title: Dist. 47, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 972 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Angeli in die iudicii iudicabunt.*

> Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on each printed page, so this chunk carries two per-page sequences: notes 4 through 7 of page 972 (notes 1 through 3 of that page anchor in the preceding question) and notes 1 through 8 of page 973. The labels below are page-qualified accordingly.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Angeli iudicabunt. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p972-4]: *Cum venerit Filius hominis* etc.; ibi subiungitur de Angelis.

2. Item, primae ad Timotheum sexto[^p972-5]: *In adventu Domini nostri Iesu Christi*; Glossa: «Venientis cum Angelis». Idem habetur in pluribus locis et in textu et in Glossa.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia Angeli nunquam peccant, ergo magis sunt idonei iudicare quam Apostoli[^p972-6]: ergo si Apostoli iudicabunt, et Angeli, immo multo fortius.

4. Item, sicut se habent boni homines ad malos, sic boni Angeli ad malos: si ergo boni homines iudicabunt malos, et boni Angeli debent iudicare malos.

**Contra:**
1. Ioannis quinto[^p972-7]: *Potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia Filius hominis est*; sed Angeli non communicant in humana natura: ergo nec in iudiciaria potestate.

<!-- page 973 -->

2. Item, exsecutor sententiae non dicitur esse iudex, sed minister; sed Angeli sententiam exsequentur, quia *mittent in caminum ignis*, Matthaei decimo tertio[^p973-1]: ergo etc.

3. Item, potestas iudiciaria data est Apostolis, quia iudicati sunt, et Domino, et quia, vita eorum comparata malis, ipsos ostendunt reprobos[^p973-2]; sed neutrum est in Angelis: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Iudiciaria potestas non est in Angelis nisi ratione approbationis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est[^p973-3], iudiciaria potestas triplici ex causa dicitur esse communicata Apostolis, scilicet ratione *comparationis*, *approbationis* sententiae et *honorabilis consessionis*. Ratione *comparationis* iudicium erit hominum malorum et bonorum[^p973-4]; *approbationis*, non hominum bonorum tantum, sed hominum et Angelorum; *honorabilis consessionis*, perfectorum tantum. Unde dicendum, quod proprie loquendo, iudiciaria potestas non erit in Angelis; si autem dicatur in eis esse, intelligendum est ratione *approbationis*.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Auctoritates autem illae, quae dicunt, quod Dominus veniet cum Angelis non sunt intelligendae, quod veniat cum Angelis *iudicantibus*, sed *ministrantibus*[^p973-5].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod magis debetur Angelis, quia sunt sine peccato; dicendum, quod haec non est ratio comparandi iudiciariam potestatem, sed magis ipsa perfectio, quia[^p973-6] perfecerunt consilia et sunt conformes Christo in natura perfecta.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, dicendum, quod potest concedi, quod angeli mali iudicentur comparatione bonorum, sed non debet concedi, quod homines. — Vel dicendum, quod illam comparationem faciet supererogatio[^p973-7]; et illa iterum comparatio fiet his qui possent sibi videri boni esse, quod non est in malis angelis[^p973-8].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the Angels will judge on the day of judgement.*

Secondly it is asked whether the Angels will judge. And that they will, seems to be the case.

1. Matthew twenty-five[^p972-4]: *When the Son of man shall come* etc.; there something is added concerning the Angels.

2. Likewise, First Timothy six[^p972-5]: *At the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ*; the Gloss: "of him coming with the Angels." The same is had in many places, both in the text and in the Gloss.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because the Angels never sin, therefore they are more fit to judge than the Apostles[^p972-6]: therefore if the Apostles will judge, the Angels also will, indeed much more strongly.

4. Likewise, as good men stand to evil men, so do the good Angels to the evil ones: if therefore good men will judge the evil, the good Angels too ought to judge the evil.

**On the contrary:**
1. John five[^p972-7]: *He hath given him power to do judgement, because he is the Son of man*; but the Angels do not share in human nature: therefore neither in judiciary power.

2. Likewise, the executor of a sentence is not called a judge, but a minister; but the Angels will execute the sentence, because *they shall send them into the furnace of fire*, Matthew thirteen[^p973-1]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, judiciary power was given to the Apostles because they were judged, and by the Lord, and because, their life being compared with the evil, they show these to be reprobate[^p973-2]; but neither of these is in the Angels: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> Judiciary power is not in the Angels save by reason of approbation.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been said[^p973-3], judiciary power is said to be communicated to the Apostles from a threefold cause, namely by reason of *comparison*, of *approbation* of the sentence, and of *honourable session*. By reason of *comparison* the judgement will be of evil and good men[^p973-4]; of *approbation*, not of good men only, but of men and of Angels; of *honourable session*, of the perfect only. Hence it must be said that, properly speaking, judiciary power will not be in the Angels; but if it is said to be in them, it is to be understood by reason of *approbation*.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* Those authorities, however, which say that the Lord will come with the Angels are not to be understood as though he comes with the Angels *judging*, but *ministering*[^p973-5].

*To 3.* But to that which is objected, that it is rather due to the Angels because they are without sin; it must be said that this is not the ground for conferring judiciary power, but rather perfection itself, because[^p973-6] they fulfilled the counsels and are conformed to Christ in a perfect nature.

*To 4.* To that which is objected last, it must be said that it can be granted that the evil angels are judged by comparison with the good, but it ought not to be granted that men are. — Or it must be said that supererogation will make that comparison[^p973-7]; and that comparison again will be made for those who could seem to themselves to be good, which is not the case in the evil angels[^p973-8].

---

la: Vers. 31: *Cum autem venerit* etc.

en: v. 31: *But when the Son of man shall come* etc.

la: Vers. 14: *Ut serves mandatum... usque in adventum Domini* etc. — Glossa in Glossariis super hunc locum, quae prae manibus habemus, non exhibetur. Cfr. Matth. 16, 27; 24, 31; Marc. 8, 38; II. Thess. I, 7. cum Glossa apud Petr. Lombard. Cfr. etiam Glossa ordinaria ex Hieron. in Dan. 7, 10.

en: v. 14: *That thou keep the commandment... until the coming of our Lord* etc. — The Gloss is not exhibited in the Glossaries upon this passage which we have to hand. Cf. Matthew 16:27; 24:31; Mark 8:38; II Thessalonians 1:7, with the Gloss in Peter Lombard. Cf. also the *Glossa ordinaria* from Jerome on Daniel 7:10.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. arg. 2. ad oppos.

en: See the preceding question, argument 2 to the opposite.

la: Vers. 27.

la: Vers. 42. et 50: *Et mittent eos in* etc.

en: vv. 42 and 50: *And they shall cast them into* etc.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. — Superius pro *et Domino* in cod. E secunda manus bene substituit *cum Domino*, edd. *a Domino*.

en: Cf. the preceding question. — Above, for *et Domino* a second hand in codex E rightly substituted *cum Domino*; the editions read *a Domino*.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Edd. prosequuntur: *tantum. Ratione approbationis erit bonorum hominum et Angelorum. Ratione honorabilis* etc.

en: The editions continue: *only. By reason of approbation it will be of good men and of Angels. By reason of honourable* etc.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: See here the letter of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cod. P supplet *viri evangelici, scilicet Apostoli;* plures codd. legunt *quia perfecerit*, cod. M *quae perfecerit*. In fine solut. pro *perfecta*, quod codd. G P Z omittunt, codd. T bb *perfecto*. Edd. in hac solut. post *sed magis* prosequuntur: *ista est ratio, scilicet servare ipsa consilia; et quia perfecerunt consilia et fuerunt conformes Christo in vera perfectione.*

en: Codex P supplies *viri evangelici, scilicet Apostoli* ("evangelical men, namely the Apostles"); several codices read *quia perfecerit*, codex M *quae perfecerit*. At the end of the solution, for *perfecta* — which codices G, P, Z omit — codices T and bb read *perfecto*. In this solution the editions continue, after *sed magis*: *this is the ground, namely to keep the counsels themselves; and because they fulfilled the counsels and were conformed to Christ in true perfection.*

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced., ubi dicitur *perfectio supererogationis*. Forma verbi occurrit Luc. 10, 35.

en: Cf. the preceding question, where *the perfection of supererogation* is spoken of. The verbal form occurs at Luke 10:35.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L103339–L103434, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p972-{L,R}-{1,2}.png` and `vol4-p973-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. No bands were regenerated; the supplied crops are clean at both edges. OCR header `QUAESTIO 11.` (L103339) confirmed on the band as **QUAESTIO II**, and `title_la` confirmed verbatim from the line beneath it — no title correction needed.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.972 — shared with `a1-q1`.** Page 972 carries seven footer notes. Derived independently from the bands by content-matching each note to a body anchor: notes **1–3** (`Codd. F L U X quidam` · `Cfr. supra pag. 883, nota 6 — Ipsa responsio est secundum August., XX de Civ. Dei` · `August., IV de Gen. ad lit. c. 2 n. 4: Duodenarius…`) all anchor in a1-q1's Respondeo and scholion (the *duodenarius* note glosses the twelve Apostles) and are **left to `a1-q1`**. Notes **4–7** anchor in this chunk's four *ad oppositum* arguments and Contra 1, and are claimed here.
- **p.973 — shared with `a1-q3`.** Page 973 carries fourteen footer notes in two footer columns. Notes **1–8** anchor in this chunk (Contra 2 through the final *Ad 4*); note 8 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) is the last anchor of this question, on `non est in malis angelis`. Notes **9–14** anchor in q3's arguments and are **forwarded to `a1-q3`**.
- Total claimed here: **12 entries**.

**The p.973 footer block is absent from the IA djvu OCR entirely** — the raw text runs straight from the body into `QUAESTIO III.` All twelve p.973-side readings above are band reads.

**Running head.** p.973 prints `DIST. XLVII. ART. I. QUAEST. III.` even though most of the page is this question. It names the last question opening on the page and is page furniture only.

