum attendamus, certius erit nobis, resurrectionem esse futuram, quam solem oriri cras».

3. Item, Apostolus dicit[^p892-3]: *Oportet, corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem*; sed quod est supra naturam non oportet evenire: ergo resurrectio est in potentia naturae.

4. Item, *ratione* probatur hoc ipsum: quia maior est aptitudo pulveris hominis ad generationem[^p892-4] hominis quam alterius animalis; sed natura per putrefactionem potest de tali pulvere aliud animal generare: ergo et corpus hominis reparare.

5. Item, maior est aptitudo materiae corporis hominis ad ipsum, quam virgarum ad serpentes; sed productio serpentum ex virgis magorum, quamvis ministerio fieret diabolico, tamen erat naturalis[^p892-5]: ergo etc.

6. Item, quod est in appetitu naturae est naturale, quia natura non fundavit appetitum frustra; sed anima naturaliter appetit reuniri corpori; hoc constat per Augustinum *super Genesim ad litteram*[^p892-6], ubi dicit, quod «anima propter appetitum ad corpus retardatur, ne tota intentione feratur in summum caelum»: ergo etc. *Si tu dicas*, quod appetitus est tantum ex parte *animae*; ostenditur etiam, quod ex parte *pulverum*: quia corpus humanum ex coniunctione sui cum anima habet ordinari ad immortalitatem; sed coniunctio cum anima est naturalis: ergo et illa ordinatio. Sed ad illud, ad quod res naturaliter ordinatur, habet naturalem appetitum, ut ignis sursum ferri[^p892-7]: ergo etc. *Praeterea*, pulveres illi aut *resolvuntur* in elementa prima, aut *non*. Si sic; cum elementa sint homogenea, non magis habent ordinationem ad corpus humanum quam alia pars elementi, quae nunquam fuit corpus: ergo non est maior ratio, quare de eo iterum fiat corpus humanum quam de alio; quod falsum est. Si *non* resolvuntur ad elementa; aliqua vis tenet, quae est in ipsis pulveribus, et per ipsam ordinantur ad ulteriorem formam, ergo naturalem[^p892-8]: ergo ex parte corporis et animae est resurrectio naturalis.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Resurrectio non est naturalis, sed supra naturam.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in resurrectione tria sunt: primum est corporis ex pulveribus *reformatio*; secundum ipsi corpori reformato *animae unio*; tertium unitorum inseparabilis *colligatio*. Primum est *contra* naturam, id est contra solitum cursum naturae, quae potest perfecta destruere, non destructa reparare. Secundum est *secundum* naturam, quod anima optime corpori sibi organizato, cui desiderabat uniri, uniatur. Tertium est *supra* naturam, scilicet quod ex corruptibili fiat incorruptibile non separabile.

Quoniam igitur primum et ultimum est non *a* natura, sed *supra* vel *contra*; ideo non est dicendum, resurrectionem naturalem esse, sed supra naturam[^p892-9].

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod probatur et comparatur operationibus naturae; dicendum, quod probatio est bona et per *locum a minori*[^p892-10]. Si enim natura creata potest facere vivum de mortuo, de semine parvo facere magnum corpus, quae est potentiae finitae; multo magis Deus potest per se facere de homine; et ad hoc tendunt illae rationes et comparationes. Et propter hoc dicit Augustinus: «Certissima erit nobis resurrectio, si cursum naturalem attendamus», non quia ipsa sit a natura, sed quia a Deo melius hoc potest fieri, quam a natura possint fieri opera sua.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de opportunitate, dicendum, quod est *opportunitas materiae* et *efficientis*, sicut et necessitas; et opportunitas a parte *efficientis* est ratione immutabilitatis, non coactionis[^p892-11]; et ideo opportunum, quia Deus decrevit et disposuit, non quia compellatur, vel *materia* necessario

<!-- page 893 -->

ex parte naturae praeparetur. Et ideo talis *opportunitas* non infert, huiusmodi resurrectionem esse a causa naturali, cum stet cum causa supernaturaliter operante.

*Ad 4, 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod natura potest de his quae generata sunt per putrefactionem, et de serpentibus; dicendum, quod quaedam animalia *modicam* organizationem habent, utpote vermes et animalia corporis anulosi; et talium est natura productiva per putrefactionem. Quaedam *completam*, ut animalia sensibilia perfecta et gradientia, ut equus; et talia non potest[^p893-1] nisi per vim formativam influxam cum decisione seminis; et tale est corpus humanum, quod non potest naturaliter organizari, nisi adsit semen et debitum vas suscipiens, scilicet matrix; et ideo non est simile de serpentibus.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de appetitu naturae, dupliciter potest responderi: uno modo, quod propositio illa falsa est. Quaedam enim sunt in naturae *appetitu*, quae tamen non sunt in eius *potestate*; et talia non sunt naturalia, ut patet de beatitudine[^p893-2]. Quae autem sunt in *appetitu et potestate*, talia sunt naturalia; tale autem non est resurrectio. — Aliter solvi potest, quod ex parte *animae* est appetitus, ex parte *pulverum* non est appetitus; nec ex illa parte est naturalis, sed contra naturam.

Unde nota de *pulveribus* tres opiniones. Quidam enim dicunt, quod *habent appetitum* et naturalem ordinationem ad incorruptionem propter animam; et ratione illius habent, quod *non possunt resolvi usque ad elementa*, tamen possunt esse materia quorumlibet corporum. — Sed istud non capio, quod in corpus vermis possit reverti homo, vel in corpus lupi, et non resolvi in elementa; immo Glossa super illud Psalmi[^p893-3]: *Posuerunt morticina*, videtur dicere, quod resurrectio est «ex occultissimis naturae sinibus». Verbum etiam Augustini in *Enchiridio* repugnat, quod innuit, quod in ipsa etiam elementa possunt resolvi.

Alia opinio est, quod *resolvuntur in elementa*, et tamen *manet appetitus* propter hoc, quod elementa illa, ut fuerunt corporis humani materia, habuerunt multum de natura lucis, quae stat cum omnibus elementis; et ratione illius naturae habent appetitum et ordinationem. — Sed nec hoc intelligo, quomodo lux maneat simul cum terra, et quod terra, quae est materia corporis humani magis sit lucida; et quod vermis, qui generatur de humano corpore, plus habeat de natura lucis quam alius vermis.

Tertia opinio est, quod pulveres resolvuntur vel resolvi possunt in elementa; nec elementa illa habent aliquem appetitum nec ordinationem ad corpus secundum naturam, sed solum secundum divinam providentiam, quae disponit illud idem corpus reformare animae, ut in eo remuneretur; nec est distincta illa pars ab aliis partibus elementi in se, sed in comparatione ad divinam sapientiam, quam nihil latet, nihil subterfugit.

Et haec opinio probabilior est, ut credo. Et tunc patet responsio ad illud: quia nunquam corpus ex unione ad animam aliquam recipit qualitatem creatam vel dispositionem incorruptibilitatis secundum statum praesentem — nisi forte dicas meritum vel demeritum, sed illud manet in anima, non in corpore — aut si quam aliam des[^p893-4] dispositionem, aut post corruptionem et resolutionem non manet, aut in potentia valde remota manet. — Hoc tamen sine calumnia verum est, quod corpus, ex quo unitur animae rationali, ordinationem statim habet ad immortalitatem secundum divinam providentiam.

Et si tu quaeras: quomodo anima habet appetitum ad hanc partem elementi, cum sit omnino homogeneum et unius naturae cum aliis partibus elementi, nec etiam distinctionem habeat; quia potest omnino aliis commisceri, et iterum aeque bene possit ei corpus ex alia parte elementi reparari et eiusdem complexionis et habitudinis et complementi? dicendum, quod quantumcumque fuerit[^p893-5] simile et commisceatur aliis elementis, sive uni sive pluribus, semper tamen manet substantia materiae cum *ratione seminali*, et pars substantiae illius materiae, etsi non sit actu separata ab aliis partibus, quibus est commixta, est tamen separabilis; et quamvis non sit separabilis nec distinguibilis secundum humanam potentiam, est tamen separabilis et distinguibilis secundum potentiam et sapientiam divinam, quae novit, in quid redierit corpus humanum, quotcumque et quibuscumque mutationibus et conversionibus sit mutatum: et sic per illius sapientiae discretionem et potentiae operationem illud per easdem formas, per quas disponebatur ad formationem[^p893-6] animae, postmodum disponitur.

<!-- page 894 -->

Et si tu quaeras, quare anima appetat magis illud quam aliud, cum nulla sit praeelectio propter uniformitatem; dicendum, quod magis appetit propter colligantiam et coniunctionem, quam habuit ad illud. — Et hoc patet sic. Anima enim rationalis, quia est anima, differt ab Angelo et convenit cum aliis animabus, et per hoc habet inclinationem ad corpus; quia rationalis, ad corpus humanum; quia nobilis, ad nobilius organizatum[^p894-1]; sed ad hoc magis quam ad aliud propter coniunctionem, quam habuit ad illud. — Exemplum est si quis velit contrahere: cum duabus virginibus existentibus aeque pulcris et bonis, et paribus conditionibus ceteris; hic erit indifferens respectu utriusque. Sed esto, quod coniungatur alteri, ipsa coniunctio iam alligabit adeo isti, si fuit[^p894-2] ex amore, ut iam non consoletur habere aliam nec daret hanc pro alia pulcriori et meliori. Sic anima tanto affectu unitur substantiae carnis, quam prius vivificavit, quod non complete ei satisfit, nisi illa eadem, ubicumque lateat, reparetur.

Et sic patet, quod anima habet ordinationem et appetitum, per quem ordinatur ad illud corpus, quantumcumque aliis conformetur; sed corpus habet ordinationem *ratione divinae providentiae*. Quod autem habeat per aliquid, quod *sit in se*, ex quo plene resolutum est; non *audeo asserere* propter hoc, quia nec ratio nec auctoritas nec fides compellit. Attamen, quia potest esse, quod Deus dedit, non *audeo pertinaciter negare*. Ideo certum tenentes, incertum profundioribus relinquamus. Nam esto, quod non sit in pulveribus appetitus, et quod fiat resolutio usque ad ultima; non perit aliquid, quod ad resurrectionem spectet, propter hoc quod, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p894-3], «non perit Deo terrena materies, de qua mortalium creatur caro. Sed in quemlibet pulverem cineremve solvatur, in quoslibet halitus aurasve diffugiat, inquamcumque aliorum corporum substantiam, vel in ipsa elementa vertatur, in quemcumque cibum etc.; illi animae etiam in puncto temporis redit, quae ipsam primitus animavit[^p894-4]».

