title: Dist. 48, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 989 -->

### Articulus II. *De innovatione corporum superiorum.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de renovatione corporum superiorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum corpora supercaelestia remunerabuntur.

Secundo, utrum quietabuntur.

Tertio, utrum innovabuntur elementa.

Quarto, utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum corpora supercaelestia remunerabuntur.*

> Numeratio Quaracchiana notarum in singulis paginis impressis iterum incipit. Ideo notae infra scriptae paginis suis adscribuntur: notae 6–8 paginae 989, notae 1–8 paginae 990. Paginae 991 notae ad quaestionem sequentem pertinent.

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et ostenditur, quod corpora supercaelestia remunerabuntur.

1. Isaiae trigesimo[^p989-6] habetur ex textu et Glossa: *Erit lux lunae sicut lux solis, et lux solis sicut lux septem dierum,* et Glossa ibi dicit, id est, «sol et luna praemium sui laboris percipient».

2. Item, hoc videtur *ratione:* quia pronior est Deus ad praemiandum quam ad puniendum; sed «corporum supercaelestium, homine peccante, lux est diminuta», sicut dicit ibi[^p989-7] Glossa: ergo homine glorificato debet augeri.

3. Item, ordo est in universo convenientissimus: ergo uno meliorato, quod est de perfectione universi, necesse est, cetera meliorari, quae sunt de eius constitutione[^p989-8]; sed corpora supercaelestia sunt de constitutione universi: ergo aut ordo corrumpitur, aut si homo nobilitatur, necesse est, illa magis nobilitari.

<!-- page 990 -->

4. Item, habitatio debet congruere habitatori: ergo si homo, propter quem factus est mundus, est nobilior factus; ergo et totus mundus: ergo et corpora mundi nobilissima.

**Contra:** 1. Nihil quod perit, remunerabitur; sed caeli peribunt: ergo corpora supercaelestia non remunerabuntur. *Minor* patet ex Psalmo et ad Hebraeos primo[^p990-1]: *Et: tu in principio* etc.; et post: *Ipsi peribunt.*

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia nihil praemiatur, nisi quod meretur, et nihil meretur, nisi quod voluntarie servit, et nihil voluntarie servit, nisi quod habet liberum arbitrium[^p990-2]; talia autem non sunt corpora supercaelestia: ergo etc.

3. Item, dupliciter contingit mereri ex opere: aut quia *factum ex caritate,* aut quia *laboriosum;* per opus enim laboriosum meretur quis *de congruo;* sed corpora supercaelestia non faciunt quidquam ex caritate nec moventur cum labore, quia dicit Philosophus[^p990-3], quod «moventur sine labore et poena»: ergo etc.

4. Item, cum duplex sit corporum superiorum proprietas, scilicet calor et lux, et serviant nobis quantum ad utramque: ergo remunerari debent quantum ad utramque: ergo cum non remuneretur sol in calore, nec luna in frigiditate[^p990-4]: ergo nec debent remunerari in maiori lumine.

### Conclusio

> *Corpora caelestia aliquo modo praemiabuntur in augmento lucis et splendoris, quatenus homo praemiatur in illis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod tripliciter est aliquid remunerabile: primo modo, quod est *aptum natum mereri,* et hoc est liberum arbitrium; alio modo, quod est *ipsi merenti coniunctum,* ut corpus humanum; tertio modo, quod est *ad ipsum ordinatum* sicut ad obsequium. Secundum hoc praemiatur homo aliquando in *se ipso,* aliquando in *corpore,* aliquando ex[^p990-5] *eis quae sibi sunt utilia;* sic etiam praemiatur in *se ipso,* in *corpore suo,* et etiam in *ipso mundo,* qui eius est habitaculum. Unde dico, quod corpora supercaelestia praemiari non est aliud, quam hominem praemiari in illis, quia Dominus totum mundum hominis amore faciet pulcriorem. Et ideo, quia propter hominem praemiantur corpora supercaelestia, secundum eam proprietatem praemiantur, secundum quam sunt consona corporibus gloriosis; haec autem est lux: et ideo in luce et splendore augebuntur et crescent, ut probant primae rationes.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod peribunt; dicendum, quod ipse textus *consequenter*[^p990-6] exponit: *velut amictum mutabis eos, et mutabuntur;* ideo non dicuntur *perire,* quia desinant, sed quia pulcriora efficiuntur et innovantur.

*2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habent voluntatem; dicendum, quod ipsa non merentur *proprie,* sed homo meretur et in eis remuneratur.

*3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non laborant; dicendum, quod *labor* dicitur dupliciter: uno modo *proprie,* et sic dicitur opus poenale[^p990-7], et hoc modo nec corpora supercaelestia nec Angeli boni laborant; alio modo *communiter,* et sic dicitur labor quodcumque obsequium, secundum quem modum Angeli dicuntur laborare in vinea Domini et circa nos, quia nobis obsequuntur; sic et corpora caelestia.

*4.* Ad ultimum, quare non remunerentur in calore, patet[^p990-8]: quia in his proprietatibus debent remunerari, quae conveniunt corporibus nostris et faciunt ad gloriam nostram.

english:
### Article II. *On the renewal of the higher bodies.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the renewal of the higher bodies. And concerning this four things are asked.

First it is asked, whether the supercelestial bodies will be rewarded.

Second, whether they will come to rest.

Third, whether the elements will be renewed.

Fourth, whether plants and animals will be renewed.

### Question I. *Whether the supercelestial bodies will be rewarded.*

As to the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the supercelestial bodies will be rewarded.

1. In Isaiah, chapter thirty[^p989-6], one has from the text and the Gloss: *The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun as the light of seven days,* and the Gloss there says, that is, "the sun and the moon shall receive the reward of their labour."

2. Likewise, this seems to follow *by reason:* because God is more inclined to reward than to punish; but "the light of the supercelestial bodies was diminished when man sinned," as the Gloss says there[^p989-7]: therefore, with man glorified, it ought to be increased.

3. Likewise, the order in the universe is most fitting: therefore, when one thing which belongs to the perfection of the universe is bettered, it is necessary that the rest which belong to its constitution[^p989-8] be bettered; but the supercelestial bodies belong to the constitution of the universe: therefore either the order is corrupted, or, if man is ennobled, it is necessary that they be the more ennobled.