**Hand-offs forwarded to `a1-q3`.** (a) p.973 footer notes 9–14, text as read from `vol4-p973-R-2.png`. (b) The q3 opener is `Tertio quantum ad iudicandos quaeritur, utrum omnes iudicabuntur, tam boni quam mali. Et quod omnes homines, videtur.` — the raw OCR at L103435 ff. **drops the leading `Tertio`**; it is present on the band.

**OCR disagreements resolved at band time** (not parked as flags): `raagis`→*magis*, `iudicabunl`→*iudicabunt*, `Angeh`→*Angeli*, `forlius`→*fortius*, `Malthaei`→*Matthaei*, `subinngitur`→*subiungitur*, `Timolheum`→*Timotheum*, `Veiiienlis cura Angelis`→*Venientis cum Angelis*, `Polestalem deditmi» ei`→*Potestatem dedit ei*, `fUius`→*Filius*, `caminwn`→*caminum*, `Ludiciaria polestas`→*Iudiciaria potestas*, `oslendunt`→*ostendunt*, `Angeiis`→*Angelis*, `Dicendiim, qiiod`→*Dicendum, quod*, `tripiici`→*triplici*, `sinepeccato`→*sine peccato*, `Chrislo`→*Christo*, `iudicenlur`→*iudicentur*. The raw's duplicated `Ad illud vero quod quod magis obiicitur, debetur Angelis` is a cascade artifact; the band reads `Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod magis debetur Angelis`.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): `Ad oppositum.`, `Contra.`, `Conclusio.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Aliter.` The *Conclusio* marginal is retained as the structural heading per corpus convention.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every reading in this chunk was legible on the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 47, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 973 -->

> **On the footnote numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote sequence on every printed page. This chunk spans two printed pages, so its markers are page-qualified: notes 9 through 14 of page 973, then notes 1 through 5 of page 974. Notes 1 through 8 of page 973 belong to the preceding question, and notes 6 through 12 of page 974 belong to the following question.

### Quaestio III. *Utrum omnes iudicabuntur, tam boni quam mali.*

Tertio quantum ad iudicandos quaeritur, utrum omnes iudicabuntur, tam boni quam mali. Et quod *omnes homines*, videtur.

1. Secundae ad Corinthios quinto[^p973-9]: *Omnes astabimus ante tribunal Christi, ut recipiat unusquisque* etc.

2. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo quinto[^p973-10]: *Egredietur de ore meo iustitiae verbum; et mihi curvabitur omne genu*: ergo si hoc est in iudicio, patet etc.

3. Item, Sancti, qui modo sunt in beatitudine, in die iudicii iudicabuntur, et mali, qui in inferno[^p973-11]: ergo et omnes.

4. Item, alia *ratione* videtur: quia iudicium fiet ad manifestationem divinae iustitiae: ergo si iustitia Dei ibi potissime manifestatur, ergo quantum ad omnia merita et omnes merentes. Sed non est creatura rationalis, quae non sit digna bono, vel malo: ergo omnes debent iudicari.

**Contra:** 1. Videtur, quod *nullus bonus* debeat iudicari, quia Ioannis tertio[^p973-12] dicitur: *Qui credit in eum non iudicatur*; et rursus quinto: *In iudicium non veniet* etc.

2. Item, saltem videtur, quod non iudicentur *boni perfecti*, quia iudicantis non est *iudicari*, sed *iudicare*; et viri perfecti in die iudicii erunt iudices[^p973-13]: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod *nullus infidelis*, videtur: quia Ioannis tertio[^p973-14]: *Qui non credit iam iudicatus est*; sed qui iudicatus est, iterum non debet iudicari: ergo etc.

<!-- page 974 -->

4. Item, videtur, quod *nullus parvulus*: quia parvuli nihil boni nec mali operati sunt nec meruerunt nec in igne cremabuntur[^p974-1]: si ergo iudicium est secundum merita et ad poenam ignis, vel gloriam; patet etc.

### Conclusio

> *Iudicio collationis meriti ad praemium iudicabuntur omnes, iudicio discussionis non omnes, iudicio condemnationis tantum mali.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iudicium dicitur tripliciter, scilicet *communiter*, *proprie* et *appropriate*. Iudicium *communiter* dicitur collatio manifesta meriti ad praemium. Iudicium *proprie* dicitur discussio meritorum et prolatio cum quadam discussione et sententiae definitione[^p974-2]. Iudicium *appropriate* dicitur ipsa condemnatio; unde *iudicatus* dicitur condemnatus.

Primo igitur modo omnes iudicabuntur, quia *omnes* convenient, et patebit, quomodo Deus omnibus retribuet secundum merita; et hoc est quod dicit Apostolus[^p974-3]: *Omnes manifestari oportet.* — Secundo modo, prout dicitur iudicium *discussionis*, *non omnes* iudicabuntur, sed erunt quatuor ordines, sicut distinguit beatus Gregorius, et Magister ponit in littera[^p974-4]. — Tertio modo, secundum quod dicitur iudicium *condemnationis*, iudicabuntur mali solum; et istud iudicium incipit in praesenti per *excaecationem* in infidelibus et per *exspoliationem* in daemonibus et consummabitur in futuro. Unde iudicium non iterabitur, sed consummabitur. — Et sic patent omnia[^p974-5].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether all will be judged, both the good and the evil.*

Thirdly, as regards those to be judged, it is asked whether all will be judged, both the good and the evil. And that *all men* will be, seems clear.

1. Second Corinthians five[^p973-9]: *We shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may receive* etc.

2. Likewise, Isaiah forty-five[^p973-10]: *The word of justice shall go forth from my mouth; and to me every knee shall bow*: therefore if this takes place at the judgement, it is clear etc.

3. Likewise, the Saints, who are now in beatitude, will be judged on the day of judgement, and the evil, who are in hell[^p973-11]: therefore all as well.

4. Likewise, it seems so by another *ground*: because the judgement will take place for the manifestation of the divine justice: therefore if God's justice is there most of all manifested, therefore it is so as regards all merits and all who merit. But there is no rational creature which is not worthy of good or of evil: therefore all ought to be judged.

**On the contrary:** 1. It seems that *no good person* ought to be judged, because in John three[^p973-12] it is said: *He who believes in him is not judged*; and again in five: *He shall not come into judgement* etc.

2. Likewise, it seems at least that *the perfect good* are not judged, because it belongs to the one judging not *to be judged*, but *to judge*; and perfect men will be judges on the day of judgement[^p973-13]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems that *no unbeliever* is judged: because John three[^p973-14]: *He who does not believe is already judged*; but he who has been judged ought not to be judged again: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it seems that *no little child* is judged: because little children have done nothing good or evil, nor have they merited, nor will they be burned in the fire[^p974-1]: if therefore the judgement is according to merits and unto the punishment of fire or unto glory; it is clear etc.

### Conclusion

> *By the judgement of the comparing of merit to reward all will be judged; by the judgement of examination not all; by the judgement of condemnation only the evil.*

**I respond:** It must be said that judgement is spoken of in three ways, namely *commonly*, *properly*, and *by appropriation*. Judgement *commonly* is called the manifest comparing of merit to reward. Judgement *properly* is called the examination of merits and the pronouncement with a certain examination and definition of sentence[^p974-2]. Judgement *by appropriation* is called condemnation itself; whence one who has been *judged* is called condemned.

In the first way, therefore, all will be judged, because *all* will come together, and it will be clear how God repays all according to their merits; and this is what the Apostle says[^p974-3]: *All must be made manifest.* — In the second way, according as judgement is called the judgement of *examination*, *not all* will be judged, but there will be four orders, as blessed Gregory distinguishes and the Master sets down in the text[^p974-4]. — In the third way, according as judgement is called the judgement of *condemnation*, only the evil will be judged; and that judgement begins in the present through *blinding* in unbelievers and through *despoiling* in the demons, and will be consummated in the future. Hence the judgement will not be repeated, but consummated. — And thus all things are clear[^p974-5].

---

la: Vers. 10: *Omnes enim nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis, prout gessit, sive bonum, sive malum.* Rom. 14, 10: *Omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi.*

en: Verse 10: *For we must all be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may report the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether good or evil.* Romans 14, 10: *For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ.*

la: Vers. 23. seq. Vulgata post *verbum* prosequitur: *et non revertetur, quia mihi* etc.

en: Verse 23 f. The Vulgate, after *verbum*, continues: *and it shall not return, because to me* etc.

la: Matth. 25, 32. seqq.

en: Matthew 25, 32 ff.

la: Vers. 18. — Seq. locus est ibid. 5, 24: *Quia qui verbum meum audit et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam et in iudicium non venit, sed transiit a morte in vitam* (permulti codd. *venient*).

en: Verse 18. — The following passage is in the same, 5, 24: *Because he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life* (very many codices read *venient*).

la: Vide supra q. 1. et 2.

en: See above, questions 1 and 2.

la: Vers. 18: *Qui autem non credit* etc.

en: Verse 18: *But he who does not believe* etc.

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1.

en: As was shown in II Sent., d. 33, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Secundum Isidor., XVIII. Etymolog. c. 15. n. 2. Cfr. C. *Forus* (10.), X. de Verborum significat. (lib. V. tit. 40.). — De iudicio *damnationis* cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 43. n. 9. et tr. 52. n. 6.

en: According to Isidore, *Etymologies* XVIII, c. 15, n. 2. Compare the canon *Forus* (10), X, on the signification of words (bk. V, tit. 40). — On the judgement of *damnation* compare Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tr. 43, n. 9, and tr. 52, n. 6.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 5, 10: *Omnes enim nos* etc. — Paulo ante pro *Deus* Vat. *de*.

en: Epistle II Corinthians 5, 10: *For we all* etc. — A little before, for *Deus* the Vatican edition reads *de*.

la: Hic c. 3. — Inferius pro *excaecationem* (cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 44. n. 17.), quod exhibent codd. E I L P Q U X, alii codd. et edd. *exsecutionem*. Post *exspoliationem* cod. G addit *per potestatis subtractionem*.

en: Here, c. 3. — Below, in place of *excaecationem* (compare Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tr. 44, n. 17), which codices E I L P Q U X give, the other codices and the editions read *exsecutionem*. After *exspoliationem* codex G adds *per potestatis subtractionem*.