---

english:
### Question V. *Whether the resurrection is natural or miraculous.*

<!-- page 891 -->

Fifth, it is asked whether the resurrection is natural or miraculous. And that it *is not natural* is shown:

1. *From the standpoint of the beginning:* because «by nature there is no return from privation to a possessed state[^p891-1]»; but in death there is the utmost privation: therefore the resurrection, since it is from death, is not through nature.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown *from the standpoint of the terminus:* because everything that nature produces is corruptible and mortal; but the glorified body is immortal and incorruptible[^p891-2]: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, thirdly it is shown *from the standpoint of the mode of operating:* because nature works successively, not suddenly; but the resurrection will be sudden, *in the twinkling of an eye*[^p891-3]: therefore it is not from nature.

4. Likewise, it is also shown *from the standpoint of the effective principle:* because «nature is a force implanted in things, procreating like from like[^p891-4]»; but in the resurrection like is not made from like: therefore, etc.

5. Last, it is shown *from the standpoint of all these together:* because it is an article of faith, which is not concerned with those things that come about through nature, but above nature: therefore, etc.

<!-- page 892 -->

**On the contrary:**
1. Job compares the resurrection of man to the sprouting of a felled tree, Job fourteen[^p892-1]; the Apostle, to the quickening of a dead grain, First Corinthians fifteen; Gregory, in the Paschal homily, to the cyclical generation of the body of a tree from a small seed. And by these they wish to show and prove the resurrection: therefore, if the reasoning and likeness they set forth is good, since all these things are from nature, the resurrection is natural.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown because Augustine says in the book *On the Greatness of the Soul*[^p892-2]: «If we attend to the course of natural things, it will be more certain to us that the resurrection is to come than that the sun will rise tomorrow».

3. Likewise, the Apostle says[^p892-3]: *This corruptible must put on incorruption*; but what is above nature need not come to pass: therefore the resurrection is within the power of nature.

4. Likewise, this same thing is proved *by reason:* because the aptitude of a man's dust for the generation[^p892-4] of a man is greater than for that of another animal; but nature through putrefaction can generate another animal from such dust: therefore it can also restore the body of a man.

5. Likewise, the aptitude of the matter of a man's body for that body is greater than that of the rods for serpents; but the production of serpents from the rods of the magicians, although it came about by diabolical agency, was nevertheless natural[^p892-5]: therefore, etc.

6. Likewise, what is in the appetite of nature is natural, because nature did not establish appetite in vain; but the soul naturally desires to be reunited to the body; this is established by Augustine *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^p892-6], where he says that «the soul is held back on account of its appetite for the body, lest it be borne with its whole intention into the highest heaven»: therefore, etc. *If you say* that the appetite is only on the part of the *soul*, it is shown also to be on the part of the *dust*: because the human body, from its conjunction with the soul, is ordered to immortality; but the conjunction with the soul is natural: therefore so also is that ordering. But that to which a thing is naturally ordered, it has a natural appetite for, as fire has to be borne upward[^p892-7]: therefore, etc. *Moreover*, those dusts are either *resolved* into the first elements, or *not*. If so, then since the elements are homogeneous, they have no more an ordering to the human body than any other part of the element which was never a body: therefore there is no greater reason why a human body should be made again from it than from another; which is false. If they are *not* resolved into the elements, then some force holds them, which is in those dusts, and through it they are ordered to a further form, therefore a natural one[^p892-8]: therefore, from the standpoint of both body and soul, the resurrection is natural.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *The resurrection is not natural, but above nature.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the resurrection there are three things: the first is the *reformation* of the body from the dust; the second, the *union of the soul* to the body thus reformed; the third, the inseparable *binding-together* of the things united. The first is *against* nature, that is, against the accustomed course of nature, which can destroy what is complete but cannot restore what is destroyed. The second is *according to* nature, namely that the soul be united most fittingly to the body organized for it, to which it desired to be united. The third is *above* nature, namely that from the corruptible there be made the incorruptible, not separable.

Since, therefore, the first and the last are not *from* nature, but *above* or *against* it, therefore it must not be said that the resurrection is natural, but above nature[^p892-9].

**To the arguments:**

*To 1, 2.* To that, then, which is objected — that it is proved and compared to the operations of nature — it must be said that the proof is good and proceeds through the *topic from the lesser*[^p892-10]. For if created nature can make the living from the dead, and from a small seed make a great body — nature which is of finite power — much more can God by Himself do this with regard to man; and to this those reasonings and comparisons tend. And on account of this Augustine says: «The resurrection will be most certain to us, if we attend to the natural course», not because it is from nature, but because this can be done better by God than nature's own works can be done by nature.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning fittingness (*opportunitas*), it must be said that there is a *fittingness of the matter* and of the *efficient cause*, just as there is a necessity [of each]; and the fittingness on the part of the *efficient cause* is by reason of immutability, not of compulsion[^p892-11]; and therefore it is fitting because God decreed and disposed it, not because He is compelled, or because the *matter* is necessarily

<!-- page 893 -->

prepared on the part of nature. And therefore such a *fittingness* does not entail that a resurrection of this kind is from a natural cause, since it stands together with a cause operating supernaturally.

*To 4, 5.* To that which is objected — that nature can act with regard to those things generated by putrefaction, and with regard to serpents — it must be said that certain animals have a *slight* organization, such as worms and ringed-bodied animals; and of such the nature is productive through putrefaction. Certain others have a *complete* [organization], such as perfect sentient and walking animals, like the horse; and such nature cannot [produce][^p893-1] except through a formative power infused with the emission of seed; and such is the human body, which cannot be naturally organized unless there be present seed and a fitting receptive vessel, namely the womb; and therefore it is not similar in the case of serpents.

*To 6.* To that which is objected concerning the appetite of nature, one can respond in two ways: in one way, that that proposition is false. For there are certain things in the *appetite* of nature which are nevertheless not in its *power*; and such are not natural, as is clear in the case of beatitude[^p893-2]. But those which are in *appetite and in power*, such are natural; but the resurrection is not such. — Otherwise it can be resolved thus: that on the part of the *soul* there is appetite, on the part of the *dust* there is no appetite; nor on that part is it natural, but against nature.

Hence note three opinions concerning the *dust*. For some say that [the dusts] *have an appetite* and a natural ordering to incorruption on account of the soul; and by reason of that they hold that they *cannot be resolved all the way down to the elements*, yet they can be the matter of any bodies whatever. — But this I do not grasp: that a man could revert into the body of a worm, or into the body of a wolf, and not be resolved into the elements; indeed the Gloss on that verse of the Psalm[^p893-3]: *They have set out the dead bodies*, seems to say that the resurrection is «from the most hidden bosoms of nature». The word of Augustine in the *Enchiridion* also opposes it, for it implies that they can be resolved even into the elements themselves.

Another opinion is that they are *resolved into the elements*, and yet *the appetite remains* on account of this: that those elements, inasmuch as they were the matter of the human body, had much of the nature of light, which stands together with all the elements; and by reason of that nature they have appetite and ordering. — But neither do I understand this: how light should remain together with earth, and that the earth which is the matter of the human body should be more luminous; and that the worm which is generated from a human body should have more of the nature of light than another worm.

The third opinion is that the dusts are resolved, or can be resolved, into the elements; nor do those elements have any appetite or ordering to the body according to nature, but only according to divine providence, which disposes to reform that same body for the soul, that in it [the soul] may be rewarded; nor is that part distinct from the other parts of the element in itself, but [only] in comparison to the divine wisdom, from which nothing lies hidden, nothing escapes.

And this opinion is more probable, as I believe. And then the reply to the objection is clear: because a body never, from its union with the soul, receives any created quality or disposition of incorruptibility according to the present state — unless perhaps you say merit or demerit, but that remains in the soul, not in the body — or if you should posit some other[^p893-4] disposition, either after corruption and resolution it does not remain, or it remains in a very remote potency. — This, nevertheless, is true without cavil: that the body, from the moment it is united to the rational soul, straightway has an ordering to immortality according to divine providence.

And if you ask: how does the soul have an appetite for this part of the element, since it is wholly homogeneous and of one nature with the other parts of the element, and does not even have a distinction — because it can be entirely mingled with others, and again a body could equally well be restored to it from another part of the element, of the same complexion and disposition and completeness? — it must be said that, however much it may have been[^p893-5] like [the rest] and mingled with other elements, whether with one or with many, nevertheless the substance of the matter always remains together with its *seminal reason*; and the part of the substance of that matter, even if it is not actually separated from the other parts with which it is commingled, is nevertheless separable; and although it is not separable nor distinguishable according to human power, it is nevertheless separable and distinguishable according to the divine power and wisdom, which knows into what the human body will have returned, by however many and whatever changes and conversions it may have been altered: and thus, through the discernment of that wisdom and the operation of [its] power, it is afterward disposed through the same forms by which it was disposed for the forming[^p893-6] of the soul.

<!-- page 894 -->

And if you ask why the soul desires this one rather than another, since there is no prior choice on the ground of uniformity — it must be said that it desires [it] more on account of the bond and conjunction which it had to it. — And this is clear thus. For the rational soul, because it is a soul, differs from an Angel and agrees with other souls, and through this it has an inclination to a body; because it is rational, to a human body; because it is noble, to a more nobly organized one[^p894-1]; but to this one more than to another on account of the conjunction which it had to it. — There is an example, if someone should wish to contract marriage: given two maidens equally beautiful and good, and equal in all other conditions, here he will be indifferent with respect to either. But suppose he is joined to one, the conjunction itself will now bind him so much to this one — if it was[^p894-2] from love — that he now takes no comfort in having the other, nor would he give this one for another more beautiful and better. So the soul is united with such affection to the substance of the flesh which it formerly gave life to, that it is not completely satisfied unless that same [flesh], wherever it lies hidden, be restored to it.

And thus it is clear that the soul has an ordering and appetite by which it is ordered to that body, however much it may be conformed to others; but the body has its ordering *by reason of divine providence*. But that it should have [this ordering] through something that is *in itself*, from which it has been fully resolved — I do not *dare to assert* on this account, because neither reason nor authority nor faith compels it. Nevertheless, since it can be that God has given it, I do not *dare pertinaciously to deny* it. Therefore, holding fast what is certain, let us leave the uncertain to deeper minds. For suppose there is no appetite in the dust, and that the resolution goes all the way to the last [elements]; nothing perishes that pertains to the resurrection, on account of this: that, as Augustine says[^p894-3], «earthly matter, from which the flesh of mortals is created, does not perish for God. But whether it be dissolved into any dust or ash, or scatter away into any breaths or breezes, or be turned into the substance of whatever other bodies, or into the elements themselves, or into whatever food, and so on; even in a point of time it returns to that soul which first gave it life[^p894-4]».