<!-- page 990 -->

4. Likewise, a dwelling ought to be suited to its dweller: therefore if man, for whose sake the world was made, has been made nobler; then also the whole world: therefore also the noblest bodies of the world.

**On the contrary:** 1. Nothing which perishes will be rewarded; but the heavens will perish: therefore the supercelestial bodies will not be rewarded. The *minor* is clear from the Psalm and from Hebrews, chapter one[^p990-1]: *And: Thou in the beginning* etc.; and afterwards: *They shall perish.*

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason:* because nothing is rewarded except what merits, and nothing merits except what serves voluntarily, and nothing serves voluntarily except what has free choice[^p990-2]; but the supercelestial bodies are not such: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it happens in two ways that one merits from a work: either because it is *done out of charity,* or because it is *laborious;* for by a laborious work one merits *by congruity;* but the supercelestial bodies do nothing out of charity, nor are they moved with labour, since the Philosopher says[^p990-3] that "they are moved without labour and pain": therefore etc.

4. Likewise, since the property of the higher bodies is twofold, namely heat and light, and they serve us in respect of both: therefore they ought to be rewarded in respect of both: therefore, since the sun is not rewarded in heat, nor the moon in coldness[^p990-4]: therefore neither ought they to be rewarded in greater light.

### Conclusion

> *The heavenly bodies will in some way be rewarded by an increase of light and splendour, inasmuch as man is rewarded in them.*

**I respond:** It must be said that something is rewardable in three ways: in the first way, that which is *of a nature apt to merit,* and this is free choice; in another way, that which is *joined to the one meriting,* as the human body; in the third way, that which is *ordered to him* as to his service. According to this, man is rewarded sometimes in *himself,* sometimes in his *body,* sometimes from[^p990-5] *those things which are useful to him;* so also he is rewarded in *himself,* in *his own body,* and also in *the world itself,* which is his dwelling-place. Hence I say that for the supercelestial bodies to be rewarded is nothing else than for man to be rewarded in them, because the Lord will make the whole world more beautiful out of love for man. And therefore, since the supercelestial bodies are rewarded for man's sake, they are rewarded according to that property according to which they are consonant with the glorious bodies; and this is light: and therefore they will be increased and will grow in light and splendour, as the first arguments prove.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*1.* To that, then, which is objected, that they will perish; it must be said that the text itself *consequently*[^p990-6] explains it: *as a garment thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed;* therefore they are not said to *perish* because they cease, but because they are made more beautiful and are renewed.

*2.* To that which is objected, that they do not have will; it must be said that they do not merit *properly,* but man merits and is rewarded in them.

*3.* To that which is objected, that they do not labour; it must be said that *labour* is spoken of in two ways: in one way *properly,* and thus a penal work is called labour[^p990-7], and in this way neither the supercelestial bodies nor the good Angels labour; in another way *commonly,* and thus any service is called labour, in which manner the Angels are said to labour in the vineyard of the Lord and about us, because they serve us; and so too the heavenly bodies.

*4.* To the last, why they are not rewarded in heat, it is clear[^p990-8]: because they ought to be rewarded in those properties which are suited to our bodies and conduce to our glory.

la: Vers. 26. Post *et lux solis* Vulgata et cod. aa (F a secunda manu) addunt *erit septempliciter.* — Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum formata est ex Hieron. (in hunc loc.) dicente: Quando dederit Dominus caelum novum... ut luna et sol laboris et cursus sui praemia consequantur.

en: Verse 26. After *and the light of the sun* the Vulgate and codex aa (F by a second hand) add *it shall be sevenfold.* — The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabus and Lyranus is formed from Jerome (on this passage), who says: When the Lord shall have given a new heaven... that the moon and the sun may obtain the rewards of their labour and their course.

la: Isai. 30, 26. — Glossa est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum; cfr. supra pag. 886, nota 8. — De *maiori* vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — Pro *supercaelestium* cod. L *caelestium.*

en: Isaiah 30:26. — The Gloss is the *interlinear* one in Lyranus; cf. above, p. 886, note 8. — On the *major [premise]* see above, p. 333, note 3. — For *supercaelestium* codex L reads *caelestium.*

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 44. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Cod. S addit *et perfectione.*

en: See I Sent., d. 44, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — Codex S adds *and perfection.*

la: Vers. 10. seq., et Psalm. 101, 26. seq.

en: Verse 10 f., and Psalm 101:26 f.

la: Bernard., in Cantic. serm. 81. n. 6: Ubi autem non est libertas, nec meritum. — Superius Vat. omittit *nisi quod meretur, et nihil meretur.*

en: Bernard, *On the Canticle,* sermon 81, n. 6: But where there is no freedom, neither is there merit. — Above, the Vatican edition omits *except what merits, and nothing merits.*

la: Libr. II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 3. (c. 1.), et IX. Metaph. text. 17. (VIII. c. 8.).

en: Book II, *On the Heaven and the World,* text 3 (c. 1), and *Metaphysics* IX, text 17 (VIII, c. 8).

la: Cfr. supra fundam. 1.

en: Cf. above, foundation 1.

la: Vat. *in.* Mox pro *sic etiam* codd. K Z bb *sicut etiam,* cod. G *et sic.* Subinde fortasse stat *praemiatur* pro *praemiabitur.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *in.* Shortly after, for *sic etiam* codices K Z bb read *sicut etiam,* codex G *et sic.* Thereupon perhaps *praemiatur* stands for *praemiabitur.*

la: Loc. cit. Hebr. 1, 12. et Ps. 101, 27. — Edd. *exponitur per illud,* codd. I K *exponit se.*

en: In the place cited, Hebrews 1:12 and Psalm 101:27. — The editions read *exponitur per illud,* codices I K *exponit se.*

la: Gen. 3, 17: In laboribus comedes ex ea etc. — Inferius post *obsequium* Vat. addit *praestitum hominibus.*

en: Genesis 3:17: In labours shalt thou eat thereof, etc. — Below, after *obsequium* the Vatican edition adds *rendered to men.*

la: Edd. supplent *responsio.*

en: The editions supply *responsio* ["the answer"]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De origine locutionum tropicarum, quod sol recipit *mercedem pro labore,* vel quod caeli *remunerabuntur,* vide lit. Magistri (hic c. 5.). Eandem explicationem affert S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. ad 5; Suppl. q. 91. a. 1. ad 5.).