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L103435–L103573, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p973-{L,R}-{1,2}.png` and `vol4-p974-{L,R}-{0,2}.png`. **No bands were regenerated** — the supplied crops are clean on the text block at both edges. The `QUAESTIO III.` header and `title_la` were confirmed verbatim on `vol4-p973-{L,R}-1.png`; no title correction needed.

**The entire p.973 footer block is missing from the IA djvu OCR** — the raw runs body → `QUAESTIO III.` with no apparatus. All six p.973 apparatus entries here are band reads from `vol4-p973-R-2.png`, verified independently of the hand-off.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p.973 — shared with `a1-q2` (backward).** Fourteen footer notes. Notes 1–8 anchor in q2 and are left there (note 8, *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, is q2's last anchor, on *non est in malis angelis*). Notes **9–14** anchor here and are claimed: 9 → arg. 1 (2 Cor. 5), 10 → arg. 2 (Isaiah 45), 11 → arg. 3 (*qui in inferno*), 12 → Contra 1 (John 3, 18), 13 → Contra 2 (*erunt iudices*), 14 → Contra 3 (John 3, 18b). **The hand-off from `a1-q2` is confirmed correct.**
- **p.974 — shared with `a1-q4` (forward).** Twelve footer notes across the two footer columns. Notes **1–5** anchor here (1 → Contra 4 *nec in igne cremabuntur*; 2 → Respondeo *sententiae definitione*; 3 → *dicit Apostolus*; 4 → *ponit in littera*; 5 → *Et sic patent omnia*, the chunk's last anchor). Notes **6–12** anchor in q4's *fundamenta* and Contra and are **forwarded to `a1-q4`**.
- Total claimed here: **11 entries.**

**Anchor order is straight reading order here** (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14), not column order — verified marker-by-marker on the bands rather than inferred from content, since two of the three John 3 citations are nearly identical.

**Hand-off picked up.** The opener's `Tertio` is indeed absent from the raw at L103435 (the OCR strands it on its own line, out of sequence). The band reads `Tertio quantum ad iudicandos quaeritur…` and it is restored here.

**Hand-off forwarded to `a1-q4`.** p.974 footer notes 6–12: note 6 begins `Vers. 28. Codd. omittunt eum. — Inferius verbo iudicabitur codd. E W praemittunt princeps daemonum, cod. U princeps omnium, cod. L princeps.` (it wraps from the L-2 footer column into the R-2 column); 7 `Vers. 3.`; 8 `Vide II. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.`; 9 `Vers. 11. — In minori allegatur Nahum 1, 9; vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1.`; 10 `Vers. 41: Discedite a me maledicti etc. — Pro fertur codd. G P Q feretur.`; 11 `Cod. U iudicium. Pro est afferendum codd. I K afferetur, edd. est vertendum. — In minori respicitur Apoc. 12, 8. seq.`; 12 `In quaest. praeced. — Codd., post Dicendum addito quod, hic repetunt dicendum (codd. P Q dicitur). Inferius pro ratione consummationis edd. ex parte confirmationis et hominibus innotescat pro omnibus clarescat.`

**Page break.** The p.973/974 break falls *mid-sentence* inside Contra 4, after `quia`. The `<!-- page 974 -->` comment is placed at the paragraph boundary immediately before that argument, per corpus convention.

**Seam — closing sentence parses.** The chunk closes at `Et sic patent omnia` (p.974 R column), and `QUAESTIO IV.` follows immediately on the same page. No cascade-merge signature at either seam.

**OCR disagreements resolved at band time** (not parked as flags): `quaerilur`→*quaeritur*, `iadicabunlur`→*iudicabuntur*, `Onines`→*Omnes*, `Iribunal`→*tribunal*, `bealitudine`→*beatitudine*, `manifestalionem`→*manifestationem*, `iuslitiae`→*iustitiae*, `manifeslalur`→*manifestatur*, `quantura`→*quantum*, `«M/to &o?u{5`→*nullus bonus*, `dicilur`→*dicitur*, `elc.`→*etc.*, `llem`→*Item*, `videlur`→*videtur*, `iudicalus`→*iudicari/iudicatus*, `siint`→*sunt*, `merila`→*merita*, `palet`→*patet*, `iudicahuntur`→*iudicabuntur*, `dicilur`→*dicitur*, `sciiicet`→*scilicet*, `defmitione`→*definitione*, `ineipit`→*incipit*, `excaecalionem`→*excaecationem*, `consuminabitur`→*consummabitur*, `ilerabitur`→*iterabitur*, `lillera`→*littera*, `manifeslari oportel`→*manifestari oportet*. The OCR's `c NcLus I 0.` at the head of the conclusion is a shattered `CONCLUSIO.` header, and `coba`/`conci`/`noUi` scattered in the right column are fragments of the right-margin editorial glosses, not text.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): `Pro parte firmativa.`, `Pro parte negativa.`, `Iudicium dicitur tripliciter.`, three `Concl.` glosses, `Notandum.` The `CONCLUSIO` header is retained as the structural heading per corpus convention.

**Band note (not a defect in my read).** `vol4-p974-R-0.png` clips the outer right margin, cutting the tails of the `Concl.`/`Notan…` marginal glosses. Only marginalia are affected — the body text block is complete at both edges — so no re-crop was requested.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every reading in this chunk was legible on the bands.

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. 47, Art. 1, Q. 4

title_alt:
Utrum Angeli iudicabuntur
Whether the Angels will be judged

source_text:
<!-- page 974 -->

> **On the footnote numbering.** The Quaracchi edition restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. This chunk spans two printed pages, so the notes below are page-qualified: the notes of page 974 that this question anchors are numbers 6 through 12 of that page's sequence (numbers 1 through 5 of page 974 belong to the preceding question, a. 1 q. 3), and the notes of page 975 that this question anchors are numbers 1 through 4 of that page's sequence (numbers 5 through 9 of page 975 belong to the following question, a. 2 q. 1). Quaracchi numbers its footers in column order while the body anchors fall in reading order, so the anchors below do not run in strict numerical sequence.

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum Angeli iudicabuntur.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum Angeli iudicabuntur. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Iob quadragesimo[^p974-6] loquitur de Behemoth: *Spes eius frustrabitur eum, et cunctis videntibus praecipitabitur*: ergo in conspectu omnium iudicabitur: ergo et alii daemones pari ratione.

2. Item, primae ad Corinthios sexto[^p974-7]: *Nescitis, quoniam Angelos iudicabimus?* Si ergo Angeli iudicabuntur a servis Christi, multo magis ab ipso Christo.

3. Item, daemones plus habent de statu viatoris, quam habeant homines damnati, quia possunt demereri et peccare[^p974-8]: ergo magis indigent iudicari quam homines.

4. Item, daemones sunt participes nobis in culpa, ergo et in poena et ignominia; sed hoc erit potissime in iudicio: ergo sicut erunt in eodem supplicio, ita debent iudicari in eodem iudicio.

**Contra:** 1. Ioannis decimo sexto[^p974-9]: *Princeps huius mundi iam iudicatus est*; sed Deus non iudicat bis in id ipsum: ergo etc.

2. Item, illi soli iudicabuntur, contra quos fertur sententia; sed sententia solum dabitur contra homines, non contra daemones, sicut patet Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^p974-10]: *Ite maledicti* etc.

3. Item, quod est certum non est afferendum in dubium[^p974-11]; sed certum est, daemones esse damnatos, cum de caelis proiecti sint: ergo non debent amplius iudicari.

4. Item, sicut mali homines exspectant iudicium, ita et boni: ergo si daemones exspectant iudicium, pari ratione et Angeli sancti. Sed sancti Angeli habent totam gloriam suam: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Daemones iudicabuntur iudicio condemnationis, sed non discussionis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, priori distinctione supposita[^p974-12], quod daemones iudicabuntur iudicio condemnationis, sed non discussionis. — Ratio autem condemnationis venit tum ex parte *iustitiae Dei*, tum ex parte *gloriae Christi*, tum ex parte *meriti*, tum ratione *consummationis supplicii*. Ex parte *iustitiae Dei*: quia, sicut iudicium hominum universale fiet, ut Dei iustitia omnibus clarescat et appareat; sic iudicium angelorum et condemnatio fieri debet.

<!-- page 975 -->

— Ex parte *gloriae Christi*: quia Christus triumphavit de diabolo et iudicatus fuit a membro diaboli et ad suggestionem eius; ideo debet auctoritatem iudicialem super ipsum accipere. — Ex parte *meriti*: quia enim participes fuerunt culpae humanae, debent et participes esse contumeliae et poenae. — Ex parte *supplicii consummandi*: sicut enim omnes homines exspectant iudicium vel ad consummationem gloriae vel poenae, sic et daemones iudicium non debent evadere; ut si quid poenarum eis deest, suppleatur plene. Unde involventur[^p975-1] simul cum damnatis et simul incarcerabuntur, ac per hoc ad iudicium deducentur et iudicabuntur, sicut rationes ostendunt.

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod iam iudicatus est; dicendum, quod *iudicatus* dicitur, quia potestas est ei aliquo modo subtracta quantum ad bonos, sed non omnino. Ideo oportet, tunc eius iudicium consummari, sicut prius[^p975-2] de infidelibus tactum est.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est afferendum in dubium[^p975-3], quod est certum; dicendum, quod non adducetur in dubium, sed quod certum est certius faciet esse Deus et confirmabit; nec est tantum ad certificandum de culpa, sed etiam ad consummandam poenam.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Angelis bonis, dicendum, quod Angeli boni iudicabuntur iudicio *retributionis*; consummabitur enim gloria in ipsis saltem quantum ad *accidentale praemium*, et cessabit ministerium[^p975-4]. Et sic patet totum.