---

la: Secundum Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Oppositis. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 815, nota 4.

en: According to Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter On Opposites. Cf. vol. II, p. 815, note 4.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 52. — De *maiori* cfr. supra pag. 248, nota 4. seqq.

en: Epistle, 1 Cor. 15:52. — On the *major* [premise] cf. above, p. 248, note 4 ff.

la: Vide tom. I. pag. 134, nota 10. et tom. III. pag. 188, nota 1.

en: See vol. I, p. 134, note 10, and vol. III, p. 188, note 1.

la: Vers. 7. seqq. — Seq. locus est I. Cor. 15, 36. seqq. — Sententia Gregorii habetur in II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 26. (in Octav. Paschae) n. 12. — Pro *circulari* (i. e. ex semine fit arbor et ex fructu arboris semen) cod. aa *surculi*.

en: [Job 14,] verse 7 ff. — The following passage is 1 Cor. 15:36 ff. — The sentence of Gregory is found in Book II of the Homilies on the Gospel, homily 26 (on the Octave of Easter), n. 12. — For *circulari* ("cyclical," i.e. from the seed a tree is made and from the tree's fruit a seed) codex aa reads *surculi* ("of the shoot").

la: Cap. 33. n. 76: Videbimus... ut etiam ipsam resurrectionem carnis, quae partim tardius, partim omnino non creditur, ita certam teneamus, ut certius nobis non sit, solem, cum occiderit, oriturum.

en: [*On the Greatness of the Soul*,] ch. 33, n. 76: "We shall see... so that we may hold even the resurrection of the flesh itself, which is partly believed too slowly, partly not believed at all, so certain that nothing be more certain to us than that the sun, when it has set, will rise."

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 53.

en: Epistle, 1 Cor. 15:53.

la: In cod. bb secunda manus substituit *reparationem*.

en: In codex bb the second hand substitutes *reparationem* ("restoration") [for *generationem*].

la: Respicitur Exod. 7, 11. seq. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. — In *maiori* edd. *naturae* pro *materiae*.

en: Reference is made to Exod. 7:11 f. Cf. II Sent., d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 2. — In the *major* [premise] the editions read *naturae* ("of nature") for *materiae* ("of the matter").

la: Libr. XII. c. 35. n. 68. In fine textus codd. T U X *bonum* pro *caelum*, quod tamen originale exhibet. — De *maiori* cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 2.

en: [*On Genesis according to the Letter*,] Book XII, ch. 35, n. 68. At the end of the text codices T U X read *bonum* ("good") for *caelum* ("heaven"), which, however, the original text presents. — On the *major* [premise] cf. Aristotle, *Ethics* I, ch. 2.

la: Ex cod. K (1a secunda manu) supplevimus *ferri*, Vat. *ut ignis ad sursum*. Paulo superius pro *Sed ad illud* codd. et ed. 1. *Sed illud*. Infra pro *de alio* plures codd. *de alia*.

en: From codex K (first [correction] by the second hand) we have supplied *ferri* ("to be borne"); the Vatican edition [reads] *ut ignis ad sursum* ("as fire upward"). A little above, for *Sed ad illud* the codices and edition 1 [read] *Sed illud*. Below, for *de alio* several codices [read] *de alia*.

la: Codd. G L Z aa *naturaliter*. Superius pro *ad elementa* edd. *in elementa prima*.

en: Codices G L Z aa [read] *naturaliter* ("naturally"). Above, for *ad elementa* the editions [read] *in elementa prima* ("into the first elements").

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 18, a. 1, q. 2, reply to [objection] 5.

la: Vide tom. I. pag. 835, nota 5. — Finem *solut.* edd. exhibent sic: *sed quia ab eo* [ita etiam plures codd.] *haec melius potest fieri, quam a natura possit fieri, scilicet Deo opera sua fieri*, [permulti codd. *fieri secundum opera sua*].

en: See vol. I, p. 835, note 5. — The end of the *solution* the editions present thus: *"but because by Him"* [so also several codices] *"this can be done better than it could be done by nature, namely, that God's works be done,"* [very many codices: *"be done according to His works"*].

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 40. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et ad 5. — Inferius pro *vel* edd. *velut*, cod. K (1a secunda manu) *licet*, qui etiam subinde pro *cum stet* substituit *quamvis stet*; denique pro *supernaturaliter operante* (ita cod. A) cod. aa *non naturaliter* (Vat. *divina supernaturaliter*) *operante*, in aliis et ed. 1 *naturaliter operante*.

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 40, a. 2, q. 2, in the body and in reply to [objection] 5. — Below, for *vel* the editions [read] *velut*, codex K (first [correction] by the second hand) *licet*, which likewise afterward substitutes *quamvis stet* for *cum stet*; finally, for *supernaturaliter operante* (so codex A) codex aa [reads] *non naturaliter* (the Vatican [edition] *divina supernaturaliter*) *operante*, in others and in edition 1 *naturaliter operante*.

la: Edd. supplent *producere*.

en: The editions supply *producere* ("to produce").

la: De qua infra d. 49. p. I. q. 2. — Vat. prosequitur: *Quaedam autem sunt in eius appetitu et potestate, et talia.* Inferius post *animae est appetitus* codd. N Y aa addunt *et ex illa parte est naturale*, et pro *nec ex illa parte* cod. aa substituit *et ideo non*.

en: On which [see] below, d. 49, p. I, q. 2. — The Vatican [edition] continues: *"But certain things are in its appetite and power, and such [are natural]."* Below, after *animae est appetitus* codices N Y aa add *et ex illa parte est naturale* ("and on that part it is natural"), and for *nec ex illa parte* codex aa substitutes *et ideo non* ("and therefore not").

la: Psalm. 78, 2. (codd. *mortalia*). — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. in hunc locum (cfr. etiam interlinearis apud Lyranum), quae est secundum August. in hunc Ps. n. 5: *Morticina eorum* [Martyrum] *et carnes eorum posuerunt volatilibus caeli et bestiis terrae, quasi quidquam eorum resurrectioni deperiret, ex occultis naturae sinibus totum redintegraturo illo, cui et capilli nostri numerati sunt* [Matth. 10, 30.]. — Seq. Augustini sententia habetur Enchirid. c. 88. n. 23. Vide in fine huius quaest.

en: Ps. 78:2 (codices *mortalia*). — The Gloss is presented by Peter Lombard on this passage (cf. also the interlinear [gloss] in [Nicholas of] Lyra), which is according to Augustine on this Psalm, n. 5: *"They set out the dead bodies of them"* [of the Martyrs] *"and their flesh for the birds of heaven and the beasts of the earth, as if any of them should perish for the resurrection, since He will restore the whole from the hidden bosoms of nature — He to whom even our hairs are numbered"* [Matt. 10:30]. — The following sentence of Augustine is found in the *Enchiridion*, ch. 88, n. 23. See at the end of this question.

la: Cod. aa adiungit *si manet*. Superius post *aut si quam aliam*, aliqui codd. omittunt *des*, cod. aa *det*. Mutata est a nobis interpunctio, et sic sensus verborum satis patet.

en: Codex aa adds *si manet* ("if it remains"). Above, after *aut si quam aliam*, some codices omit *des*, codex aa [reads] *det*. The punctuation has been changed by us, and thus the sense of the words is sufficiently clear.

la: Edd. *fiat*.

en: The editions [read] *fiat* [for *fuerit*].

la: Edd. *formam*.

en: The editions [read] *formam* ("form") [for *formationem*].

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Superius pro *animabus* non pauci codd. *animalibus*.

en: See II Sent., d. 1, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — Above, for *animabus* ("souls") not a few codices [read] *animalibus* ("animals").

la: Cod. L *fiat*. Post *ipsa coniunctio* edd. supplent *eum*. Aliquanto inferius pro *eadem... reparetur* (cod. M *reperietur*) edd. *eidem... unitur*.

en: Codex L [reads] *fiat* [for *fuit*]. After *ipsa coniunctio* the editions supply *eum*. Somewhat below, for *eadem... reparetur* (codex M *reperietur*) the editions [read] *eidem... unitur*.

la: Enchirid. c. 88. n. 23. — Pro *solvatur* plurimi codd. *vertatur*, contra textum originalem, secundum quem cod. aa etiam legit: *in quorumcumque animalium et* [ed. August. *etiam*] *cibum cedat carnemque mutetur, illi animae* [ed. August. *humanae* pro *etiam*]*... quae illam primitus* [seqq. exhibent etiam codd. G N], *ut homo fieret, viveret, cresceret, animavit*.

en: *Enchiridion*, ch. 88, n. 23. — For *solvatur* very many codices [read] *vertatur*, against the original text, according to which codex aa also reads: *"into whatever animals and"* [Augustine's edition: *etiam*] *"food it may pass and be changed into flesh, [it returns] to that"* [Augustine's edition: *humanae* for *etiam*] *"soul... which first"* [what follows the codices G N also present] *"[gave life to] it, that the man might come to be, live, grow — [the soul which] gave it life."*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines L94831–L95146), corrected against 450 dpi column-band reads of the printed pages (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{891,892,893,894}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; left bands regenerated at split_x=2120 and right bands at split_x=1620 because the default 1880 split clipped the wide two-column text). Vol II/IV override applied: the two-column IA OCR cascade-fragments the Respondeo/solutio and footers, so the column-band PDF reads were treated as authoritative for those regions. Literal English throughout; full apparatus (25 entries) re-derived page by page from the printed footers.

**Garbled-header recovery.** The auto-chunker's `QUAESTIO V` header is OCR-garbled in the raw. The quaestio is confirmed by its running-head title line "Utrum resurrectio sit naturalis, an miraculosa" and by the opener "Quinto quaeritur, utrum resurrectio sit naturalis, an miraculosa" (~L94836). The p.893 running head reads "DIST. XLIII. ART. I. QUAEST. V.", confirming the distinctio/articulus/quaestio.

**Page-span correction.** The chunk was scaffolded as printed_pages [892, 893, 894], but the column bands show the quaestio actually **begins on printed page 891**: page 891 (odd/recto, running head = the quaestio title) carries the opener plus all five "quod non sit naturalis" arguments and their footnotes 1–4. The `892` running head ("SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.") sits above the *Contra* (Ad oppositum) section, which is where page 892 begins. Frontmatter corrected to printed_pages [891, 892, 893, 894] / pdf_pages [911, 912, 913, 914] (offset pdf = printed + 20).

**Apparatus page-split (per-page Quaracchi renumbering).**
- p.891 — 4 footers (notes 1–4), all anchored in the opening arguments.
- p.892 — 11 footers (notes 1–11); note 11 (p892-11) begins on p.892 ("...non coactionis") and its text spills over as the unnumbered lead note at the top of the p.893 footer block (the "Inferius pro vel edd. velut..." variant note) — merged into the single entry, since it glosses the "cum stet cum causa supernaturaliter operante" clause that itself straddles the 892→893 page break.
- p.893 — 6 footers (notes 1–6).
- p.894 — the printed page is **shared with QUAESTIO VI**: only footers 1–4 belong to this quaestio (q5); footers 5–10 on p.894 (Glossa in Ps., 1 Cor. 15:12, Ps. 67:34, etc.) belong to q6 and are **not** claimed here. The q5 body ends at "...quae ipsam primitus animavit⁴»" (right column); QUAESTIO VI ("Quae sit causa nostrae resurrectionis") begins lower on p.894 and is a separate chunk (a1-q6).