De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 25. m. 1. a. 1. — S. Thom., q. cit. a. 1. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — De toto articulo Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** Cum communi doctorum sententia Durand. (hic q. 3.) dicit: «Tenendum est absolute, quod motus caeli cessabit post resurrectionem, quamvis illud non possit clare probari nec per auctoritatem Scripturae nec aliqua necessaria ratione». Idem nititur probare, quod textus s. Scripturae vulgo allegati etiam alio modo possint exponi; denique rationes Aristotelis pro continuatione motus oppugnat et quasdam rationes persuasivas pro communi sententia affert. Ante hunc magistrum eodem fere sensu et modo etiam Scot. (hic q. 2.) disputavit. — S. Thom. (locis citt. a. 2.) dicit, quod haec motus cessatio fiat, «non est aliqua naturali causa, sed divina voluntate faciente», et opinionem aliorum, qui hoc *naturaliter* fieri dicebant, improbat tanquam falsam et impossibilem. Notum tamen est, nostra aetate non deesse physicos, qui ex modo, quo calor in motum commutatur, et e converso, arguunt, tandem aliquando motum corporum caelestium naturaliter cessaturum.

<!-- page 991 -->

De 2. quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. 3. 4.

**III.** Quoad 3. quaestionem S. Thom. (locis citt. a. 4.) innovationem elementorum intelligit esse augmentum claritatis, quia scilicet «omnia elementa claritate quadam vestientur, non tamen aequaliter, sed secundum modum suum». Idem docet S. Bonav. (q. 1. in fine corp.).

De 3. quaestione: Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 5.

**IV.** In solvenda 4. quaestione Scholastici communiter negative respondent; et S. Thom. etiam metalla et omnia corpora mixta non remansura esse dicit. Aliter tamen loquitur incertus auctor operis *Elucidarii* (lib. III. c. 15.), quod inter opera S. Anselmi, t. II. in appendice, editor Maurinus recepit, sed indignum esse nomine Anselmi iudicavit. Alii recentiores putant, communem sententiam saltem quoad nonnulla esse incertam.

De eadem quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 6. — Durand., supra d. 47. q. 3. n. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the origin of the figurative expressions, that the sun receives *a wage for its labour,* or that the heavens *will be rewarded,* see the text of the Master (here c. 5). St. Thomas brings forward the same explanation (here q. 2. a. 1. ad 5; Suppl. q. 91. a. 1. ad 5).

On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III. q. 25. m. 1. a. 1. — St. Thomas, in the question cited, a. 1. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 1. — On the whole article, Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** With the common opinion of the doctors Durandus (here q. 3) says: "It is to be held absolutely that the motion of the heaven will cease after the resurrection, although this cannot be clearly proved either by the authority of Scripture or by any necessary reason." The same author endeavours to prove that the texts of Sacred Scripture commonly alleged can also be expounded in another way; finally he attacks Aristotle's arguments for the continuation of the motion and brings forward certain persuasive arguments for the common opinion. Before this master, Scotus too (here q. 2) disputed in nearly the same sense and manner. — St. Thomas (in the places cited, a. 2) says that this cessation of motion comes about "not from any natural cause, but by the divine will effecting it," and he rejects the opinion of others, who said that it comes about *naturally,* as false and impossible. Yet it is well known that in our own age there is no lack of physicists who, from the manner in which heat is converted into motion, and conversely, argue that at length the motion of the heavenly bodies will naturally cease.

<!-- page 991 -->

On the 2nd question, besides those already praised: Bl. Albert, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarantaise, in the place cited, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, in the place cited, q. 2. 3. 4.

**III.** As to the 3rd question, St. Thomas (in the places cited, a. 4) understands the renewal of the elements to be an increase of brightness, namely because "all the elements will be clothed with a certain brightness, yet not equally, but according to their own mode." St. Bonaventure teaches the same (q. 1. at the end of the body).

On the 3rd question: Peter of Tarantaise, in the place cited, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, in the place cited, a. 5.

**IV.** In solving the 4th question the Scholastics commonly answer in the negative; and St. Thomas says that even metals and all mixed bodies will not remain. The uncertain author of the work *Elucidarium* (bk. III. c. 15) speaks otherwise; this work the Maurist editor received among the works of St. Anselm, vol. II, in the appendix, but judged it unworthy of Anselm's name. Other more recent authors think that the common opinion is uncertain at least as regards some points.

On the same question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 5. — Peter of Tarantaise, in the place cited, a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, in the place cited, a. 6. — Durandus, above, d. 47. q. 3. n. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L105280–L105474, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{989,990,991}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 989:1552, 990:2119, 991:1556 — bands were already correct; **none regenerated**). Per the VOL II/IV override the band read is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo, scholion and footer regions. `printed_pages` [989, 990, 991] confirmed correct against the running heads.

**Structure.** The short `ARTICULUS II` opener (`Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum…` + the four-fold *Primo/Secundo/Tertio/Quarto* listing) is folded into this q1 per the frozen convention. Question title verified off p.989 against the line *after* the `QUAESTIO I.` header: *Utrum corpora supercaelestia remunerabuntur* — agrees with the skeleton. Ordinal opener alignment verified: *Primo quaeritur, utrum corpora supercaelestia remunerabuntur* ✓ (no q-swap). The article's SCHOLION (raw L105417, OCR-garbled `SCHOLIOK`) is rendered in both languages and placed LAST in each language block, though the source prints it above p.990's footnote register.