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the Angels will be judged.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether the Angels will be judged. And that they will be, seems [to be the case].

1. Job, chapter forty[^p974-6], speaks of Behemoth: *His hope shall fail him, and in the sight of all he shall be cast down headlong*: therefore he will be judged in the sight of all: therefore the other demons also, by parity of reasoning.

2. Likewise, First to the Corinthians, chapter six[^p974-7]: *Know you not that we shall judge Angels?* If therefore the Angels will be judged by the servants of Christ, much more by Christ himself.

3. Likewise, the demons have more of the state of a wayfarer than damned men have, because they can demerit and sin[^p974-8]: therefore they stand more in need of being judged than men do.

4. Likewise, the demons are sharers with us in fault, therefore also in punishment and in ignominy; but this will be most of all in the judgement: therefore, just as they will be in the same torment, so they ought to be judged in the same judgement.

**On the contrary:** 1. John, chapter sixteen[^p974-9]: *The prince of this world is already judged*; but God does not judge twice for the same thing: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, those alone will be judged against whom a sentence is pronounced; but a sentence will be given only against men, not against demons, as is plain from Matthew, chapter twenty-five[^p974-10]: *Go, ye cursed* etc.

3. Likewise, what is certain is not to be brought into doubt[^p974-11]; but it is certain that the demons are damned, since they have been cast down from the heavens: therefore they ought not to be judged any further.

4. Likewise, just as evil men await the judgement, so also do the good: therefore, if the demons await the judgement, by parity of reasoning so also do the holy Angels. But the holy Angels have their whole glory: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *The demons will be judged by a judgement of condemnation, but not of discussion.*

**I respond:** It must be said, the preceding distinction being presupposed[^p974-12], that the demons will be judged by a judgement of condemnation, but not of discussion. — Now the ground of the condemnation comes partly from the side of *the justice of God*, partly from the side of *the glory of Christ*, partly from the side of *merit*, and partly by reason of *the consummation of the punishment*. From the side of *the justice of God*: because, just as the universal judgement of men will take place so that God's justice may become clear and appear to all, so the judgement and condemnation of the angels ought to take place.

— From the side of *the glory of Christ*: because Christ triumphed over the devil and was judged by a member of the devil and at his suggestion; therefore he ought to receive judicial authority over him. — From the side of *merit*: because, since they were sharers in man's fault, they ought also to be sharers in the contumely and the punishment. — From the side of *the punishment to be consummated*: for just as all men await the judgement either for the consummation of glory or of punishment, so also the demons ought not to escape the judgement; so that, if anything of punishment is lacking to them, it may be fully supplied. Hence they will be wrapped up[^p975-1] together with the damned and will be imprisoned together, and by this they will be brought to the judgement and will be judged, as the reasons show.

*To 1, 2.* To that, then, which is objected, that he is already judged; it must be said that he is called *judged* because his power has in some way been taken away from him as regards the good, but not altogether. Therefore it is fitting that his judgement then be consummated, as was touched on earlier[^p975-2] concerning unbelievers.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that what is certain is not to be brought into doubt[^p975-3]; it must be said that it will not be brought into doubt, but that God will make what is certain to be more certain and will confirm it; nor is it only for making certain about the fault, but also for consummating the punishment.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the good Angels, it must be said that the good Angels will be judged by a judgement of *retribution*; for glory will be consummated in them at least as regards the *accidental reward*, and their ministry will cease[^p975-4]. And thus the whole is plain.

---

la: Vers. 28. Codd. omittunt *eum*. — Inferius verbo *iudicabitur* codd. E W praemittunt *princeps daemonum*, cod. U *princeps omnium*, cod. L *princeps*.

en: Verse 28. The codices omit *eum*. — Below, before the word *iudicabitur*, codices E and W prefix *princeps daemonum*, codex U *princeps omnium*, codex L *princeps*.

la: Vers. 3.

en: Verse 3.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.

en: See II Sentences, d. 6, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3.

la: Vers. 11. — In *minori* allegatur Nahum 1, 9; vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1.

en: Verse 11. — In the *minor* premise Nahum 1:9 is alleged; see above, the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1.

la: Vers. 41: Discedite a me maledicti etc. — Pro *fertur* codd. G P Q *feretur*.

en: Verse 41: "Depart from me, ye cursed," etc. — For *fertur* codices G, P, Q read *feretur*.

la: Cod. U *iudicium*. Pro *est afferendum* codd. I K *afferetur*, edd. *est vertendum*. — In *minori* respicitur Apoc. 12, 8. seq.

en: Codex U reads *iudicium*. For *est afferendum* codices I and K read *afferetur*, the editions *est vertendum*. — In the *minor* premise reference is made to Apocalypse 12:8 ff.

la: In quaest. praeced. — Codd., post *Dicendum* addito *quod*, hic repetunt *dicendum* (codd. P Q *dicitur*). Inferius pro *ratione consummationis* edd. *ex parte confirmationis* et *hominibus innotescat* pro *omnibus clarescat*.

en: In the preceding question. — The codices, having added *quod* after *Dicendum*, here repeat *dicendum* (codices P and Q *dicitur*). Below, for *ratione consummationis* the editions read *ex parte confirmationis*, and *hominibus innotescat* for *omnibus clarescat*.

la: Secundum Magistrum, infra d. L. c. 2, suppleri potest *tenebris exterioribus*, vel ut infra a. 2. q. 4. in corp. dicitur, *igne conflagrationis*. — Codd. F H K V Z bb (A I primitus) *unde si involventur*.

en: According to the Master, below at d. L, c. 2, one may supply "with the exterior darkness," or, as is said below in a. 2, q. 4, in the body, "with the fire of the conflagration." — Codices F, H, K, V, Z, bb (A and I originally) read *unde si involventur*.

la: Quaest. praeced. in fine.

en: The preceding question, at the end.

la: Cod. U *in iudicium vel dubium*. Inferius pro *confirmabit* codd. G I K P Q *consummabit*.

en: Codex U reads *in iudicium vel dubium*. Below, for *confirmabit* codices G, I, K, P, Q read *consummabit*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 11. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Compare II Sentences, d. 11, a. 2, q. 2 ff. — See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L103574–L103676, verified against the 450 dpi column bands `vol4-p974-{L,R}-{0,2}.png` and `vol4-p975-{L,R}-{0,2}.png`. No bands were regenerated (the pp. 968–981 set is pre-measured and correct). Printed pp. 974–975 = PDF pp. 994–995 (offset +20).

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p. 974** — footer notes 1–6 print in the left footer column, 7–12 in the right. This question's body anchors **notes 6–12** (Job 40:28; I Cor. 6:3; the *demereri et peccare* cross-reference; John 16:11; Matt. 25:41; the *afferendum in dubium* variant; the *priori distinctione supposita* back-reference). **Notes 1–5 belong to a. 1 q. 3**, whose tail occupies the top of p. 974's left column (verified on band `vol4-p974-L-0.png`: a1-q3's *parvuli … nec in igne cremabuntur* note 1, its Conclusio, and its Respondeo *iudicium dicitur tripliciter … sententiae definitione* note 2 all run above the QUAESTIO IV header, which begins low in the left column). Derived independently from the bands, not from a1-q3's account.
- **p. 975** — this question's body anchors **notes 1–4**. **Notes 5–9 are forwarded to a. 2 q. 1** (`ARTICULUS II. De igne conflagrationis`, raw L103677): note 5 = Gen. 2:2 with the Glossa *ordinaria* (Strabus/Lyranus, Augustine *De Gen. ad lit.* IV c. 12 n. 22, Bede); note 6 = Aristotle, "natura non facit per plura…" (tom. III p. 277 n. 1), with the cod. bb supplement *ignem, scil. elementarem*; note 7 = II Petr. 3:5 ff.; note 8 = *Cap. 16*, with the *praeteribit/peribit* and *mundanarum aquarum* variants; note 9 = II Petr. 3:10, Glossa from Bede, *ordinaria* in Strabus and Lyranus. Full texts are legible on `vol4-p975-{L,R}-2.png`.

**IA OCR footer dropout.** As warned, the raw drops the **entire p. 975 footer block** — the OCR jumps from the p. 974 footers straight to the p. 975 running head and body. All four p. 975 entries here were recovered from the bands.

**Band-vs-OCR resolutions** (resolved at band time, not parked as flags): p. 974 note 2 (a1-q3's) reads `c. 15. n. 2` and `tr. 43 … tr. 52`, not the raw's `c. 1-5` / `i3` / `32`; p. 974 note 3 (a1-q3's) reads `II. Cor. 5, 10`, not `6, 10`; p. 974 note 6 `omittunt eum` (raw `cum`); p. 974 note 8 `d. 6.` (raw `d. C.`); p. 974 note 11 `codd. I K` (raw `1 R`). On p. 975 the raw shows a stray marker after *dicendum, quod* in the reply to objections 1–2; the band shows **no footnote marker there**, so none was rendered.

**Marginalia stripped** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio quadruplex*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum* (×2).

**Seams.** Backward: opens cleanly at `Quarto quaeritur, utrum Angeli iudicabuntur. Et quod sic, videtur.`, continuous with a1-q3's close. Forward: closes at `Et sic patet totum.`, immediately before the `ARTICULUS II.` header at L103677.

**`[?]` flags.** None.


title: Dist. 47, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 975 -->

### Articulus II. *De igne conflagrationis.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de igne, qui praecedet faciem iudicis, per quem fiet conflagratio. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

*Primo* quaeritur de eius quidditate.

*Secundo*, de virtute.

*Tertio*, de extensione.

*Quarto*, de ordine ignis illius ad ea quae fient in iudicio.