**Cross-chunk boundary (894, shared page).** q5 occupies the left column ("Et si tu quaeras, quare anima appetat magis...reparetur") and the top of the right column ("Et sic patet...animavit"); q6 begins after q5 closes. No q5 body or footer was carried into q6, and none of q6's material was swallowed here.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The Quaracchi side-margin labels bleeding into the OCR (e.g. "Triplex... in surrectione", "Contra", "Ad oppositum", "Sol. obiecti", "Notandum", "opinio 3", "Ratio seminalis", "Quaest. incidens", "De appetitu animae", "Explicatio", "Exemplum") are editorial glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and have been removed per the OCR-cleanup rules.

**Scholion.** None — `has_scholion: false`. The Art. I, q4–q6 scholion block lives in the a1-q4 chunk (note p894-4 "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." points there).

**No `[?]` flags.** Both columns of all four pages read cleanly at 450 dpi; no ambiguous readings were left unresolved.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 6

title_alt:
Quae sit causa nostrae resurrectionis
What is the cause of our resurrection

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 894 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each note gives the Quaracchi apparatus in Latin (**La.**) followed by an English rendering (**En.**). Anchors are page-qualified (p894 / p895 / p896) because Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page.

### Quaestio VI. *Quae sit causa nostrae resurrectionis.*

Sexto quaeritur, quae sit causa nostrae resurrectionis; et quod resurrectio Christi:

**1.** Dicit Glossa super illud ad Romanos primo[^p894-5]: *Ex resurrectione mortuorum Iesu Christi*: « Christi resurrectio nostram efficit generalem resurrectionem ». Idem ipsum dicit Glossa super illud Psalmi: *Ad vesperum demorabitur fletus.*

**2.** Item, *ratione* videtur, quia Apostolus arguit sic[^p894-6]: si Christus resurrexit, et nos resurgemus; sed talis argumentatio non valeret, nisi aliqua habitudo causalitatis esset resurrectionis Christi ad resurrectionem nostram: ergo etc.

Item, videtur, quod *vox Christi* sit causa.

**3.** Super illud Psalmi[^p894-7]: *Dabit voci suae vocem virtutis*, dicit Glossa: « suscitandi mortuos ».

**4.** Item, hoc ipsum videtur *per rationem*: quia illud est causa excitationis in dormiente, quo audito excitatur, scilicet vox vocantis; sed mortui in monumentis excitabuntur auditu vocis Filii Dei: ergo etc. *Minor* patet quinto Ioannis[^p894-8]: *Omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem Filii Dei.*

**Sed contra:** Quod *resurrectio Christi* non sit causa aliquo modo, videtur:

**1.** Quia illud, sine quo res esset, non est causa[^p894-9]; sed si Christus etiam non resurrexisset, tamen mortui resurgerent, quia necesse erat, malos saltem remunerari in anima et corpore sive puniri, et boni etiam, qui meruerunt.

**2.** Item, si est causa, quaero, in quo genere? Non *efficiens*; constat, quia Christi resurrectio est praeterita; sed quidquid praeteritum est, non efficit id quod futurum est. Non *finalis* nec *materialis*; constat: ergo est *exemplaris*. Sed *contra*: causa exemplaris non infert suum effectum; sed resurrectio Christi infert nostram[^p894-10]: ergo etc.

**3.** Item, malorum resurrectio non assimilatur resurrectioni Christi: ergo non est exemplar resurrectionis malorum, ergo nec generalis resurrectionis.

<!-- page 895 -->

Item, quod *vox Christi* non sit causa, videtur:

**4.** Quia resurrectio fit *subito*[^p895-1], et aequalis virtutis est corpus reformare sicut et animam; sed hoc est potentiae infinitae, et illa est Filii Dei: ergo etc.

**5.** Item, si mortui audiunt vocem, aut *antequam* resurgant, aut *post*. Si *ante*: ergo ante audiunt, quam vivant; si *post*: ergo vox non erat causa resurrectionis.

**6.** Item, super illud[^p895-2]: *Dabit voci suae vocem virtutis*, dicit Glossa: « Resuscitandi corpora »; sed quando aliqua potentia datur alicui, quamvis miraculose detur, operatio tamen egrediens ab illa est naturalis, sicut patet in caeco illuminato: ergo si est per potentiam datam voci, resurrectio est naturalis, cuius contrarium ostensum est supra[^p895-3].

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Resurrectio et vox Christi aliquo modo sunt causa tum exemplaris tum instrumentalis resurrectionis nostrae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in Christo est assignare nostrae resurrectionis duplicem causam, scilicet *efficientem* et *exemplarem*[^p895-4]. *Efficientem* autem dupliciter est assignare: aut sicut *primum principium*, aut sicut *instrumentum*. Efficiens sicut primum principium est Christus secundum Divinitatem et tota Trinitas; efficiens sicut instrumentum est vox Christi, ad cuius prolationem et vocationem mortui resurgent[^p895-5]. — Similiter causa *exemplaris* duplex est: una, in qua res *cognoscitur et disponitur*, et sic est Dei Filius secundum divinam naturam et tota Trinitas; alio modo, in qua res *inchoatur et exemplificatur*, et sic est resurrectio Christi; quia, ut dicit Augustinus *de Civitate Dei*[^p895-6], « talia erunt corpora nostra, quale Christus sua resurrectione monstravit ». Unde fuit quasi exemplum, in quo nostra resurrectio est inchoata, tanquam membrorum in capite, sicut dicitur ad Ephesios secundo[^p895-7]: *Convivificavit nos Christo et resuscitavit* etc. — Patet igitur, quomodo Christi resurrectio et vox eius est causa nostrae resurrectionis. Et quia resurrectio et vox est Filii Dei in carne, ideo dicit Augustinus super Ioannis quintum[^p895-8], quod per Verbum carnem factum fit resurrectio corporum.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

**1.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod alias esset resurrectio etc.; dicendum, quod tunc Deus aliter faceret; sed cum decrevit sic facere, haec est causa[^p895-9].

**2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod exemplar non infert; dicendum, quod verum est de exemplari, in quo res *cognoscitur*; tamen exemplar, in quo res *inchoatur*, ubi non potest relinqui imperfectum, de necessitate infert; unde sicut caput non potest esse sine membris, sic nec resurrectio capitis, quin consequatur resurrectio membrorum.

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non assimilatur; dicendum, quod non perfecte assimilatur resurrectioni malorum — et ideo non sunt perfecte exemplata — assimilatur tamen in corporis iterata vivificatione et indissolubili unione; et ideo est generalis resurrectionis exemplar[^p895-10].

**4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de voce Christi, quod non sit causa, quia resurrectio est opus virtutis infinitae; dici potest, sicut praedictum est supra[^p895-11] de Sacramentis, quod Deus virtute infinita faciet, licet ad prolationem vocis; unde non est ibi *proprie* causalitas.

**5.** Ad illud quod obiicitur: quando audiunt vocem? dicendum, quod *simul tempore*, tamen *prius natura* resurgunt, quam audiant; unde vocis auditus non resuscitat, sed virtus vocem concomitans. In evigilatione autem corporali, dicendum, quod auditus vocis excitat; sed in auditu sunt duo, scilicet receptio speciei in organo et iudicium de re recepta[^p895-12]; quantum ad receptionem praecedit excitationem, sed quantum ad iudicium sequitur.

**6.** Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de operatione illius vocis, quod est naturalis; dicendum, quod sicut sanctis viris datur gratia miraculorum et virtus suscitandi mortuos, non quia ipsi suscitent per aliquid, quod sit in se, sed quia Deus facit ad petitionem ipsorum: sic in proposito est intelligendum,

<!-- page 896 -->

quod Deus facit; et ita miraculum est, si suscitantur ad vocem illam, sicut si ad preces Pauli[^p896-1].

Praeterea, esto quod data sit virtus; quia est ad actum supra naturam et modum operandi supra naturam, hinc est, quod miraculose exit in suam operationem, sicut exemplo patet de potentia pariendi, quae dicitur data beatae Virgini[^p896-2].

Sic igitur patet, quod resurrectio Christi est causa et vox aliquo modo, tamen principalis causa est Dei virtus et Dei sapientia; et resurrectio Christi nostram infert resurrectionem sive *per hypothesim*[^p896-3] — ut si una anima est immortalis, et omnes; similiter si unus resurrexit, et omnes — sive *per locum a minori*, quia anima Christi beata minus egebat corpore quam aliae; sive *per locum a causa exemplari* relata ad efficientem, scilicet quia ibi est resurrectio nostra inchoata, et propter nos Christus est incarnatus, passus et mortuus, et resurrexit propter nos etiam, et nostra resurrectio in eo est inchoata tanquam in quodam exemplo: ergo si Dei perfecta sunt opera, oportet, *corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem*[^p896-4]. Et sic patet illud.

---

english:
### Question VI. *What is the cause of our resurrection.*

In the sixth place it is asked what is the cause of our resurrection; and that [it is] the resurrection of Christ [is shown]:

**1.** The Gloss says on that passage to the Romans, chapter one[^p894-5]: *From the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ*: "Christ's resurrection effects our general resurrection." The Gloss says the same thing on that verse of the Psalm: *At evening weeping will tarry.*

**2.** Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason*, because the Apostle argues thus[^p894-6]: if Christ has risen, we too shall rise; but such an argument would not hold unless there were some relation of causality of Christ's resurrection to our resurrection: therefore etc.

Likewise, it seems that the *voice of Christ* is the cause.

**3.** On that verse of the Psalm[^p894-7]: *He will give to his voice a voice of power*, the Gloss says: "of raising the dead."

**4.** Likewise, this same thing seems [to hold] *by reason*: because that is the cause of the awakening in one asleep which, when heard, awakens him, namely the voice of the one calling; but the dead in their tombs will be awakened by hearing the voice of the Son of God: therefore etc. The *minor* is clear from John, chapter five[^p894-8]: *All who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God.*

**On the contrary:** That the *resurrection of Christ* is not in any way the cause seems [to hold]:

**1.** Because that without which the thing would [still] exist is not a cause[^p894-9]; but even if Christ had not risen, the dead would nevertheless rise, because it was necessary that the wicked at least be requited in soul and body or be punished, and the good also, who have merited [it].

**2.** Likewise, if it is a cause, I ask, in what genus? Not *efficient*; this is agreed, because Christ's resurrection is past; but whatever is past does not effect that which is future. Not *final* nor *material*; this is agreed: therefore it is *exemplary*. But *on the contrary*: an exemplary cause does not entail its effect; but Christ's resurrection entails ours[^p894-10]: therefore etc.

**3.** Likewise, the resurrection of the wicked is not made like to Christ's resurrection: therefore it is not the exemplar of the resurrection of the wicked, therefore neither of the general resurrection.