**Apparatus split map — 11 entries.**
- **p.989 — SHARED with `d48-a1-q4`.** Eight notes print on this page. Notes **1–5** anchor in a1-q4's body (Matth. 24, 36 / the hour of judgement; note 5 explicitly cross-refers *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) and are **NOT claimed here**. Notes **6, 7, 8** anchor in this chunk's body and are claimed: 6 → *Isaiae trigesimo*, 7 → *sicut dicit ibi Glossa*, 8 → *de eius constitutione*. Derived independently off the bands, not taken from the neighbour.
- **p.990 — entirely mine.** Notes **1–8**, all eight anchored in this body: 1 *ad Hebraeos primo*, 2 *liberum arbitrium*, 3 *dicit Philosophus*, 4 *nec luna in frigiditate*, 5 *aliquando ex eis quae sibi sunt utilia*, 6 *consequenter*, 7 *opus poenale*, 8 *patet*.
- **p.991 — SHARED with `d48-a2-q2`.** This chunk holds only the **tail of the scholion** (from *De 2. quaestione praeter laudatos* through *Durand., supra d. 47. q. 3. n. 7.*), which carries no footnote markers. **All of p.991's numbered footer notes anchor in Quaestio II's body** (note 1 → *propter continuam generationem*, note 7 → *dicit Commentator*, etc.) and are forwarded whole to `d48-a2-q2`. Zero p.991 apparatus claimed here.

**Marker binding order.** Determined per page from the bands: **straight reading order on both p.989 and p.990** — no column-order relabelling. One **footer-overflow** case on p.989: note 6 anchors in the LEFT body column but prints in the RIGHT footer column (the whole 3–8 run prints right). Bound by content, not position.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- → `d48-a1-q4`: p.989 footer notes **1–5** are yours; do not expect them here.
- → `d48-a2-q2`: the entire p.991 footer register (both columns) is yours; this chunk claims none of it. Your body opens at *Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpora supercaelestia quietabuntur* (p.991 left column, below the scholion tail).

**Seam integrity.** Opening is a fresh ARTICULUS header, so no grammatical continuity requirement with a1-q4's close. Closing sentence of the Latin body (*…quae conveniunt corporibus nostris et faciunt ad gloriam nostram.*) parses cleanly; the scholion's closing citation list is complete on the band.

**Band-vs-OCR disagreements resolved at band time** (band authoritative, no `[?]` raised): scholion II *dare probari* (raw) → **clare probari**; *quasdem rationes* → **quasdam rationes**; p.990 n. 5 *codd. RZ bb* (raw) → **codd. K Z bb**, and the raw's *siat praemiatur pro praemiabilur* → **stat *praemiatur* pro *praemiabitur***; p.990 n. 7 *praestitim hominibus* → **praestitum hominibus**; body *Elucidarii lib. III. c. lo.* → **c. 15.**

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta.* · *Ad oppositum.* · *Distinctio.* · *Principium generale* · *Conclusio* (×2) · *Solutio oppositorum* · *Notandum* · *Duplex labor.*

**`[?]` flags:** none. **Unmapped material:** none — every header, argument, the conclusio, the Respondeo, all four solutiones and all four scholion sections (I–IV) in the range are rendered.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 48, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 991 -->

### Articulus II. *De innovatione corporum superiorum.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpora supercaelestia quietabuntur.*

> **Nota de numeratione.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The markers below are page-qualified: notes 1–9 of page 991 and notes 1–3 of page 992. Notes 4–10 of page 992 anchor in the following question and are rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpora supercaelestia quietabuntur. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia motus corporum supercaelestium est propter continuam generationem[^p991-1]; sed omnis generatio est ordinata ad multiplicationem hominum, et multiplicatio hominum ad perfectionem civitatis supernae: si ergo necesse est, illam civitatem perfici; necesse est, omnem generationem cessare: ergo et motum corporum supercaelestium, et sic etc.

2. Item, omnis motus est propter aliquem finem; sed omnis motus ordinatus, nisi sit frustra[^p991-2], aliquando consequitur finem; sed quod movetur propter aliquid, assecuto eo, quiescit: ergo cum corporum supercaelestium motus sit huiusmodi, patet etc.

3. Item, nobilior dispositio est quies quam motus; quod patet in Deo[^p991-3]: ergo si mundus post resurrectionem erit in optima dispositione, omnia corpora in eo quiescent.

4. Item, hoc dicit ratio, non tantum fides, quod omnia propter hominem et ad opus obsequii sunt creata[^p991-4]: ergo omnia debent habere usum et actum convenientem humano obsequio; sed homo incorruptibilis post resurrectionem non indiget obsequio variabili: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Corpora supercaelestia serviunt homini luce et motu; sed quia luce serviunt, maiori luce remunerantur[^p991-5]: ergo cum serviant in motu, debent velociori motu remunerari.

2. Item, corpus orbiculare naturaliter est aptum ad motum[^p991-6]; sed per gratiam aptitudo naturaliter perficitur et non efficitur imperfecta; sed unumquodque perfectius est, quando est coniunctum suo actui: ergo corpora orbicularia actualiter movebuntur et continue.

3. Item, nihil quod inest alicui secundum assimilationem ad Deum, semper debet per remunerationem privari; sed «corpora supercaelestia, ut dicit Commentator[^p991-7], moventur, ut assimilentur Deo», et in ipso motu assimilantur: ergo etc.

4. Item, motus orbicularis per naturam est interminabilis[^p991-8]; sed Deus per gloriam non destruet naturam: ergo motum corporum supercaelestium non terminabit; et si hoc: ergo semper movebuntur.

### Conclusio

> *Motus corporum supercaelestium terminabitur, quamvis per naturam non habeat de se terminum intra.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Isidorus, et habetur in littera[^p991-9], quod «sol et luna post iudicium non tendent ad occasum, sed stabunt in ordine suo, in quo creati sunt».

Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum notandum, quod in motu est duplicem finem considerare, scilicet *finem intra*, et iste dicitur *terminus* sive *consummatio*; et *finem extra*, et iste est *terminus intentionis*, ut verbi gratia, cum lapis desursum ad terram descendit, locus terrae est finis, qui est *terminus intra*;

<!-- page 992 -->

sed quies in loco est finis, qui est *terminus intentionis*. — Dico ergo, quod quidam motus sunt, qui naturaliter habent utrumque finem, ut sunt motus *recti*[^p992-1]; quidam vero motus sunt, qui habent alterum *per naturam*, ut puta *finem intentionis*, alterum vero habent solum *ratione ipsius principii moventis*, ut est motus circularis ipsius rotae, quae volvitur ad acuendum cultellum. Quod enim rota quiescat modo, vel post, non est determinatum, quia semper posset moveri, si esset qui posset et vellet movere; sed quando cultellus factus est acutus, cum motus ille ordinaretur ad hoc, necesse fuit quietari, vel frustra fieri.