### Quaestio I. *De quidditate ignis conflagratorii.*

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod ille ignis sit *elementum*:

1. Quia dicitur *Genesis* secundo[^p975-5]: *Requievit Deus die septimo ab omni opere*; Glossa et Sancti dicunt ibi, quod hoc intelligitur « quantum ad productionem novarum creaturarum »: ergo videtur, quod tunc non producat ignem novum.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia « natura non facit per plura quod potest facere per pauciora[^p975-6] », ergo multo fortius nec Deus; sed totum potest fieri per istum: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* ostenditur per simile: quia facta est purgatio mundi per aquam; et illa aqua non fuit de novo creata nec alterius naturae quam aqua, quae dicitur *elementum*[^p975-7]: ergo etc.

4. Item, Augustinus *de Civitate* vigesimo[^p975-8] dicit: « Figura huius mundi mundanorum ignium conflagratione peribit, sicut factum est aquarum inundatione diluvium »: ergo si ignis mundanus est ignis, qui est de mundi constitutione, et hic est ignis *elementum*; patet etc.

**Contra:**
1. Nihil se ipsum purgat; sed ignis *elementum* purgabitur illo igne et consumetur, sicut dicit Glossa *secundae Petri* tertio[^p975-9], quod « maximus ille ignis quatuor elementa consumet »: ergo etc.

<!-- page 976 -->

2. Item, iste ignis totum elementorum ambitum circuibit; sed ille ignis *elementum* habet particularem situm: non erit ergo ignis *elementum*.

3. Item, illius ignis erit *ascendere*, sicut dicit Glossa Bedae[^p976-1], quod « tantum ascendet, quantum aqua diluvii »; sed si esset ignis *elementum*, cum sphaera eius sit sursum, eius esset *descendere*: ergo etc.

4. Praeterea, esto quod descendat, aut aliquid subintrabit locum eius, aut nihil. Si aliquid, quaero: quid? Non est dare. Si nihil: ergo vacuum erit, ergo etc.

5. Item, cum finalis purgatio sit perfecta, videtur, quod non tantum debeat fieri per *elementum* unum, sed per omnia quae habent naturam purgandi: ergo si aqua habet purgandi naturam, videtur etc.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quare prima purgatio fuit per aquam, et secunda erit per ignem?

### Conclusio

> *Conflagratio haec fiet ab igne elementari, non de novo creato, sed multiplicato virtute Dei et undique congregato.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod ille ignis erit ignis *elementum*; nec mirum. Ignis enim modicus, apposito combustibili, augetur in infinitum se multiplicando[^p976-2]; sic etiam modo faceret ignis ille, nisi impediretur; sed si vigoraretur eius vis, sicut fiet in iudicio, totum poterit consumere et purgare, nec oportet novum ignem creare.

Sed quia videntur Sancti dicere, quod ignis ille non tantum *descendet*, sicut pluit Dominus super Sodomam[^p976-3], sed quia magis *ascendet*; ideo dicunt alii, quod erit alius ignis, non creatus, sed virtute corporum supercaelestium in inferioribus generatus; ex confractione enim et multiplicatione radiorum ad speculum concavum generatur ignis propter subtiliationem aëris circumstantis; similiter ad urinale plenum aqua. Et quamvis oporteat ad hoc, quod ignis per hunc modum generetur, fieri aggregationem radiorum; non oportet, speculis concavis mundum impleri, sed alio modo ad nubes concavas, sicut scit disponere divina providentia, poterit ignis in omnibus his inferioribus generari. — Quod hoc non sit possibile, vel etiam primum[^p976-4], non dico; sed stultum est hic aliquid fingere, sed Sanctorum auctoritatibus inniti oportet.

Et ipsi non aperte determinant, quis sit ille ignis; tamen excellens doctor Augustinus dicit, quod « fiet mundanorum ignium conflagratione, sicut factum est aquarum inundatione diluvium ». Ideo huic auctoritati innitendo dico, quod sicut in diluvio non sunt novae aquae creatae, sed eaedem ipsae multiplicatae sunt, et hoc operante[^p976-5] adiutorio superiorum corporum, per quae facta est elevatio vaporum; sic etiam credo, quod non solum ignis, qui est in sphaera sua, sed omnes ignes, et qui in terra et super terram et sub terra sunt, concurrent ad illam conflagrationem, sicut videtur velle Augustinus. Et bene concedo, quod virtus superiorum corporum concurret ad ignis multiplicationem et actionem. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes probantes, quod non creabitur novus ignis; sed ex eis non habetur, quod solum per ignem, qui est in sphaera sua, fiat.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod nihil purgat se ipsum; dicendum, quod habet instantiam in igne; hoc etiam habet instantiam in duobus corporibus, quorum ultimum per conflagrationem et confractionem purgatur.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod totum ambitum circuibit; dicendum, quod tunc ignis diffundetur et multiplicabitur et a sursum et deorsum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod descendet tunc; dicendum, quod *ascendet* respectu ignis, qui est in terra, et *descendet* respectu ignis, qui est super terram.

*Ad 4.* Quod obiicit, quod vacuum erit; dicendum, quod non descendet mutando locum, sed agendo[^p976-6] et immutando secundum virtutem.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare fit tunc per ignem tantum? dicendum, quod ratio est ex parte purgationis *hominum* a peccato et a parte purgationis *mundi*. Ex parte purgationis *hominum*, quia, sicut in principio ardor regnavit concupiscentiae, sic in senectute mundi frigus avaritiae; *refrigescet* enim *caritas multorum*[^p976-7]; et ideo, quia purgatio debet fieri per contrarium; sicut purgatio ardoris concupiscentiae facta est per aquam, sic purgatio frigoris malitiae et avaritiae fiet per ignem. — Alia ratio est ex parte purgationis *mundi*, quia illa fuit ad delendum hominem vetustum et novos homines procreandos; haec autem erit ad totum meliorandum et in meliorem faciem commutandum; et quia ignis urit et subtiliat, aqua non: ideo haec in igne erit[^p976-8], diluvium vero non in igne fuit, sed in aqua.

<!-- page 977 -->

> **Note on the apparatus numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so this chunk carries two independent sequences: notes 5–9 of page 975 and notes 1–8 of page 976. Page 975's notes 1–4 belong to the preceding question (a. 1, q. 4) and are rendered there. The labels below are page-qualified to keep the two sequences distinct.

english:
<!-- page 975 -->

### Article II. *On the fire of the conflagration.*

Next, as regards the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the fire which will precede the face of the Judge, through which the conflagration will come about. And concerning this four things are asked.

*First*, inquiry is made concerning its quiddity.

*Second*, concerning its power.

*Third*, concerning its extension.

*Fourth*, concerning the order of that fire to the things which will be done in the judgement.

### Question I. *On the quiddity of the fire of the conflagration.*

As regards the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that that fire is the *element*:

1. Because it is said in *Genesis* the second[^p975-5]: *God rested on the seventh day from every work*; and the Gloss and the Saints say there that this is understood « as regards the production of new creatures »: therefore it seems that He does not then produce a new fire.

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because « nature does not do through many things what it can do through fewer[^p975-6] », therefore much more neither does God; but the whole can come about through this one: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it is shown *by reason* through a similitude: because the purgation of the world was made through water; and that water was not created anew, nor of another nature than the water which is called the *element*[^p975-7]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Augustine in the twentieth book *of the City*[^p975-8] says: « The figure of this world will perish by the conflagration of mundane fires, just as the deluge came about by the inundation of waters »: therefore, if the mundane fire is the fire which belongs to the constitution of the world, then this is also the fire that is the *element*; it is plain, etc.

**Contra:**
1. Nothing purges itself; but the fire that is the *element* will be purged by that fire and consumed, as the Gloss on *the second of Peter*, the third chapter[^p975-9], says, that « that greatest fire will consume the four elements »: therefore etc.

<!-- page 976 -->

2. Likewise, this fire will encircle the whole compass of the elements; but that fire which is the *element* has a particular situation: therefore it will not be the fire that is the *element*.

3. Likewise, it will belong to that fire *to ascend*, as the Gloss of Bede says[^p976-1], that « it will ascend as far as the water of the deluge did »; but if it were the fire that is the *element*, since its sphere is above, it would belong to it *to descend*: therefore etc.

4. Furthermore, granted that it descends, either something will enter into its place, or nothing. If something, I ask: what? There is nothing to assign. If nothing: then there will be a vacuum, therefore etc.

5. Likewise, since the final purgation is a perfect one, it seems that it ought to be made not only through one *element*, but through all those which have the nature of purging: therefore, if water has the nature of purging, it seems etc.

Alongside this it is asked: why was the first purgation through water, and the second will be through fire?

### Conclusion

> *This conflagration will come about from elemental fire, not newly created, but multiplied by the power of God and gathered together from every side.*

**I respond:** It must be said that some have wished to say that that fire will be the fire that is the *element*; nor is this surprising. For a small fire, when combustible material is placed near it, is increased infinitely by multiplying itself[^p976-2]; so also would that fire do even now, were it not impeded; but if its force were invigorated, as will happen at the judgement, it would be able to consume and purge the whole, and there is no need to create a new fire.

But because the Saints seem to say that that fire will not only *descend*, as the Lord rained upon Sodom[^p976-3], but rather that it will *ascend*; therefore others say that it will be another fire, not created, but generated in lower things by the power of the supercelestial bodies. For from the breaking and the multiplication of rays at a concave mirror fire is generated on account of the rarefaction of the surrounding air; likewise at a urinal flask full of water. And although, for fire to be generated in this way, an aggregation of rays must come about, it is not necessary that the world be filled with concave mirrors, but in another way, at concave clouds — as divine providence knows how to dispose — fire will be able to be generated in all these lower things. — That this is not possible, or even the first opinion[^p976-4], I do not say; but it is foolish to feign anything here, and one must rather rely on the authorities of the Saints.