<!-- page 895 -->

Likewise, that the *voice of Christ* is not the cause seems [to hold]:

**4.** Because the resurrection happens *suddenly*[^p895-1], and it is of equal power to reform the body as [to reform] the soul; but this belongs to infinite power, and that belongs to the Son of God: therefore etc.

**5.** Likewise, if the dead hear the voice, [it is] either *before* they rise or *after*. If *before*: then they hear before they live; if *after*: then the voice was not the cause of the resurrection.

**6.** Likewise, on that verse[^p895-2]: *He will give to his voice a voice of power*, the Gloss says: "of raising up bodies"; but when some power is given to someone, although it be given miraculously, the operation proceeding from it is nevertheless natural, as is clear in a blind man given sight: therefore if it is by a power given to the voice, the resurrection is natural, the contrary of which has been shown above[^p895-3].

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** The resurrection and voice of Christ are in some way the cause, both exemplary and instrumental, of our resurrection.

**I respond:** It must be said that in Christ there is to be assigned a twofold cause of our resurrection, namely an *efficient* and an *exemplary* one[^p895-4]. The *efficient* [cause], moreover, is to be assigned in two ways: either as *first principle* or as *instrument*. The efficient [cause] as first principle is Christ according to [his] Divinity and the whole Trinity; the efficient [cause] as instrument is the voice of Christ, at whose utterance and calling the dead will rise[^p895-5]. — Similarly the *exemplary* cause is twofold: one, in which the thing is *known and disposed*, and thus it is the Son of God according to the divine nature and the whole Trinity; in another way, in which the thing is *begun and exemplified*, and thus it is the resurrection of Christ; because, as Augustine says *On the City of God*[^p895-6], "our bodies will be such as Christ showed by his resurrection." Hence it was as it were an exemplar, in which our resurrection has been begun, as of the members in the head, as is said to the Ephesians, chapter two[^p895-7]: *He made us alive together with Christ and raised us up* etc. — It is clear, therefore, how Christ's resurrection and his voice is the cause of our resurrection. And because the resurrection and voice belong to the Son of God in the flesh, therefore Augustine says on John, chapter five[^p895-8], that through the Word made flesh comes about the resurrection of bodies.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

**1.** To that which is objected, that otherwise there would be a resurrection etc.; it must be said that God would then act otherwise; but since he decreed to act thus, this is the cause[^p895-9].

**2.** To that which is objected, that the exemplar does not entail [its effect]; it must be said that this is true of an exemplar in which the thing is *known*; nevertheless an exemplar in which the thing is *begun*, where it cannot be left imperfect, entails [its effect] of necessity; hence just as a head cannot be without members, so neither [can there be] a resurrection of the head without a resurrection of the members following.

**3.** To that which is objected, that it is not made like; it must be said that it is not perfectly made like to the resurrection of the wicked — and therefore they are not perfectly exemplified — yet it is made like in the renewed vivification of the body and in the indissoluble union; and therefore it is the exemplar of the general resurrection[^p895-10].

**4.** To that which is objected about the voice of Christ, that it is not the cause, because the resurrection is a work of infinite power; it can be said, as was said above[^p895-11] concerning the Sacraments, that God will act by infinite power, though at the utterance of the voice; hence there is not there *properly* a causality.

**5.** To that which is objected: when do they hear the voice? it must be said that [they rise] *at the same time*, yet they rise *prior in nature* to their hearing; hence the hearing of the voice does not raise [them], but the power accompanying the voice. But in bodily awakening, it must be said that the hearing of the voice awakens; but in hearing there are two things, namely the reception of the species in the organ and the judgment about the thing received[^p895-12]; as regards reception it precedes the awakening, but as regards judgment it follows.

**6.** To that which is objected last about the operation of that voice, that it is natural; it must be said that, just as to holy men is given the grace of miracles and the power of raising the dead, not because they themselves raise [them] by something which is in themselves, but because God acts at their petition: so in the case at hand it is to be understood

<!-- page 896 -->

that God acts; and thus it is a miracle, if [the dead] are raised at that voice, just as if at the prayers of Paul[^p896-1].

Furthermore, granted that a power be given; because it is [directed] to an act above nature and to a mode of operating above nature, hence it is that it goes forth miraculously into its operation, as is clear by the example of the power of childbearing, which is said to have been given to the blessed Virgin[^p896-2].

Thus therefore it is clear that the resurrection of Christ and [his] voice are the cause in some way, yet the principal cause is the power of God and the wisdom of God; and Christ's resurrection entails our resurrection either *by hypothesis*[^p896-3] — as if one soul is immortal, so are all; likewise if one has risen, so [shall] all — or *by the topic from the lesser*, because the blessed soul of Christ needed the body less than others; or *by the topic from the exemplary cause* related to the efficient [cause], namely because therein our resurrection has been begun, and for our sake Christ was incarnate, suffered and died, and rose again for our sake also, and our resurrection has been begun in him as in a certain exemplar: therefore if the works of God are perfect, it is fitting *that this corruptible put on incorruption*[^p896-4]. And thus that [matter] is clear.

---

la: Vers. 4. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum, sumta est ex Comment. in hunc loc. olim Ambrosio tributo: *Resurrectio Christi generalem tribuit resurrectionem*. — Seq. Glossam in Ps. 29, 6. vide tom. III. pag. 247, nota 3.

en: Verse 4 [Rom. 1:4]. — The Gloss, which is the Ordinary [Gloss] in Peter Lombard and Lyra, is taken from the Commentary on this passage once attributed to Ambrose: "The resurrection of Christ confers the general resurrection." — For the following Gloss on Ps. 29:6, see vol. III, p. 247, note 3.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 15, 12. seqq.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:12ff.

la: Psalm. 67, 34. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum. Haymo in hunc loc. ait: « Qua voce omnia resuscitabuntur corpora ». Eadem sententia habetur in Breviario super Ps. (inter opera Hieron.) et apud Cassiodor. in hunc loc.

en: Psalm 67:34. — The Gloss is the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra. Haymo on this passage says: "By which voice all bodies will be raised up." The same view is found in the Breviary on the Psalms (among the works of Jerome) and in Cassiodorus on this passage.

la: Vers. 28.

en: Verse 28.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 102, nota 3. — Inferius cod. A omittit *saltem* et pro *boni* [cod. B *bonos*] *etiam, qui meruerunt* cod. U substituit *bonos similiter*. Edd. legunt: *necesse erat, bonos remunerari in anima et corpore, sicut meruerunt, et malos puniri, sicut ipsi demeruerunt.*

en: Cf. above, p. 102, note 3. — Below, codex A omits *saltem* and, for *boni* [codex B *bonos*] *etiam, qui meruerunt*, codex U substitutes *bonos similiter*. The editions read: "it was necessary that the good be requited in soul and body, as they merited, and the wicked be punished, as they themselves demerited."

la: Vide supra fundam. 2. — In principio arg. pro *Non efficiens* cod. F *Non efficientis*.

en: See above, fundamentum 2. — At the beginning of the argument, for *Non efficiens* codex F [reads] *Non efficientis*.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 15, 52: *In momento, in ictu oculi* etc. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 127, nota 10. et pag. 130, nota 4. et 5. in fine. — Circa finem arg. pro *Filii Dei* (respiciuntur verba August. supra pag. 130, nota 4. et infra dub. 1. allata) Vat. *solius Dei*.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:52: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" etc. — On the minor, cf. above p. 127 note 10, and p. 130 note 4 and 5 at the end. — Toward the end of the argument, for *Filii Dei* (the words of Augustine cited above p. 130 note 4 and below in dubium 1 are in view), the Vatican [edition reads] *solius Dei* ["of God alone"].

la: Psalm. 67, 34. Vide supra pag. 894, nota 7.

en: Psalm 67:34. See above, p. 894, note 7.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Plures codd. perperam *finalem*, codd. G aa *formalem*, scil. extrinsecam, quae idem est ac exemplaris. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 73, nota 7. et ibid. d. 19. p. II. q. 3. ad 2.

en: Many codices erroneously [read] *finalem* ["final"], codices G aa *formalem* ["formal"], that is, extrinsic, which is the same as exemplary. Cf. vol. I, p. 73, note 7, and ibid. d. 19, p. II, q. 3, ad 2.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — In seq. propos. respiciuntur verba August., VI. *de Trin.* c. 10. n. 11, quod Verbum sit « ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum » etc. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 35. q. 1. seqq.

en: See here the text of the Master, ch. 2. — In the following proposition the words of Augustine are in view, *On the Trinity* VI, ch. 10, n. 11, that the Word is "a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all the *rationes*" etc. Cf. I Sent. d. 35, q. 1ff.

la: Libr. X. c. 29. n. 2: *Futura tamen sempiterna minime dubitamus* [corpora Sanctorum], *et talia futura, quale sua resurrectione Christus demonstravit exemplum*. — Plures codd. et ed. 1 *de Trinitate* (cfr. IV. c. 3. n. 6.). Pro *monstravit* nonnulli codd. *formavit*, codd. H O *ornavit*.

en: Book X, ch. 29, n. 2: "Yet we in no way doubt that [the bodies of the Saints] will be everlasting, and will be such as Christ demonstrated as an example by his resurrection." — Many codices and the first edition [cite] *On the Trinity* (cf. IV, ch. 3, n. 6). For *monstravit* several codices [read] *formavit*, codices H O *ornavit*.

la: Vers. 5. seq.: *Convivificavit nos in Christo... et conresuscitavit* etc.

en: Verse 5f.: "He made us alive together in Christ... and raised us up together" etc.

la: Vers. 27. (tr. 19. n. 15. seq.). Verba vide supra pag. 130, nota 4. Cfr. etiam ibid. tr. 23. n. 13.

en: Verse 27 (tractate 19, n. 15f.). For the words see above, p. 130, note 4. Cf. also ibid., tractate 23, n. 13.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 6. — In principio solut. edd. legunt: *quod resurrectio Christi non est causa, quia alias* etc. Cod. aa refert hic illud Phil. 2, 8. seq.: *Humiliavit semetipsum* etc., simulque adiungit, quod Deus alio modo ipsum exaltare potuisset, si decrevisset.

en: Cf. III Sent. d. 20, q. 6. — At the beginning of the solution the editions read: "that Christ's resurrection is not the cause, because otherwise" etc. Codex aa here adduces that [text] of Phil. 2:8f.: "He humbled himself" etc., and at the same time adds that God could have exalted him in another way, had he so decreed.

la: Vide fundam. 1. — Post *unione* codd. IK addunt *et virtute*.

en: See fundamentum 1. — After *unione* codices I K add *et virtute* ["and in power"].

en: Distinction 10, part II, article 1, question 3.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 221, nota 4. — Mox post *receptionem* Vat. supplet *auditus vocis*. In principio solut. pro *quando* plures codd. *quod*, cod. Z *quod mortui*, edd. *quod aut ante*. Subinde post *virtus* cod. P supplet *divina*.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 221, note 4. — Soon after *receptionem* the Vatican [edition] supplies *auditus vocis*. At the beginning of the solution, for *quando* many codices [read] *quod*, codex Z *quod mortui*, the editions *quod aut ante*. Thereupon after *virtus* codex P supplies *divina*.