Quoniam igitur motus corporum supercaelestium ordinatur ad complendum numerum electorum; et illum necesse est compleri: ideo et motum terminari, quamvis per naturam non habeat *terminum intra* de se.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod remuneratur in luce, ergo debet remunerari in motu; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia obsequium *motus* non ita competit corporibus Beatorum, sicut obsequium *luminis*[^p992-2].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aptitudo naturalis est perficienda; dicendum, quod verum est de aptitudine naturali, quae est ad actum perfectionis; sed quae est ad actum imperfectionis, non.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de assimilatione, dicendum, quod non assimilatur *simpliciter*, sed *in causando*; et ideo ad tempus assimilatur in hoc.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod est naturaliter interminabilis; dicendum, quod hoc est falsum, quia secundum intentionem naturae, quae est regulata secundum institutionem divinam, terminabilis est, licet non sit terminabilis ratione *termini*, qui respicit conditiones mobilis et spatii[^p992-3].

---

english:
### Article II. *On the renewal of the higher bodies.*
### Question II. *Whether the supercelestial bodies will come to rest.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the supercelestial bodies will come to rest. And that they will, it seems:

1. Because the motion of the supercelestial bodies is on account of continual generation[^p991-1]; but every generation is ordered to the multiplication of men, and the multiplication of men to the perfection of the supernal city: if therefore it is necessary that that city be perfected, it is necessary that all generation cease: therefore also the motion of the supercelestial bodies, and so forth.

2. Likewise, every motion is on account of some end; but every ordered motion, unless it be in vain[^p991-2], at some time attains its end; but what is moved on account of something, once that is attained, comes to rest: therefore, since the motion of the supercelestial bodies is of this kind, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, rest is a nobler disposition than motion; which is clear in God[^p991-3]: therefore if the world after the resurrection will be in the best disposition, all bodies in it will be at rest.

4. Likewise, reason says this, and not faith only, that all things were created on account of man and for the work of service[^p991-4]: therefore all things ought to have a use and an act suited to human service; but incorruptible man after the resurrection has no need of variable service: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. The supercelestial bodies serve man by light and by motion; but because they serve by light, they are rewarded with greater light[^p991-5]: therefore, since they serve in motion, they ought to be rewarded with swifter motion.

2. Likewise, a spherical body is naturally apt for motion[^p991-6]; but by grace a natural aptitude is perfected and is not rendered imperfect; but each thing is more perfect when it is joined to its act: therefore the spherical bodies will be moved actually and continuously.

3. Likewise, nothing that belongs to a thing according to its assimilation to God ought ever to be taken away by way of reward; but «the supercelestial bodies, as the Commentator says[^p991-7], are moved that they may be assimilated to God», and in that very motion they are assimilated: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, circular motion is by nature unterminable[^p991-8]; but God by glory will not destroy nature: therefore he will not terminate the motion of the supercelestial bodies; and if this: therefore they will always be moved.

### Conclusion

> *The motion of the supercelestial bodies will be terminated, although by nature it does not have of itself a term within.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Isidore says, and as is had in the text[^p991-9], «the sun and the moon after the judgement will not tend toward their setting, but will stand in their own order, in which they were created».

But for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that in motion there is a twofold end to consider, namely the *end within*, and this is called the *term* or *consummation*; and the *end without*, and this is the *term of intention*, as for example, when a stone descends from above to the earth, the place of the earth is the end, which is the *term within*;

but rest in that place is the end which is the *term of intention*. — I say therefore that there are certain motions which naturally have both ends, as are *rectilinear* motions[^p992-1]; but there are certain motions which have the one *by nature*, namely the *end of intention*, while the other they have only *by reason of the moving principle itself*, as is the circular motion of a wheel which is turned for the sharpening of a knife. For that the wheel should rest now, or afterwards, is not determined, because it could always be moved if there were one who could and would move it; but when the knife has been made sharp, since that motion was ordered to this, it was necessary that it come to rest, or else be done in vain.

Since, therefore, the motion of the supercelestial bodies is ordered to the completing of the number of the elect, and it is necessary that that number be completed: therefore the motion also is terminated, although by nature it does not have of itself a *term within*.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that it is rewarded in light, therefore it ought to be rewarded in motion; it must be said that the case is not alike: because the service of *motion* does not belong to the bodies of the Blessed in the same way as the service of *light*[^p992-2].

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that a natural aptitude is to be perfected; it must be said that this is true of a natural aptitude which is toward an act of perfection; but not of one which is toward an act of imperfection.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning assimilation, it must be said that it is not assimilated *simply*, but *in causing*; and therefore for a time it is assimilated in this.

*To 4.* To that which is objected last, that it is naturally unterminable; it must be said that this is false, because according to the intention of nature, which is regulated according to the divine institution, it is terminable, although it is not terminable by reason of a *term* which regards the conditions of the movable thing and of space[^p992-3].

---

la: Secundum Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 58. seq. (c. 10.).

en: According to Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 58 f. (c. 10).

la: *Frustra*, secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 62. (c. 6.) est illud quod ordinatum est ad aliquem finem et illum non consequitur. Libr. II. Metaph. text. 8. (l. brevior c. 2.): Nullus inciperet agere quidquam, si non esset perventurus ad finem. Cfr. I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 55. (c. 7.).

en: *In vain*, according to Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 62 (c. 6), is that which is ordered to some end and does not attain it. *Metaphysics* II, text 8 (the shorter book, c. 2): No one would begin to do anything, if he were not going to arrive at an end. Cf. *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 55 (c. 7).

la: Aristot., VII. Ethic. c. 14: Deus semper una ac simplici gaudet voluptate... magisque in quiete quam in motu voluptas consistit. — Cod. aa addit: *qui immobilis manens dat cuncta moveri* (secundum Boeth., III. de Consol. metro 9; cfr. tom. I. pag. 157, nota 2.).