And they themselves do not openly determine which fire it is; yet the excellent doctor Augustine says that « it will come about by the conflagration of mundane fires, just as the deluge came about by the inundation of waters ». Therefore, relying on this authority, I say that, just as in the deluge no new waters were created, but those same waters were multiplied — and this by the working[^p976-5] aid of the higher bodies, through which the raising of vapours was made — so also I believe that not only the fire which is in its own sphere, but all fires, both those which are in the earth and upon the earth and under the earth, will concur in that conflagration, as Augustine seems to hold. And I readily concede that the power of the higher bodies will concur in the multiplication and the action of the fire. — The arguments proving that a new fire will not be created are therefore to be conceded; but from them it is not had that it comes about only through the fire which is in its own sphere.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* To that which is objected on the contrary, that nothing purges itself; it must be said that there is an instance to the contrary in fire; and this also has an instance in two bodies, of which the latter is purged through conflagration and breaking.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that it will encircle the whole compass; it must be said that then the fire will be diffused and multiplied both from above and from below.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it will then descend; it must be said that it will *ascend* with respect to the fire which is in the earth, and will *descend* with respect to the fire which is above the earth.

*To 4.* As to the objection that there will be a vacuum; it must be said that it will not descend by changing place, but by acting[^p976-6] and by altering according to power.

*To 5.* To that which is asked: why does it then come about through fire alone? it must be said that the reason is on the side of the purgation of *men* from sin and on the side of the purgation of the *world*. On the side of the purgation of *men*, because, just as in the beginning the ardour of concupiscence reigned, so in the old age of the world the coldness of avarice does; for *the charity of many shall grow cold*[^p976-7]; and therefore, since purgation ought to be made through the contrary, just as the purgation of the ardour of concupiscence was made through water, so the purgation of the coldness of malice and avarice will be made through fire. — The other reason is on the side of the purgation of the *world*, because that one was for destroying the old man and for procreating new men; but this one will be for bettering the whole and for changing it into a better appearance; and because fire burns and rarefies, whereas water does not, therefore this one will be in fire[^p976-8], whereas the deluge was not in fire, but in water.

<!-- page 977 -->

la: Vers. 2: *Et requievit die septimo ab universo opere* etc. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, est secundum August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 22, et Bedam, I. Hexaëm., qui etiam ab ipsa Glossa allegantur. Cfr. Beda, Comment. in Gen. 2, 2, et de Sex Dierum creatione (inter opera Bedae), c. *de Die septima* (in recapitulatione sex dierum).

en: Verse 2: *And he rested on the seventh day from all his work*, etc. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra, follows Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* IV, c. 12, n. 22, and Bede, *Hexaemeron* I, who are also cited by the Gloss itself. Cf. Bede, *Commentary on Genesis* 2, 2, and *On the Creation of the Six Days* (among the works of Bede), the chapter *On the Seventh Day* (in the recapitulation of the six days).

la: Secundum Aristot.; cfr. tom. III. pag. 277, nota 1. Vide etiam supra pag. 11, nota 2. et pag. 151, nota 6. — Circa finem arg. post *per istum* in cod. bb secunda manus supplevit *ignem*, scil. elementarem.

en: According to Aristotle; cf. vol. III, p. 277, note 1. See also above, p. 11, note 2, and p. 151, note 6. — Near the end of the argument, after *per istum*, a second hand in codex bb supplied *ignem*, namely the elemental fire.

la: Cfr. II. Petr. 3, 5. seqq.

en: Cf. 2 Peter 3, 5 ff.

la: Cap. 16. Textus originalis substituit *praeteribit* pro *peribit*, et voci *aquarum* praemittit *mundanarum*.

en: Chapter 16. The original text substitutes *praeteribit* (will pass away) for *peribit* (will perish), and prefixes *mundanarum* to the word *aquarum*.

la: Vers. 10. Glossa sumta ex Beda (in hunc loc.) est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 10. The Gloss, taken from Bede (on this passage), is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra.

la: In II. Petr. 3, 10. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — De *sphaera* ignis vide tom. II. pag. 321, nota 4. verba Averrois.

en: On 2 Peter 3, 10. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — On the *sphere* of fire see vol. II, p. 321, note 4, the words of Averroes.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 41. (c. 4.): *Ignis enim augmentum in infinitum abit, quousque fuerit combustibile.* — Immediate post pro *sic* [codd. M X *sicut*, codd. S U *et*] *etiam modo* edd. *ergo etiam taliter*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 41 (c. 4): *For the increase of fire goes on to infinity, so long as there is something combustible.* — Immediately after, for *sic* [codices M X *sicut*, codices S U *et*] *etiam modo*, the editions read *ergo etiam taliter*.

la: Gen. 19, 24. — Vat. superius post *non tantum* addit *ascendet, sed magis*, et hic omittit *sed quia magis ascendet*. Inferius pro *confractione* cod. aa *reflectione*.

en: Genesis 19, 24. — The Vatican edition above, after *non tantum*, adds *ascendet, sed magis*, and here omits *sed quia magis ascendet*. Below, for *confractione*, codex aa reads *reflectione*.

la: Cod. S *falsum*. In cod. P secunda manus in margine negat similitudinem inter *speculum* et *nubes*, quia speculum impenetrabile, nubes non.

en: Codex S reads *falsum*. In codex P a second hand in the margin denies the likeness between the *mirror* and the *clouds*, because a mirror is impenetrable, whereas clouds are not.

la: Codd. O R S (L a secunda manu) *operatione et*, codd. U X *opere et*. Aliquanto inferius pro *velle* codd. G aa *dicere*.

en: Codices O R S (L by a second hand) read *operatione et*; codices U X, *opere et*. Somewhat further below, for *velle*, codices G aa read *dicere*.

la: Edd. et aliqui codd. *augendo*.

en: The editions and some codices read *augendo* (by increasing).

en: Matthew 24, 12.

la: Cfr. August., XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 16, ubi docet, ignem illum consumere qualitates elementorum corruptibilium, quae corporibus nostris corruptibilibus congruunt, atque ipsam substantiam tunc habere eas qualitates, quae corporibus immortalibus mirabili commutatione conveniunt, « ut scilicet mundus in melius innovatus apte accommodetur hominibus etiam carne in melius innovatis ». Cfr. ibid. c. 18. — Superius pro *mundi* codd. et ed. 1 *hominis*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the City of God* XX, c. 16, where he teaches that that fire consumes the qualities of the corruptible elements which are suited to our corruptible bodies, and that the substance itself will then have those qualities which by a wondrous transmutation befit immortal bodies, « so that, namely, the world, renewed for the better, may be fittingly accommodated to men who are also renewed for the better in the flesh ». Cf. ibid. c. 18. — Above, for *mundi*, the codices and the first edition read *hominis*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Innixi pluribus s. Scripturae textibus et perpetua Patrum traditione, omnes Scholastici tenent, mundum hunc fore conflagrandum, purgandum et innovandum per ignem, et quidem per ignem non *metaphoricum* (ut pauci dixerunt), sed *realem*, immo probabiliter eiusdem speciei cum nostro igne. Praeter quaestiones a S. Bonav. solutas a magistris cum S. Thoma aliae plures de origine, effectibus et extensione huius ignis positae et secundum quandam probabilitatem, sed non ab omnibus eodem modo, solutae sunt. Unde Scot. hic breviter et sobrie potius de hoc quod fieri *possit*, quam de *facto* determinando inquirit. — Mirum videri nemini debet, quod Scholastici in his quaestionibus solvendis applicaverunt principia ad physicam et astronomicam scientiam spectantia, qualia communiter illa aetate recepta erant; attamen plura horum nunc, disciplinis experimentalibus non parum mutatis, obsoleta sunt. — Communius cum S. Thoma schola docebat, conflagrationem purgativam non ascensuram ultra regionem terrae vicinam, nec consumturam esse quatuor elementa illa aetate recepta quoad *substantiam* et *qualitates eorum proprias*.

De 1. 2. et 3. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 74. a. 1-6. — B. Albert., hic a. 6-10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1-3. — De toto art. Durand., hic q. 3; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

**II.** In 4. quaestione solvenda etiam S. Thom. (locis citt. a. 3, et Suppl. a. 7-9.) distinguit conflagrationis *initium* et aliquem *actum subsequentem*, sed aliter quoad ipsos eiusdem effectus ac S. Bonav. Dicit enim, « quod ista conflagratio quoad *purgationem mundi iudicium praecedet*; sed quoad aliquem actum, qui scilicet est involvere malos, iudicium sequetur ». Et de loco Augustini, cui innititur S. Bonav., dicit, quod ille « non loquitur determinando, sed opinando » (ibid. ad 1.). Huic opinioni favent B. Albert., Richard. a Med., Durand. multique posteriores.

De 4. quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 11. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Relying on many texts of Holy Scripture and on the perpetual tradition of the Fathers, all the Scholastics hold that this world is to be burnt up, purged, and renewed through fire, and indeed through a fire that is not *metaphorical* (as a few have said), but *real* — nay, probably of the same species as our fire. Besides the questions solved by St. Bonaventure, several others concerning the origin, the effects, and the extension of this fire were posed by the masters together with St. Thomas, and were solved according to a certain probability, though not by all in the same way. Hence Scotus here briefly and soberly inquires rather into what *can* come about than into determining the *fact*. — It ought to seem surprising to no one that the Scholastics, in solving these questions, applied principles pertaining to physical and astronomical science such as were commonly received in that age; yet many of these are now obsolete, the experimental disciplines having been not a little changed. — More commonly, with St. Thomas, the school taught that the purgative conflagration would not ascend beyond the region neighbouring the earth, and would not consume the four elements as they were received in that age as regards their *substance* and their *proper qualities*.