la: Vide Act. 20, 9. seqq.

en: See Acts 20:9ff.

la: De quo cfr. III. Sent. d. 4. a. 3. q. 2.

en: On which cf. III Sent. d. 4, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Secundum Aristot., III. *Topic.* c. 4. (c. 6.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 461, nota 6. — De loco *a minori* vide tom. I. pag. 835, nota 5.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* III, ch. 4 (ch. 6). Cf. vol. II, p. 461, note 6. — On the topic *from the lesser* see vol. I, p. 835, note 5.

la: Deut. 32, 4. et 1. Cor. 15, 53. — Superius pro *propter nos etiam*, quod edd. omittunt, cod. O *propter nostram resurrectionem*. Subinde pro *in eo est inchoata*, quod praebent codd. E F I K L P, alii codd. et edd. minus bene *ideo est inchoata* [edd. addunt *et in eo*]. — Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.

en: Deut. 32:4 and 1 Cor. 15:53. — Above, for *propter nos etiam*, which the editions omit, codex O [reads] *propter nostram resurrectionem*. Thereupon, for *in eo est inchoata*, which codices E F I K L P offer, other codices and editions less well [read] *ideo est inchoata* [the editions add *et in eo*]. — See the scholion on question 4 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines L95147–L95340) and corrected against the 450 dpi column-band reads of printed pp. 894, 895, 896 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{894,895,896}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; vol4 column split, right-column left edge captured by regenerating at split 1620/2020). English is a fresh literal translation. No scholion in this quaestio (the Art. I q.4–q.6 scholion block lives in a1-q4); `has_scholion: false`.

**Page span correction.** The auto-chunk frontmatter listed `printed_pages: [895, 896]`, but the quaestio actually **opens on p. 894** (left column, immediately after q. V). The "895" running head ("DIST. XLIII. ART. I. QUAEST. VI") falls mid-text, right before "Item, quod vox Christi non sit causa, videtur" (sed-contra arg. 4). Frontmatter updated to `[894, 895, 896]` / pdf `[914, 915, 916]`. Page breaks placed at: 894→895 after "…ergo nec generalis resurrectionis." (end of sed-contra arg. 3); 895→896 after "…sic in proposito est intelligendum," (mid-reply 6).

**Apparatus (22 entries, page-qualified).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page.
- **p. 894 — notes 5–10** (notes 1–4 on that page belong to the preceding q. V and are not claimed here). Body markers: args 1–4 = 5,6,7,8; sed-contra 1 = 9; sed-contra 2 = 10.
- **p. 895 — notes 1–12** (all claimed). Markers span args 4 & 6, then Respondeo (4,5,6,7,8) and replies 1,3,4,5 (=9,10,11,12).
- **p. 896 — notes 1–4** (all claimed). Notes 5–10 on p. 896 belong to the second-part divisio and Articulus II material and are **not** claimed. Note 4 (Deut. 32:4 / 1 Cor. 15:53) is anchored on "corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem."

**Tail boundary confirmed on the bands.** The quaestio ends cleanly at the epilogus "…Et sic patet illud." Immediately after, p. 896 prints the second-part sub-divisio "Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de apertione librorum. Et duo… — Primo… de libro vitae; Secundo, de libris conscientiae," followed by "ARTICULUS II. De libro vitae" and "QUAESTIO I." That transition and all Articulus II material were **left to the a2-q1 chunk** and are not rendered here.

**`[?]` flags.** None unresolved. Minor apparatus notes 894-5 ("Vers. 4") and 896-2/896-3 (cross-references) verified against the widened left-band crop; no illegible readings remain.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 43, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
De quidditate libri vitae
On the quiddity of the book of life

source_text:
<!-- page 896 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Keys are qualified by printed page (p896, p897) because Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page: on p.896 this chunk carries notes 5–10 (notes 1–4 belong to the preceding chunk a1-q6), and on p.897 it carries notes 1–5 (notes 6–8 belong to the following chunk a2-q2).

Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem[^p896-5] distinctionis quaeritur de apertione librorum. Et duo de hoc principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de libro vitae.

Secundo, de libris conscientiae.

### Articulus II. *De libro vitae.*

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de eius quidditate.

Secundo, de scriptura ipsius.

Tertio, de apertione.

### Quaestio I. *De quidditate libri vitae.*

Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur; ostenditur, quod liber ille sit ipse *Dei Filius*.

1. Super illud Psalmi[^p896-6]: *Deleantur de libro*, Glossa: id est, « Dei notitia, qua *praedestinavit et praescivit, conformes fieri imaginis Filii Dei* ».

2. Item, Apocalypsis vigesimo[^p896-7]: *Alius liber apertus est*, Glossa: Liber iste est « praedestinatio, in qua omnes salvandi scripti sunt ».

Quod autem liber vitae sit *Christus secundum humanitatem*, videtur:

3. Quia Gregorius in Moralibus[^p896-8] dicit: « Liber vitae est visio iudicis advenientis, quia, quisquis eum viderit, mox, teste conscientia, quidquid boni vel mali fecerit, intelligit »; sed Christus iudicaturus est in forma servi: ergo etc.

4. Item, Glossa Apocalypsis vigesimo[^p896-9] dicit, quod « liber vitae est Christus, qui tunc potens omnibus apparebit »; sed non apparebit omnibus nisi secundum humanitatem: ergo etc.

5. Sed quod sit *vis quaedam*, nec Divinitas nec humanitas, videtur dicere Augustinus vigesimo de Civitate Dei[^p896-10]: « Vis quaedam divina nomine *libri* intelligenda, qua fiet, ut cuique bona et mala ad memoriam revocentur, quae libri nomen accepit ».

<!-- page 897 -->

6. Item, libri intentio ad legendum est: ergo proprie dicitur liber illud, per quod recolit homo bona vel mala; hoc autem est virtus: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Quod non sit *Dei notitia*, videtur: quia in libro est scripturae impressio, in Deo autem nulla est impressio: ergo si translatio debet esse secundum similitudinem[^p897-1], non videtur talis translatio recta.

2. Item, quod non *humanitas*, videtur: quia in libro est legere; sed in Christo homine nec bona nec mala est legere: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod non sit *virtus*, videtur: quia illa virtus ita mala reducet ad memoriam, ut bona, secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^p897-2]; sed mala sunt ratio mortis: ergo esset tunc dicendus liber *mortis*, non vitae.

> **Conclusio.** Liber vitae dicitur Dei notitia et vis secundum duplicem eius proprietatem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod libri duplex est proprietas: una *in se*, scilicet scientiae retentio in simultate et uniformitate; et ratione huius proprietatis nomen *libri* transfertur ad Dei notitiam. Alia proprietas est *ad nos*, quia per librum est in nobis oblitorum recordatio; et ratione huius transfertur ad *vim illam*, per quam fit recordatio praeteritorum. *Humanitas* autem sive *visio eius* non dicitur liber; et quod dicit Gregorius et Glossa intelligitur[^p897-3] per quandam concomitantiam. — Concedendum igitur, quod liber dicitur Dei notitia, et quod dicitur illa virtus divina secundum duplicem proprietatem, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod in libro illo non est scripturae impressio; dicendum, quod quantum ad hanc proprietatem non transfertur, immo in hac differunt, quia liber iste repraesentat quod in eo fit, sed ille liber repraesentat quod facit.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod virtus illa reducit mala ad memoriam, quae sunt causa mortis; dicendum, quod liber et vis Dei *causa vitae in se* est, et quod *mortis* sit, hoc est solum per occasionem et rationem aliorum librorum, scilicet conscientiarum[^p897-4]; et ideo ab eo denominatur, ad quod principaliter est. — Vel dicendum, quod non dicitur liber vitae, quia det vitam; sed notitia Dei dicitur liber vitae, quia omnia ibi sunt vita[^p897-5]. Similiter, vis illa liber dicitur, quia recolit; sed vita dicitur, quia hoc non facit per creaturae defectibilitatem et fallibilitatem, sed secundum divinae notitiae vivam veritatem.

english:
Consequently, as to the second part[^p896-5] of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the opening of the books. And two things are principally asked about this.

First, inquiry is made concerning the book of life.

Second, concerning the books of conscience.

### Article II. *On the book of life.*

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First, inquiry is made concerning its quiddity.

Second, concerning its writing.

Third, concerning its opening.

### Question I. *On the quiddity of the book of life.*

As to the first, then, one proceeds thus; and it is shown that that book is the *Son of God* himself.

1. On that [text] of the Psalm[^p896-6]: *Let them be blotted out of the book*, the Gloss: that is, "the knowledge of God, by which he *predestined and foreknew [them] to be made conformed to the image of the Son of God*."

2. Likewise, Apocalypse chapter twenty[^p896-7]: *Another book was opened*, the Gloss: This book is "the predestination, in which all who are to be saved are written."

But that the book of life is *Christ according to his humanity* is shown thus:

3. Because Gregory in the *Morals*[^p896-8] says: "The book of life is the vision of the coming Judge, because whoever shall see it, at once, with conscience as witness, understands whatever of good or of evil he has done"; but Christ is to judge in the form of a servant: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Gloss on Apocalypse chapter twenty[^p896-9] says that "the book of life is Christ, who then, powerful, will appear to all"; but he will not appear to all except according to his humanity: therefore etc.

5. But that it is *a certain power*, neither the Divinity nor the humanity, Augustine seems to say in the twentieth [book] of the *City of God*[^p896-10]: "A certain divine power is to be understood by the name of the *book*, by which it will come about that to each one the good and evil things are recalled to memory — [a power] which has received the name of a book."

<!-- page 897 -->

6. Likewise, the purpose of a book is for reading: therefore that is properly called a book through which a man recalls good or evil things; but this is a power: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it is not the *knowledge of God* is shown: because in a book there is an impression of writing, but in God there is no impression: therefore, if the transferring [of the term] ought to be according to a likeness[^p897-1], such a transfer does not seem correct.

2. Likewise, that it is not the *humanity* is shown: because in a book there is reading; but in Christ as man there is neither good nor evil to read: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that it is not a *power* is shown: because that power would bring evils to memory just as [it does] good things, according to what Augustine says[^p897-2]; but evils are the ground of death: therefore it would then have to be called the book *of death*, not of life.

> **Conclusion.** The book of life is called the knowledge of God and a power according to its twofold property.

**I respond:** It must be said that a book has a twofold property: one *in itself*, namely the retention of knowledge in simultaneity and uniformity; and by reason of this property the name *book* is transferred to the knowledge of God. The other property is *toward us*, because through a book there is in us a recollection of things forgotten; and by reason of this it is transferred to *that power* by which the recollection of past things comes about. But the *humanity*, or *the vision of it*, is not called a book; and what Gregory and the Gloss say is understood[^p897-3] by way of a certain concomitance. — It must therefore be granted that the book is called the knowledge of God, and that that divine power is so called according to a twofold property, as the reasons brought forward for this show.