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* VII, c. 14: God always rejoices in one and simple pleasure… and pleasure consists more in rest than in motion. — Codex aa adds: *who, remaining unmoved, gives all things to be moved* (according to Boethius, *On the Consolation* III, metre 9; cf. tome I, p. 157, note 2).

la: Vide Deut. 4, 19, et II. Sent. d. 15. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See Deuteronomy 4:19, and *II Sent.* d. 15, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Ut dictum est quaest. praeced. — Mox post *ergo* cod. U addit *similiter*.

en: As was said in the preceding question. — Just after *ergo* codex U adds *similiter*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. (c. 2.) et II. text. 22. seqq. (c. 4.). — Pro *gratiam* cod. L *gloriam*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 5 ff. (c. 2) and II, text 22 ff. (c. 4). — For *gratiam* codex L reads *gloriam*.

la: Scilicet Averroes, in II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 64: Omnia entia non intendunt per suas operationes, nisi ut assimilentur perfecto nobili, quod est Deus, secundum quod in natura eorum est acquirere de assimilatione. Cfr. in I. Phys. text. 81. — Substituimus ex codd. E L *privari* pro *praemiari*, quod est in aliis codd. et edd.

en: Namely Averroes, on *On the Heavens and the World* II, text 64: All beings intend nothing by their operations except that they may be assimilated to the noble perfect thing, which is God, according to what it is in their nature to acquire of assimilation. Cf. on *Physics* I, text 81. — We have substituted, from codices E and L, *privari* for *praemiari*, which is in the other codices and editions.

la: Vide Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 64. seqq. (c. 8.). Libr. I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 100. (c. 9.): Et incessabili utique motu movetur [caelum] rationabiliter; omnia enim, quae moventur, quiescunt, cum venerint in proprium locum; eius autem corporis, quod circulariter movetur, idem est locus, unde incepit et in quem finit.

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 64 ff. (c. 8). *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 100 (c. 9): And [the heaven] is moved with an unceasing motion, reasonably; for all things that are moved come to rest when they have arrived at their proper place; but of that body which is moved circularly, the place from which it began and in which it ends is the same.

la: Hic c. 5. circa finem, sed non verbotenus in Isid.

en: Here, c. 5, near the end, but not word for word in Isidore.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 75. seqq. (c. 9.). — Superius vocibus *in loco* codd. B L interserunt *illo*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 75 ff. (c. 9). — Above, between the words *in loco*, codices B and L insert *illo*.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. in fine corp. et ad 4.

en: See the preceding question at the end of the body and at [the reply] to 4.

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` L105475–105610, with every line verified against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p99{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (measured gutters 991:1556, 992:2067 — bands used as delivered, **not regenerated**). Read left column top→bottom, then right; body bands then footer bands. The **entire p.992 footer register is absent from the raw OCR** (the raw runs from `qui respicit conditiones mobilis et spatii` at L105606 straight to the `QUAESTIO lU.` header at L105611) and was recovered wholly from the bands — the standing hazard, confirmed again here.

**Title verified against the page.** p.991-R-0 prints, under `QUAESTIO II.`, the line *Utrum corpora supercaelestia quietabuntur.* — matching the skeleton's `title_la`. Running head reads `DIST. XLVIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` Ordinal opener *Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpora supercaelestia quietabuntur* aligns with q2: **no q-swap.** `printed_pages: [991, 992]` confirmed correct as scaffolded.

**Page → apparatus split map (12 entries).**
- **p.991 — 9 numbered notes, all mine.** Notes 1–5 print in the left footer column, 6–9 in the right; binding is **straight reading order** (anchors run 1,2,3,4,5 down the left body column and 6,7,8,9 down the right). The only material above my body on p.991 is the tail of Art. II's scholion (`De 2. quaestione praeter laudatos…`, raw L105460–105474), an **unnumbered commentary register** belonging to `d48-a2-q1` — it carries no footnote numbers, so `a2-q1` claims **none** of p.991's numbered notes. Derived independently from the bands, not from the neighbour.
- **p.992 — 10 numbered notes; I claim 1–3.** Note 1 (`recti`) anchors in my left body column; notes 2 (`luminis`) and 3 (`spatii`) anchor in my right body column. **Notes 4–10 anchor in `d48-a2-q3`** (4 = *Vers. 31: Praeterit enim figura*, 5 = Gennadius c. 37, 6 = *vide supra pag. 976 nota 8*, 7 = *supra d. 47 a. 2 q. 1*, 8 = *Vers. 35*, 9 = *Vers. 10, Glossa ordinaria*, 10 = Aristot. *de Praedicam.*) — forwarded, not rendered here. Binding on p.992 is **document order, not column order**: 1 (L), 2–3 (R) close q2, then 4–6 (L), 7–10 (R) open q3.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- → `d48-a2-q1`: p.991 carries 9 numbered footer notes, all of which anchor in q2's body. q1's share of p.991 is only the unnumbered scholion register at the top of the left column.
- → `d48-a2-q3`: p.992 footer notes **4–10** are yours; they are absent from the raw OCR and must be read off `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p992-{L,R}-2.png`. Note 4 anchors at `Praeterit figura huius mundi` in your first argument.

**Seam integrity.** Opening (`Secundo quaeritur…`) begins a fresh question and is grammatically complete. Closing sentence — *…licet non sit terminabilis ratione termini, qui respicit conditiones mobilis et spatii* — parses cleanly and is confirmed on p.992-R-0 as the last line of q2 before the `QUAESTIO III.` rule. **No cascade-merge signature**; nothing of q3's opening is trapped in this range.

**No scholion.** Art. II's scholion sits in `a2-q1` (raw L105417); p.992 note 3 explicitly refers the reader back to it (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). Expected shape, not an error.

**Marginalia** (page furniture, not rendered as body text): p.991 `Fundamenta.` (arg. 1), `Ad oppositum.` (Contra), `Conclusio 1.` (Respondeo), `In motu duplex finis.`; p.992 `Conclusio 2.`, `Solutiones oppositorum`, `Notandum` ×2.