On the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd questions: Scotus, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 74. a. 1-6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6-10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 1-3. — On the whole article: Durandus, here q. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

**II.** In solving the 4th question St. Thomas also (in the places cited, a. 3, and Suppl. a. 7-9) distinguishes the *beginning* of the conflagration and some *subsequent act*, but otherwise than St. Bonaventure as regards the effects of that same conflagration. For he says « that this conflagration, as regards the *purgation of the world, will precede the judgement*; but as regards a certain act, namely that of enveloping the wicked, it will follow the judgement ». And concerning the passage of Augustine on which St. Bonaventure relies, he says that he « does not speak by way of determining, but by way of opining » (ibid. ad 1). This opinion is favoured by Bl. Albert, Richard of Middleton, Durandus, and many later writers.

On the 4th question, besides those already praised: Bl. Albert, here a. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L103677–L103925, verified throughout against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{975,976,977}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (no bands regenerated; the pre-measured gutters read cleanly). All three page footers were read directly from the bands, per the standing warning that the IA djvu OCR drops whole footer blocks in this distinction.

**Article II opener.** This chunk folds the `ARTICULUS 11.` opener (OCR-garbled Roman numeral; title *De igne conflagrationis*) and its four-question listing (quidditas / virtus / extensio / ordo), per the locked convention that a short article opener goes into that article's q. 1. The d. 47 TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM does not list Article II's questions, so this listing is the only place Article II's structure appears; it is rendered in full.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p. 975** — 9 numbered footer notes. Notes 1–4 anchor in the preceding chunk (`a1-q4`): note 1 to *involventur*, note 2 (*Quaest. praeced. in fine*) and note 3 (*Cod. U in iudicium vel dubium … confirmabit*) to that question's replies, and note 4 (*Cfr. II. Sent. d. XI. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) to *cessabit ministerium*. **Notes 5–9 are claimed here** (args. 1–4 and Contra 1). Derived independently from the band read of p975-L-2 / p975-R-2.
- **p. 976** — 8 numbered footer notes, **all 8 claimed here**; the whole printed page is inside this chunk.
- **p. 977** — the footer opens with the *unnumbered* run-over of p. 976 note 8 (*corporibus nostris corruptibilibus congruunt … codd. et ed. 1 hominis*), which is folded into this chunk's `p976-8` entry. Page 977's own numbered notes 1 and 2 anchor in `a2-q2` and are **not** claimed here.
- Total: **13 apparatus entries** (p975-5…9, p976-1…8).

**Note-ordering.** Page 975's body markers run 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in reading order and page 976's run 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; no column-order/reading-order inversion occurs on either page, so anchors were bound by content and the sequences happen to coincide.

**Seams.** *Backward* — the chunk opens at a clean structural boundary (`ARTICULUS II.`) immediately after `a1-q4`'s closing *Et sic patet totum.*; nothing is spliced. *Forward* — the chunk closes with the last line of the Scholion (*Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4.*), immediately before `QUAESTIO II.` at L103926; the sentence parses and no cascade-merge signature is present. The scholion serves the whole of Article II and is placed last in both the `## Latin` and `## English` blocks, per the parser requirement.

**OCR resolutions (resolved at band time, not parked as flags).**
- Raw right column of p. 976 read *sed ex eis **sots** non habetur*; the band (p976-R-1) reads plainly *sed ex eis non habetur*. The stray *sots* is OCR noise and was dropped.
- Raw read footer p976-5 as *Codd. R S (L a secunda manu)*; the band reads *Codd. **O** R S (L a secunda manu)*. Band followed.
- Raw fragment *refrigescet enim caritas mu/to?'UJi2* resolved from the band to *refrigescet enim caritas multorum* (Matth. 24, 12).
- Garbled headers `ARTICULUS 11.` and `SCHOLION.`-region fragments restored as headers, not folded into the body.
- Marginal editorial glosses (*Quaestio incidens.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Non probatur.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Sol. positorum.*, *Nota.*, *Ad quaestionem incidentem.*, *Duplex ratio.*, *Prima.*, *Secunda.*) were trimmed as page furniture.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every disputed reading in this range was legible on the bands and resolved above.

**Unmapped material found:** none. The Article II opener, Quaestio I, and the Scholion all fall inside existing chunk files.


title: Dist. 47, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 977 -->

### Articulus II. *De igne conflagrationis.*
### Quaestio II. *De virtute huius ignis, utrum sit naturalis, an supra naturam.*

> **On the footnote numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote sequence on every printed page. This chunk spans two printed pages, so the apparatus below is labelled by page: notes 1–5 of page 977 and notes 1–5 of page 978. Notes 6–11 of page 978 are anchored in the following question (a. 2, q. 3, *De extensione illius ignis*) and are rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum virtus illius ignis sit naturalis, vel supra naturam. Et quod sit naturalis, videtur:

1. Quia, sicut aqua inundans naturaliter delevit omnia, sic ignis consumet omnia; sed virtus illius aquae fuit naturalis: ergo et huius ignis.

2. Item, ignis per naturam natus est multiplicare et purgare et subtiliare, ut patet: ergo si talis erit virtus illius ignis, patet etc.

3. Item, si detur ei virtus supra naturam, aut est *spiritualis*, aut *corporalis*. Non *spiritualis*, ut videtur, quia virtus spiritualis non debet esse in corporali subiecto[^p977-1], et Deus nihil facit per miraculum, quod non sit congruum. Si *corporalis*, quaeritur: quare illam modo non habet?

**Contra:**
1. Effectus iste, qui dicitur mundi conflagratio et terminatio, est supra naturam: ergo virtus, a qua est, est supra naturam.

2. Item, si fiat per ignem, qui est naturale elementum, necesse est, illum descendere[^p977-2]; sed ignis naturaliter ascendit: ergo quod descendat, est per virtutem supra naturam.

3. Item, ignis ille habebit virtutem meliorandi corpora mundi[^p977-3]; sed hoc non potest ignis iste: ergo etc. *Si dicas*, quod immo potest subtiliando; *contra:* ubi est subtiliatio, et rarefactio; ubi rarefactio, de necessitate est maioris loci occupatio: ergo si ignis ille cetera elementa rarefaciet, necessario oportebit, maiorem locum occupari: ergo oportebit firmamentum cedere, vel frangi.

### Conclusio

> *Ignis conflagrationis quoad initium et consummationem aget virtute supernaturali, sed quoad progressum virtute naturali.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui fuerunt, qui dixerunt, quod ignis conflagratio[^p977-4] agit *virtute naturali*, et quod aquarum inundatio fuit virtute naturali. Potuerunt enim corpora habentia effectum super humidum concurrere sic in unum signum, ut tanta fieret vaporum elevatio et multiplicatio humorum; sic dicunt, quod sidera habentia virtutem inflammandi et corpora recipientia impressionem cursu naturali concurrere poterunt, ut tantus ignis aggregetur, qui totum consumat, totum purget et subtiliet et in meliorem faciem restituat. — Sed haec positio temeritatis est, illud quod omnino a divina providentia et in sola Dei voluntate determinatum est, quae respicit numerum electorum et merita personarum, ponere[^p977-5] in cursibus siderum.

<!-- page 978 -->

Ideo est secunda positio, quod est *omnino a virtute supra naturam*; et in Dei miraculis non est quaerenda ratio naturalis. — Et haec positio stolida est. Quare enim per ignem magis fit quam per aliud corpus, nisi sit virtus in igne, quae illi congruat[^p978-1] operationi?

Et ideo via *media* est eligenda, et ponendum est, quod est loqui de ignium conflagratione quantum ad *inchoationem*, *progressum* et *consummationem*. Quantum ad *inchoationem*, dicendum, quod a *virtute supra naturam* est. Quod enim ignis sic agat novo et insolito modo, cetera consumendo et sic se multiplicando, hoc non esset, nisi aliqua virtus nova assisteret; quae autem sit illa, ipse Dominus novit. — Quantum autem ad *progressum*, qui est purgare, urere, subtiliare, dicendum, quod est a *virtute naturali*. — Quantum ad *consummationem*, ut purgata sint incorruptibilia, ipsorum qualitates mutare[^p978-2], hoc est *supra naturam*. — Rationes igitur probantes, quod sit secundum naturam, procedunt via media, sicut patet quantum ad actum combustionis, purgationis et subtiliationis.

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod sit supra naturam; verum est quantum ad *inchoationem*, ut probat prima ratio; et quantum ad *consummationem*, ut sequens[^p978-3]. Intelligendum tamen propter rationem, quod in agendo et multiplicando naturaliter ignis descendit, ubi habet materiam praeparatam; exemplum patet, si candela exstincta supponatur accensae.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non erit subtiliatio; dicendum, quod *subtiliatio* dicitur dupliciter: aut per *dilatationem* et *rarefactionem*, et tunc corpus subtiliatum occupat maiorem locum; aut per *depurationem* et *separationem* puri ab impuro, et hanc subtiliationem facit ignis, quando res purganda includitur in vase forti; quemadmodum faciunt opifices alchimiae, qui dicunt, quod totum potest ibi subtiliari et depurari, ut veniat ad naturam quinti corporis[^p978-4]; et tunc faex tendit ad fundum, et subtile supernatat. Per hunc modum in proposito erit, quia caelum erit vas contentivum elementorum; et ideo depurabuntur, et faex elementorum ibit in infernum[^p978-5].

---

english:
### Article II. *On the fire of the conflagration.*
### Question II. *On the power of this fire, whether it is natural or above nature.*

Secondly it is asked whether the power of that fire is natural, or above nature. And that it is natural, it seems:

1. Because, just as the flooding water naturally destroyed all things, so fire will consume all things; but the power of that water was natural: therefore also that of this fire.

2. Likewise, fire is by nature apt to multiply and to purge and to make subtle, as is evident: therefore if such will be the power of that fire, it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, if a power above nature be granted to it, it is either *spiritual* or *corporeal*. Not *spiritual*, as it seems, because a spiritual power ought not to be in a corporeal subject[^p977-1], and God does nothing by miracle that is not fitting. If *corporeal*, it is asked: why does it not have it now?

**Contra:**
1. That effect which is called the conflagration and the ending of the world is above nature: therefore the power from which it comes is above nature.