*To the 1st.* To that, then, which is objected, that in that book there is no impression of writing; it must be said that as to this property it is not transferred, indeed in this they differ, because this book represents what comes to be in it, but that book represents what it does.

*To the 3rd.* To that which is objected, that that power brings evils to memory, which are the cause of death; it must be said that the book and power of God is *the cause of life in itself*, and that it is [a cause] *of death*, this is only by the occasion and ground of the other books, namely of the consciences[^p897-4]; and therefore it is named from that to which it principally pertains. — Or it must be said that it is not called the book of life because it gives life; but the knowledge of God is called the book of life because all things there are life[^p897-5]. Likewise, that power is called a book because it recalls; but it is called life because it does this not through the defectibility and fallibility of a creature, but according to the living truth of the divine knowledge.

la: Hoc primo loco, sicut et infra d. 49, exhibetur tractatus distinctio alia a consueta, quam *sectionem* appellare possumus, quae hic duos articulos cum suis quaestionibus continet; sed hoc loco retineri potest consueta superscriptio.

en: In this first place, as also below in d. 49, the treatise sets out a division other than the customary one, which we may call a *section*, which here contains two articles with their questions; but in this place the customary superscription may be retained.

la: Psalm. 68, 29. — Glossa, in qua respicitur Rom. 8, 29, est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum. Cfr. Cassiodor. et Haymo in hunc loc. — Verbis Psalmi cum Vulgata cod. F addit *viventium*, sed cod. L *vitae*. In textu originali post *praedestinavit* habetur *ad vitam, quos praescivit... Filii sui*.

en: Psalm 68:29. — The Gloss, in which Rom. 8:29 is looked to, is the *ordinary* [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra. Cf. also Cassiodorus and Haymo on this passage. — To the words of the Psalm, with the Vulgate, cod. F adds *viventium* [of the living], but cod. L *vitae* [of life]. In the original text, after *praedestinavit* there stands *ad vitam, quos praescivit... Filii sui* [unto life, whom he foreknew... of his Son].

la: Vers. 12. — In Expositione in Apocalypsim, quae alias Ambrosio tribuebatur, Visione sexta habetur: *Per librum autem vitae praedestinationem Dei omnipotentis possumus intelligere...* De hoc libro Apostolus Paulus loquitur dicens [Rom. 8, 29.]: *Quos autem praescivit, hos et praedestinavit* etc. Strabus, in hunc loc., affert hanc: *Liber est praescientia Dei, quia tunc aperte scient mali, se non praedestinatos ad vitam* etc. Idem, sicut et Lyranus, in Phil. 4, 2: *Libro vitae*, dicit: *Praedestinatio, in qua omnes salvandi praescripti sunt*.

en: Verse 12. — In the *Exposition on the Apocalypse*, which was otherwise attributed to Ambrose, in the sixth Vision it is found: *By the book of life we can understand the predestination of Almighty God...* Concerning this book the Apostle Paul speaks, saying [Rom. 8:29]: *Whom he foreknew, them he also predestined*, etc. Strabo, on this passage, brings forward this [gloss]: *The book is the foreknowledge of God, because then the wicked will openly know that they are not predestined unto life*, etc. The same, as also Lyra, on Phil. 4:2 [on the words] *the book of life*, says: *The predestination in which all who are to be saved are written*.

la: Libr. XXIV. c. 8. n. 16, ubi post *advenientis* additur: *in quo quasi scriptum est omne mandatum*, et finis sic exhibetur: *quidquid non fecit intelligit*.

en: Book XXIV, c. 8, n. 16, where after *advenientis* [of the coming (Judge)] there is added: *in which, as it were, every commandment is written*, and the end is given thus: *he understands whatever he has not done*.

la: Vers. 12. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum (cfr. etiam Haymo), in qua codd. A R *patens* pro *potens*. — De minori vide infra d. 48. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Verse 12. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra (cf. also Haymo), in which codd. A R [read] *patens* [manifest] for *potens* [powerful]. — Concerning the minor [premise] see below, d. 48, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cap. 14. Textus originalis plura interserit.

en: Chapter 14. The original text inserts more.

la: Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2: *Omnes transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt*. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 1, nota 8.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 2: *All who transfer [a term] transfer it according to some likeness*. Cf. tom. I, p. 1, note 8.

la: Paulo superius allegatus.

en: [Augustine,] cited a little above.

la: Plures codd. *intelligendum est*. Aliquanto superius pro *per quam fit* cod. F *per quam fiet*.

en: Several codices [read] *intelligendum est* [it is to be understood]. Somewhat above, for *per quam fit* [by which comes about], cod. F [reads] *per quam fiet* [by which will come about].

la: De quibus infra a. 3. q. 1. seqq.

en: Concerning which [see] below, a. 3, q. 1 ff.

la: Ioan. 1, 4: *In ipso vita erat*. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo ante codd. omittunt *Dei*.

en: John 1:4: *In him was life*. Cf. I Sent., d. 36, a. 2, q. 1. — A little before, the codices omit *Dei*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De libro vitae in Deo et de distinctione eiusdem ab aliis divinae sapientiae nominibus in Breviloquio (p. I. c. 8.) haec praeclare dicuntur: Sapientia, « in quantum est ratio cognoscendi omnia cognita, dicitur *lux*; in quantum ratio cognoscendi visa et approbata, dicitur *speculum*; in quantum est ratio cognoscendi praedestinata et reprobata, dicitur *liber vitae*. Est igitur liber vitae respectu rerum ut *redeuntium*; exemplar ut *exeuntium*; speculum ut *euntium*; lux vero respectu *omnium* ». Cfr. etiam Hexaëm. serm. 12. ante medium, nec non Lignum vitae, tit. *Iesu, liber signatus*. — Duplex Dei liber, scil. « unus scriptus *intus*, qui est Dei aeterna ars et sapientia, et alius scriptus *foris*, scil. mundus sensibilis », commemoratur Breviloq. p. II. c. 11.

De toto articulo alii commentatores Lombardi hic vix loquuntur; sed alibi rem tractant, et prae ceteris diffuse Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 32. per totam; brevius S. Thom., S. I. q. 24. a. 1-3; item B. Albert., Sum. I. tr. 17. q. 69. per totam.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the book of life in God, and concerning its distinction from the other names of the divine wisdom, these things are excellently said in the *Breviloquium* (p. I, c. 8): Wisdom, "insofar as it is the ground of knowing all things known, is called *light*; insofar as [it is] the ground of knowing things seen and approved, is called *mirror*; insofar as it is the ground of knowing things predestined and reprobated, is called the *book of life*. The book of life is therefore [wisdom] with respect to things as *returning*; an exemplar as [of things] *going forth*; a mirror as [of things] *proceeding*; but light with respect to *all* things." Cf. also the *Hexaëmeron*, sermon 12, before the middle, as well as the *Lignum vitae*, under the heading *Jesus, the sealed book*. — The twofold book of God, namely "one written *within*, which is God's eternal art and wisdom, and another written *without*, namely the sensible world," is mentioned in the *Breviloquium*, p. II, c. 11.

Concerning this whole article the other commentators on Lombard here scarcely speak; but they treat the matter elsewhere, and beyond the rest at length Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 32, throughout; more briefly St. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 24, a. 1-3; likewise Blessed Albert, *Summa* I, tr. 17, q. 69, throughout.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`doctorisseraphic04bona`, raw L95341–95490) as base, corrected verbatim against the 450 dpi Quaracchi column bands for pp. 896–897 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{896,897}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Vol IV is two-column; the left-column bands were regenerated at split x=2120 because the default split 1880 clipped the left column's right edge. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 896–897 = pdf 916–917).

**Second-part sub-divisio fold-in.** Per the CLAUDE.md article-opener convention, this q1 chunk opens with the second-part sub-divisio transition ("Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de apertione librorum. Et duo… Primo… de libro vitae. Secundo… de libris conscientiae.") plus the ARTICULUS II header *De libro vitae* and its opener ("Circa primum quaeruntur tria: primo de quidditate, secundo de scriptura, tertio de apertione"). No standalone divisio chunk exists for the second part; siblings a2-q2 and a2-q3 do not repeat it.

**Apparatus page-split (page-qualified keys).** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page, and both pages are two-column with two-column footers. On **p.896** this chunk owns notes **5–10** (6 entries); notes 1–4 belong to the preceding sibling a1-q6 (Act. 20 / III Sent. cross-ref / Aristot. Topic. / Deut.–I Cor.) — this is the incoming hand-off, verified against the p.896 bottom bands: note 5 (Hoc primo loco…, the "section" editorial note) anchors at "secundam partem"; notes 6–10 anchor at the five q1 pro-arguments. On **p.897** this chunk owns notes **1–5** (5 entries: similitudinem, Augustinus, intelligitur, conscientiarum, vita); notes 6–8 belong to the following sibling a2-q2 (its arguments begin at the bottom of p.897 — "Secundo quaeritur, quae sit huius libri scriptura"). Total apparatus for this chunk: **11 entries** (896: 6; 897: 5).

**Scholion coverage.** The single Art. II *Scholion* is printed once, after q1's Respondeo, and covers the whole article (questions q1–q3). This chunk owns and renders it in full (Latin and English), placed LAST in each language block per the parser rule. Siblings a2-q2 and a2-q3 render no scholion.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The printed left/right margins carry Quaracchi section labels (*Alia solutio.*, *Epilogus.*, *Illatio triplex.* — these belong to a1-q6 above; *Argg. pro 1. parte.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Solutio argg. 1. et 3. pro parte 2.*, *Aliter.*, *Notandum.*, *Fundamenta.*). Per the OCR-cleanup rule these editorial marginal glosses are trimmed from the body; the Respondeo's two replies are kept in their printed numbering (*Ad 1.* and *Ad 3.* — there is no separate *Ad 2.*; the second objection is answered within the Respondeo's "Humanitas autem… non dicitur liber" clause).

**No `[?]` flags.** The band reads were clean; the one OCR ambiguity — the superscript at "intelligitur" (djvu rendered it like an 8) — is resolved to note 3 by the p.897 footer, whose note 3 is the textual variant on *intelligendum est/intelligitur*. No unresolved ambiguities remain.


title: Dist. 43, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 897 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in libro vitae omnia scribantur.*

Secundo quaeritur, quae sit huius libri scriptura. Et quod omnia ibi scribantur, videtur:

1. Quia ipse Dei Filius est omnium exemplar[^p897-6] et omnia cognoscit, qui dicitur liber vitae.

2. Item, videtur, quod etiam mali scribantur in eo: quia dicitur in Psalmo[^p897-7]: *Deleantur de libro viventium*; sed nihil deletur de aliquo, nisi quod est scriptum in eo: ergo etc.