**OCR corrections resolved at band time** (band legible, no `[?]` needed): `Uiriim`→*Utrum*, `quielabuntur`→*quietabuntur*, `inotus`→*motus*, `lenia.propter`→marginal `Fundamenta.` + *propter*, `Kem`→*Item*, `ciim`→*cum*, `raovebuntur`→*movebuntur*, `Coiumentator`→*Commentator*, `termrnabilis`→*interminabilis*, `solgtluna`→*sol et luna*, `slabunt`→*stabunt*, `teri-ae`→*terrae*, `voivitur adacuendum`→*volvitur ad acuendum*, `cuilelius`→*cultellus*, `moUis corpormn`→*motus corporum*, `neccsse`→*necesse*, `motnm termintiri`→*motum terminari*, `natiiram`→*naturam*, `mn ita compelit`→*non ita competit*, `nalurah`→*naturali*, `cenrJum`→*dicendum*, `uUimo obiicilur`→*ultimo obiicitur*, `interminabihs`→*interminabilis*, `institulionem`→*institutionem*, `terminabihs`→*terminabilis*.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every reading was resolved against a legible band.

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. 48, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt:
Utrum elementa innovabuntur
Whether the elements will be renewed

source_text:
<!-- page 992 -->

### Articulus II. *De innovatione corporum superiorum.*
### Quaestio III. *Utrum elementa innovabuntur.*

> **Note on the apparatus numbering.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The labels below are page-qualified. This chunk anchors notes 4–10 of page 992 (notes 1–3 of page 992 anchor in the preceding question, `d48-a2-q2`) and notes 1–8 of page 993.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum innovabuntur elementa. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p992-4]: *Praeterit figura huius mundi*; aut igitur in *nihil*, aut in *melius*, aut in *peius*. In *nihil* non, quia Deus nihil permittit omnino perire; non in *peius*, quia, si homo melioratur, et mundus: ergo in *melius*. Sed quod senescit et in *melius* mutatur innovatur, ergo mundus iste; sed elementa sunt partes mundi: ergo etc.

2. Item, Augustinus, *de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus*[^p992-5]: « Elementa non dicimus abolenda, sed in melius commutanda ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia aut innovabuntur *omnia*, aut *nulla*, aut *quaedam*. Si *omnia*, habeo propositum; si *nulla*: ergo erunt in continua transmutatione et impuritate, quam contraxerunt; sed hoc est inconveniens, cum sint propter hominem incorruptibilem et omnino mundum[^p992-6]. Si *quaedam* sic, et *quaedam* non: ergo solvitur harmonia elementorum: ergo et pulcritudo et decor universi.

4. Item, ignis est completissimum elementorum, unde et *species elementorum* dicitur. Quaero igitur: aut ignis *innovabitur*, aut *non*. Si *non* innovatur, sed consumitur: ergo perit nobilitas et decor elementorum. Si *innovatur*: ergo cum alia elementa magis sint accedentia ad vetustatem, videtur, quod omnia debeant innovari[^p992-7].

**Sed contra:**
1. Matthaei vigesimo quarto[^p992-8]: *Caelum et terra transibunt*: si ergo terra est stabilissimum inter elementa, et ipsa non innovatur, sed transit; nec alia innovabuntur. *Si dicas*, quod non transit quantum ad *substantiam*, sed quantum ad *figuram*, sicut dicitur primae ad Corinthios septimo: *Praeterit figura huius mundi*; tunc ergo, cum *figura* respiciat quantitatem et dispositionem partium, non qualitatem; videtur ergo, quod *alterius figurae* erit universum. Cum ergo modo sit circulare, tunc erit non circulare; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

2. Item, super secundae Petri ultimum[^p992-9] dicit Glossa: « Elementa quatuor, quibus mundus consistit, ille maximus ignis absumet, nec cuncta in tantum consumet, ut non sint; sed duo ex toto consumet, duo vero in meliorem restituet faciem ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, si elementa innovabuntur, aut ergo quantum ad *substantiam*, aut quantum ad *qualitatem*. Non quantum ad *substantiam*, quia substantia erit eadem, « non recipiens magis et minus[^p992-10] »; non quantum ad *qualitates*, quia

<!-- page 993 -->

accidentia sunt inalterabilia: ergo nullo modo. *Si dicas*, quod quantum ad *qualitates* erit innovatio, quia qualitates istae transibunt; *contra*: forma substantialis in materia est causa immediata ipsarum qualitatum elementarium: ergo si, « posita causa immediata, necessario ponitur effectus »; sed remanebit forma substantialis in materia: ergo et qualitates.

4. Item, calidum in summo est dispositio ad formam ignis; sed remota dispositione et privata, per consequens privatur forma: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Elementorum et substantia et qualitates remanebunt; sed qualitates quoad substantiam remanentes innovabuntur quoad rationem corruptionis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ubi est *innovatio*, substantia remanet eadem, sed sub aliis proprietatibus; ideo dicendum, quod omnia elementa secundum *substantiam* remanebunt, sed quantum ad *qualitates* innovabuntur. — Sed circa ipsas *qualitates* duplex est opinio.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod tria sunt genera qualitatum in elementis: quaedam, secundum quas *ordinantur in mundo*, ut gravitas et levitas; et istae remanebunt, quia remanebunt in mundo ordo et situs elementorum. Quaedam sunt qualitates, secundum quas est *receptio influentiae luminis* sine omni corruptione, ut perspicuitas et transparentia; et istae similiter remanebunt, sicut influentia luminis. Quaedam autem sunt, secundum quas *ordinantur ad agendum et patiendum*, et ita per consequens ad transmutationem et corruptionem; et secundum has non remanebunt. Sed inter has quaedam sunt *activae*, ut caliditas et frigiditas; quaedam *passivae*, ut humiditas et siccitas. — Et quae sunt *activae* sunt illae quae excitant et faciunt transmutationem; et istae tollentur ab elementis et non redibunt in nihil, sed cadent in regionem damnatorum, sicut vult Basilius super illud[^p993-1]: *Vox Domini intercidentis flammam ignis*. Dicit enim, quod « calor cedat in partem damnatorum, sed lux in regionem salvandorum »; similiter et in aqua *frigiditas* ad affligendum; siccum vero et humidum non tollentur, sed terminabuntur. Et ideo dicunt, quod Beda[^p993-2] dicit, quod « duo totaliter absumentur » propter coniunctionem, quae erat ex duplici qualitate, non quantum ad *integritatem substantiae*, sed quantum ad *totalitatem duplicis qualitatis* ratione activae. — Sed quia Augustinus dicit vigesimo *de Civitate Dei*[^p993-3], quod « omnium elementorum qualitates ardendo penitus interibunt », et siccitas et humiditas sunt qualitates corruptibiles; non videtur maior ratio de caliditate et frigiditate quam de aliis duabus.