2. Likewise, if it comes about through fire, which is a natural element, it is necessary that it descend[^p977-2]; but fire naturally ascends: therefore that it should descend is through a power above nature.

3. Likewise, that fire will have the power of bettering the bodies of the world[^p977-3]; but this fire cannot do this: therefore etc. *If you say* that on the contrary it can, by making subtle; *on the contrary:* where there is subtilization, there is also rarefaction; where there is rarefaction, of necessity there is the occupation of a greater place: therefore if that fire will rarefy the other elements, it will necessarily be required that a greater place be occupied: therefore it will be required that the firmament give way, or be broken.

### Conclusio

> *The fire of the conflagration, as to its beginning and its consummation, will act by a supernatural power; but as to its progress, by a natural power.*

**Respondeo:** It must be said that there were some who said that the fire of the conflagration[^p977-4] acts *by a natural power*, and that the flooding of the waters was by a natural power. For bodies having an effect upon the moist were able to come together in one sign in such a way that so great an elevation of vapours and multiplication of humours came about; so they say that the stars having the power of inflaming, and bodies receiving that impression, will be able to come together by a natural course, so that so great a fire is gathered as may consume the whole, purge the whole and make it subtle and restore it to a better appearance. — But this position is one of rashness: to place[^p977-5] in the courses of the stars that which is determined altogether by divine providence and in the will of God alone, which regards the number of the elect and the merits of persons.

<!-- page 978 -->

Therefore there is a second position: that it is *altogether from a power above nature*; and in God's miracles a natural reason is not to be sought. — And this position is foolish. For why does it come about through fire rather than through another body, unless there be a power in fire which is suited[^p978-1] to that operation?

And therefore the *middle* way is to be chosen, and it must be laid down that one may speak of the conflagration of the fires as to its *inception*, its *progress* and its *consummation*. As to the *inception*, it must be said that it is from a *power above nature*. For that fire should act in a new and unaccustomed way, consuming the rest and so multiplying itself, this would not be unless some new power assisted it; but what that power is, the Lord Himself knows. — But as to the *progress*, which is to purge, to burn, to make subtle, it must be said that it is from a *natural power*. — As to the *consummation*, that the purged things be incorruptible, to change their qualities[^p978-2], this is *above nature*. — The reasons, therefore, proving that it is according to nature proceed by the middle way, as is evident with respect to the act of burning, of purging and of making subtle.

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected on the contrary, that it is above nature: it is true as to the *inception*, as the first reason proves; and as to the *consummation*, as the following one[^p978-3]. It must nevertheless be understood, on account of the reason, that in acting and multiplying fire naturally descends where it has matter prepared for it; the example is evident, if an extinguished candle be placed beneath a lighted one.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that there will be no subtilization; it must be said that *subtilization* is spoken of in two ways: either by *dilation* and *rarefaction*, and then the subtilized body occupies a greater place; or by *purification* and the *separation* of the pure from the impure, and this subtilization fire brings about when the thing to be purged is enclosed in a strong vessel; just as the craftsmen of alchemy do, who say that the whole can there be made subtle and purified, so that it comes to the nature of a fifth body[^p978-4]; and then the dregs sink to the bottom, and the subtle part floats above. In this manner it will be in the case proposed, because the heaven will be the vessel containing the elements; and therefore they will be purified, and the dregs of the elements will go into hell[^p978-5].

---

la: Cfr. supra pag. 21, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 21, note 1.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. arg. 3. ad oppos.

en: See the preceding question, argument 3 for the opposite side.

la: Cfr. II. Petr. 3, 12. seq. — Mox voci *ignis* edd. praemittunt *naturalis*, et subinde omittunt *ubi rarefactio*. In fine arg. pro *cedere* Vat. *cadere*.

en: Cf. II Peter 3:12 ff. — Shortly after, the editions prefix *naturalis* to the word *ignis*, and thereupon omit *ubi rarefactio*. At the end of the argument, for *cedere* the Vatican edition reads *cadere*.

la: Edd. *conflagrationis*, et *agat* pro *agit* (codd. D G U *aget*).

en: The editions read *conflagrationis*, and *agat* for *agit* (codices D G U, *aget*).

la: Edd. legunt: *Sed haec positio est temeritatis, quia omnia quae a divina providentia fiunt et in sola Dei voluntate consistunt, quae respicit... ponit et determinat consistere.*

en: The editions read: *But this position is one of rashness, because all things which come about from divine providence and consist in the will of God alone, which regards... it posits and determines to consist.*

la: Edd. *quae magis illi congruebat*.

en: The editions read *quae magis illi congruebat* ("which was more suited to it").

la: Vide supra pag. 976, nota 8. — Pro *mutare* legunt codd. E R S T U bb, *mutatae*. Mox pro *quod sit* non pauci codd. *quod sunt*.

en: See above, p. 976, note 8. — For *mutare* codices E R S T U bb read *mutatae*. Shortly after, for *quod sit* not a few codices read *quod sunt*.

la: Scil. prima pars 3. arg. — Mox Vat. *secundam rationem*. Post *multiplicando* cod. K (1a secunda manu) supplet *se*.

en: That is, the first part of the third argument. — Shortly after, the Vatican edition reads *secundam rationem*. After *multiplicando* codex K (1, by a second hand) supplies *se*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 926, nota 4. — Pro *totum potest ibi* cod. K (1a secunda manu) bene *tantum* (ita etiam codd. G P) *potest quid*. Aliquanto superius pro *et separationem* edd. *quae per fit separationem*.

en: Cf. above, p. 926, note 4. — For *totum potest ibi* codex K (1, by a second hand) rightly reads *tantum* (so also codices G P) *potest quid*. Somewhat above, for *et separationem* the editions read *quae per fit separationem*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR, raw lines 103926–104050 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, with every column verified against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p977-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p978-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. No bands were regenerated; the supplied bands read cleanly at both edges. English translated literally against the corrected Latin.

**Printed-page layout.** p. 977: Article II's SCHOLION occupies the top of both columns (it belongs to a2-q1); the QUAESTIO II header and title sit beneath it, spanning the page, and the whole of the remaining page (L col. from *Secundo quaeritur* through *ubi rarefa-*, R col. from *-ctio* through *ponere in cursibus siderum*) is this chunk's. p. 978: this chunk holds the **upper** portion of both columns — L col. from *Ideo est secunda positio* through *combustionis, purgationis et subtiliationis*, R col. from *1. 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur* through *faex elementorum ibit in infernum*. The `QUAESTIO III` header (OCR-garbled `QUAESTIO ni.`) then spans the page mid-way down, and everything below it in **both** columns belongs to a2-q3.

**Apparatus page-split map.**
- **p. 977** — footer notes **1–5, all claimed here**. L-column footer holds an unnumbered continuation paragraph (*corporibus nostris corruptibilibus congruunt … codd. et ed. 1 hominis*) that is the tail of a note belonging to Article II's scholion, i.e. to **a2-q1** — not claimed here — followed by notes 1 and 2; the R-column footer holds notes 3, 4, 5. Anchors: 1 → *in corporali subiecto*; 2 → *illum descendere*; 3 → *corpora mundi*; 4 → *ignis conflagratio*; 5 → *ponere*. This split was derived independently from the bands, not from a2-q1's account.
- **p. 978** — footer notes **1–5 claimed here; notes 6–11 forwarded to a2-q3**. Anchors: 1 → *quae illi congruat*; 2 → *ipsorum qualitates mutare*; 3 → *ut sequens*; 4 → *ad naturam quinti corporis*; 5 → *ibit in infernum*. Note 6 (Vers. 8 — Glossa/Haymo, *Ignis praecedet cum Dominum…*, plus its continuation *Superius post extensione cod. S addit…* at the head of the R-column footer) anchors in a2-q3's first argument, as do notes 7–11 (Beda; *habitaculum daemonum*; Gen. 7, 20; Vers. 12; Epist. II Petr. 3, 10).

**Hand-offs.** *Picked up:* none — a2-q1's material on p. 977 is confined to the scholion above the QUAESTIO II header, and its shared-page footer share is the unnumbered scholion-note continuation only. *Forwarded to a2-q3:* p. 978 footer notes 6–11, together with the body from the `QUAESTIO III` header (*Tertio quaeritur de illius ignis extensione*) onward in both columns of p. 978.

**Seam integrity.** Opening sentence (*Secundo quaeritur, utrum virtus illius ignis sit naturalis, vel supra naturam*) matches the band exactly and follows the QUAESTIO II header cleanly. Closing sentence (*…et faex elementorum ibit in infernum*) parses and is confirmed on the band as the last line before the QUAESTIO III rule; the chunk does not bleed into q3's *De extensione illius ignis*.

**OCR corrections made at band time** (raw → printed, all legible, none parked as flags): `consuraet` → *consumet*; `inultiplicare` → *multiplicare*; `subliliare`/`subtiliare` normalized; `ntpatet` → *ut patet*; `naluram` → *naturam*; `virlus` → *virtus*; `Ilem` → *Item*; `spirilualis` → *spiritualis*; `operalioni` → *operationi*; `depura.tioneni` → *depurationem*; `Qiiod` → *Quod*; `fnerunt` → *fuerunt*; `iiabentia` → *habentia*; `facieiu` → *faciem*; `restitual` → *restituat*; `subliliatio` → *subtiliatio*; `caelum`/`caelo` normalized. Two raw-vs-band divergences resolved on the band: the Conclusio reads **aget** (not *agit*) *virtute supernaturali*, and the marginal editorial glosses the OCR bled inline (*Opinio 1/2/3*, *Improbatur*, *Non probatur*, *Conclusio 1/2/3*, *Ad fundam.*, *Solutio positionis*, *Duplex subtiliatio*) are Quaracchi marginalia and have been trimmed per the corpus convention.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Nothing unmapped was found beyond the already-known a2-q3 boundary.