3. Item, liber ille est immutabilis: ergo si mali semel scripti sunt, semper scripti sunt: non ergo delentur.

**Contra:**

1. Quod non omnia ibi scribantur, videtur: quia tunc secundum hoc videtur, quod lapis esset scriptus in libro vitae; quod non dicitur[^p897-8] nisi de electis.

2. Item, quod mali non sint in eo scripti,
<!-- page 898 -->
videtur: quia malum non habet exemplar in Deo[^p898-1]: ergo si liber ille est exemplar, patet etc.

3. Item, Lucae decimo[^p898-2] dixit Dominus discipulis: *Gaudete, quia nomina vestra scripta sunt in caelis*; sed si hic liber esset omnium, tunc omnibus esset gaudendum; quod cum non sit: patet etc.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quomodo potest in illo libro transumi *deletio*, cum dicat variationem et privationem et corruptionem, quae nullo modo sunt in Deo?

> **Conclusio.** Libri vitae scriptura dicitur praedestinatio salvandorum quoad ipsos et gratiam et gloriam, quam habituri sunt.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut *ars* et *exemplar* est totius Trinitatis, tamen appropriatur Filio, sic *liber vitae*. — Sed notandum, quod creaturarum ad Deum est duplex comparatio: una *in exeundo*, et haec est omnium creaturarum, quia omnes a Deo exierunt; alia est *in redeundo*, et haec est creaturarum ad beatitudinem ordinatarum, quia *regressus* est per virtutem, et *quies* per beatitudinem. Quantum ergo ad *primam* comparationem dicitur[^p898-3] Filius «ars plena omnium rationum viventium»; et scriptura istius libri est *aeterna dispositio omnium producendorum* quantum ad suas rationes et ideas. Quantum ad *secundam* comparationem dicitur Filius *liber vitae*; et scriptura istius libri est *praedestinatio omnium salvandorum* quantum ad ipsos et gratiam et gloriam, quam habituri sunt[^p898-4].

Sed attendendum, quod *gratiam*, per quam est regredi ad Deum, quidam habent *temporaliter*, quidam vero *finaliter*. Qui habent *finaliter*, *ipsi* scribuntur et eorum *gratia*, quia ipsi redeunt per gratiam. Qui autem *temporaliter*, *ipsi* quidem in praedestinatione scripti non sunt, quia non sunt praedestinati, sed eorum *gratia* scripta est secundum veritatem et *merita*, quae semper rememorabuntur; et ratione illius scribi dicuntur, non *simpliciter*, sed solum secundum *reputationem*[^p898-5], quia iustitia divina ad tempus iudicat eos gloria *dignos*, et cum cadunt, iudicat *indignos*. — Ideo dicuntur *deleri*, non quia prius sint scripti et postmodum deleti, sed quia prius secundum *merita scripta* iudicantur *digni*, deinde *indigni*. — Ex his patent quaesita.

1, 2. Primum patet: quia liber vitae non continet rationem *exemplaris totam*, sed tantum *praedestinationis*. — Secundum patet: quia mali, qui habent praesentem iustitiam, secundum reputationem scripti sunt et post non reputantur; ideo deleri dicuntur.

3. Ex his patet ultimum: quia quod Deus iudicat aliquem prius *dignum* et post *indignum*, solum dicit[^p898-6] mutationem in homine, non in Deo: et ita *deletio* illa non dicit permutationem in scriptura, sed in his quae per illam scripturam repraesentantur[^p898-7].

> Notae numeratae infra respondent signis in textu Latino supra et in versione Anglica positis. Quaracchi numerationem notarum in singulis paginis impressis restaurat; ideo signa paginis distinguuntur (p897, p898).

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether all things are written in the book of life.*

Secondly, it is asked what the writing of this book is. And that all things are written there seems to be the case:

1. Because the Son of God himself is the exemplar of all things[^p897-6] and knows all things, he who is called the book of life.

2. Likewise, it seems that even the wicked are written in it: because it is said in the Psalm[^p897-7]: *Let them be blotted out of the book of the living*; but nothing is blotted out of anything unless it is written in it: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that book is immutable: therefore if the wicked have once been written, they are always written: therefore they are not blotted out.

**On the contrary:**

1. That not all things are written there seems to be the case: because then, on this reckoning, it would seem that a stone were written in the book of life; which is not said[^p897-8] except of the elect.

2. Likewise, that the wicked are not written in it seems to be the case: because evil does not have an exemplar in God[^p898-1]: therefore, if that book is an exemplar, it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, in the tenth [chapter] of Luke[^p898-2] the Lord said to the disciples: *Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven*; but if this book were [the book] of all, then all would have to rejoice; which, since it is not so, is evident, etc.

In connection with this it is asked: how can a *blotting-out* be transferred to that book, since it implies variation and privation and corruption, which are in no way in God?

> **Conclusion.** The writing of the book of life is called the predestination of those to be saved, as regards themselves and the grace and glory which they are to have.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as *art* and *exemplar* belongs to the whole Trinity, yet is appropriated to the Son, so also the *book of life*. — But it must be noted that of the creature there is a twofold comparison to God: one *in going forth*, and this belongs to all creatures, because all went forth from God; the other is *in returning*, and this belongs to creatures ordered to beatitude, because the *return* is through virtue, and the *rest* through beatitude. As regards the *first* comparison, therefore, the Son is called[^p898-3] «the art full of all the living reasons»; and the writing of this book is the *eternal disposition of all things to be produced* as regards their reasons and ideas. As regards the *second* comparison, the Son is called the *book of life*; and the writing of this book is the *predestination of all who are to be saved* as regards themselves and the grace and glory which they are to have[^p898-4].

But it must be attended to, that the *grace* by which there is a returning to God some have *temporally*, but some *finally*. Those who have it *finally*, they *themselves* are written, and their *grace*, because they themselves return through grace. But those who [have it] *temporally*, they *themselves* indeed are not written in predestination, because they are not predestined, but their *grace* is written according to truth and *merits*, which will always be remembered; and by reason of that they are said to be written, not *simply*, but only according to *reckoning*[^p898-5], because the divine justice for a time judges them *worthy* of glory, and when they fall, judges them *unworthy*. — Therefore they are said to be *blotted out*, not because they were first written and afterwards deleted, but because first, according to their *merits, the things written* are judged *worthy*, then *unworthy*. — From these things the matters sought are evident.

1, 2. The first is evident: because the book of life does not contain the *whole account of the exemplar*, but only [that] *of predestination*. — The second is evident: because the wicked, who have present justice, are written according to reckoning and afterwards are not reckoned; therefore they are said to be blotted out.

3. From these the last is evident: because the fact that God judges someone first *worthy* and afterwards *unworthy* states only[^p898-6] a change in the man, not in God: and thus that *blotting-out* does not state a change in the writing, but in those things which are represented through that writing[^p898-7].

---

la: Cfr. supra pag. 895, nota 5.

en: Cf. above, p. 895, note 5.

en: Psalm 68:29 (Vulgate): *Deleantur de libro viventium.*

la: Codd. M O R S T U X addunt *hic*; edd. legunt: *quod est falsum, quia hoc non dicitur.*

en: Codices M O R S T U X add *hic* ["here"]; the editions read: *quod est falsum, quia hoc non dicitur* ["which is false, because this is not said"].

la: Ut ostensum est I. Sent. d. 36. a. 3. q. 1.

en: As was shown in I *Sent.*, d. 36, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Vers. 20: *Gaudete autem, quod nomina* etc. — Inferius post *gaudendum* cod. U addit *iuxta hoc.*

en: Verse 20: *But rejoice, because [your] names* etc. — Further below, after *gaudendum*, cod. U adds *iuxta hoc.*

la: August., VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI, c. 10, n. 11.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. argg. 1. et 2. pro parte 1.

en: See the preceding question, arguments 1 and 2 for the first part.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 40 a. 2. q. 2. ad 1. et 2. — Superius pro *semper rememorabuntur* codd. perperam *semper remunerabuntur*, edd. *nunquam remunerabuntur*. Nostra lectio confirmatur iis quae infra a. 3. q. 1. in corp. habentur.

en: Cf. I *Sent.*, d. 40, a. 2, q. 2, ad 1 and 2. — Above, for *semper rememorabuntur* the codices wrongly [read] *semper remunerabuntur*, the editions *nunquam remunerabuntur*. Our reading is confirmed by what is had below in a. 3, q. 1, in the body.

la: Edd. *dicitur propter.*

en: The editions [read] *dicitur propter.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines L95491–95585) as base, corrected verbatim against the 450 dpi column bands for printed pp. 897–898 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{897,898}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; right-column bands regenerated at split_x=1620 to recover the left edge of the right column, which the default 1880 split clips). Vol IV is two-column, so the VOL II OVERRIDE applies: the column-band read is authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-fragments (Respondeo/Solutio/footers). Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page layout.** Each printed page is a horizontal-band two-column layout: q1 (a2-q1) fills the top band of both columns, the Article II SCHOLION fills the middle band (it belongs to a2-q1, `has_scholion: false` here), and q2 fills the bottom band of both columns. Reading order is full left column, then full right column, within each band. This quaestio's body therefore runs: p.897 left-bottom (opener + pro-args 1–2) → p.897 right-bottom (pro-arg 3 + contra 1–2 opening) → p.898 left (contra 2 continuation, contra 3, incidental question, Conclusio, Respondeo opening) → p.898 right (Respondeo/Solutio conclusion through *repraesentantur*).

**Page split.** The 897→898 break falls mid-argument, inside Contra 2 ("...non sint in eo scripti," | "videtur: quia malum non habet exemplar in Deo..."); `<!-- page 898 -->` is placed at that seam.

**Apparatus split (10 entries).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each page. Page 897 contributes notes 6, 7, 8 to this quaestio (notes 1–5 of p.897 are anchored in a2-q1 above the scholion — sc. *similitudinem*¹, *Augustinus*², *intelligitur*³, *conscientiarum*⁴, *vita*⁵ — and belong to the a2-q1 chunk, not here). Page 898 contributes notes 1–7 to this quaestio (in Deo¹, Lucae decimo², dicitur³, habituri sunt⁴, reputationem⁵, dicit⁶, repraesentantur⁷); notes 8–12 of p.898 (pauciora⁸, e diverso⁹, Apocalypsis¹⁰, Dei natura¹¹, sicut dictum est¹²) are anchored in QUAESTIO III (a2-q3) and are not claimed here.

**Marginalia dropped.** Editorial side-glosses printed in the margins (*Conclusio 2*, *Solutio argg. 1. et 3. pro parte 2*, *Aliter*, *Notandum*, *Fundamenta*, *Quaest. incidens*, *Duo praenotanda*, *Distinctio*, *Sol. positio*) are omitted from the body as non-authorial.

**No `[?]` flags** — all readings resolved against the bands.