Ideo dicunt alii aliter, quod omnes res, quantum est de se, appetunt *esse* perpetuum et divinum[^p993-4]; sed *quaedam* formae sunt, quae appetunt continuare *esse* per multiplicationem sui in altero, ut puta sunt formae *activae* accidentales et substantiales; *quaedam* autem appetunt continuare *esse* suum per continuam adhaerentiam cum materia, ut sunt formae et qualitates *passivae*. Quoniam igitur post iudicium auferetur ab elementis omnis ratio multiplicandi se, et dabitur virtus continuandi se in se, quia erunt incorruptibilia; hinc est, quod elementa, quae habent qualitates *activas*, dicuntur *totaliter absumi*, quia omnino auferetur ab eis ratio agendi et se multiplicandi; alia vero duo dicuntur *in meliorem faciem restituenda*[^p993-5], quia appetitus continuandi in se *esse*, qui modo est in eis secundum *esse imperfectum*, complebitur et perficietur. Manebunt ergo qualitates omnium elementorum quantum ad *substantiam*, sed quantum ad *rationem corruptionis* innovabuntur; similiter et formae substantiales[^p993-6]. — Et haec opinio est probabilior.

**Ad opposita:**
*Ad 1.* Et patent obiecta praeter primum, quod dicit, quod figura non transit. Dico enim, quod *figura* dicitur tripliciter: uno modo *dispositio ex clausione linearum*; et haec praeterit quantum ad terram, quia non omnino est orbicularis. Secundo modo dicitur figura *exterior rei facies* sive pulcritudo; et haec transibit, sicut dicitur in Glossa[^p993-7], « non substantia, sed pulcritudo ». Tertio modo figura dicitur *fictio* vel *fragilitas* a *fingo, fingis*, ut vasa figuli; et sic etiam pertransibit. — Et sic patet, quod non transibit *substantia*, sed *dispositio partium* quoad terram et *pulcritudo* et *fragilitas*[^p993-8].

---

english:
### Article II. *On the renewal of the higher bodies.*
### Question III. *Whether the elements will be renewed.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether the elements will be renewed. And that they will, it seems.

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p992-4]: *The figure of this world passeth away*; either therefore into *nothing*, or into something *better*, or into something *worse*. Not into *nothing*, because God permits nothing to perish utterly; not into something *worse*, because, if man is made better, so also the world: therefore into something *better*. But that which grows old and is changed into something *better* is renewed; therefore this world is; but the elements are parts of the world: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*[^p992-5]: « We do not say that the elements are to be abolished, but to be changed into something better ».

3. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because either *all* will be renewed, or *none*, or *some*. If *all*, I have what I proposed; if *none*: then they will be in continual transmutation and in the impurity which they have contracted; but this is unfitting, since they exist for the sake of a man incorruptible and wholly clean[^p992-6]. If *some* thus, and *some* not: then the harmony of the elements is dissolved: therefore also the beauty and comeliness of the universe.

4. Likewise, fire is the most complete of the elements, whence it is even called the *species of the elements*. I ask therefore: either fire *will be renewed*, or *not*. If it is *not* renewed, but consumed: then the nobility and comeliness of the elements perishes. If it *is* renewed: then, since the other elements are more inclined toward oldness, it seems that all ought to be renewed[^p992-7].

**On the contrary:**
1. Matthew, chapter twenty-four[^p992-8]: *Heaven and earth shall pass away*: if therefore the earth is the most stable among the elements, and it itself is not renewed but passes away, neither will the others be renewed. *If you say* that it does not pass away as to *substance*, but as to *figure*, as is said in the first to the Corinthians, chapter seven: *The figure of this world passeth away*; then therefore, since *figure* regards quantity and the disposition of parts, not quality; it seems therefore that the universe will be *of another figure*. Since therefore it is now circular, then it will be non-circular; but this is unfitting: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, on the last chapter of the second [epistle] of Peter[^p992-9] the Gloss says: « The four elements of which the world consists, that greatest fire will consume; nor will it consume all of them so far that they should not be; but two it will consume wholly, while two it will restore to a better appearance ».

3. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because, if the elements will be renewed, then either as to *substance*, or as to *quality*. Not as to *substance*, because the substance will be the same, « not receiving more and less[^p992-10] »; not as to *qualities*, because

accidents are unalterable: therefore in no way. *If you say* that as to *qualities* there will be a renewal, because those qualities will pass away; *on the contrary*: the substantial form in matter is the immediate cause of those elementary qualities: therefore if, « the immediate cause being posited, the effect is necessarily posited »; but the substantial form will remain in matter: therefore the qualities also.

4. Likewise, heat in the highest degree is the disposition toward the form of fire; but when the disposition is removed and taken away, the form is consequently taken away: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *Both the substance and the qualities of the elements will remain; but the qualities, remaining as to their substance, will be renewed as to their character of corruptibility.*

**I respond:** It must be said that where there is *renewal*, the substance remains the same, but under other properties; therefore it must be said that all the elements will remain according to *substance*, but as to *qualities* they will be renewed. — But concerning those *qualities* there is a twofold opinion.

For some say that there are three kinds of qualities in the elements: certain ones according to which they are *ordered within the world*, such as heaviness and lightness; and these will remain, because the order and the situation of the elements will remain in the world. There are certain qualities according to which there is a *reception of the influence of light* without any corruption, such as clarity and transparency; and these likewise will remain, just as the influence of light does. And there are certain ones according to which they are *ordered to acting and to being acted upon*, and thus consequently to transmutation and corruption; and according to these they will not remain. But among these some are *active*, such as heat and cold; some *passive*, such as moisture and dryness. — And those which are *active* are those which stir up and effect transmutation; and these will be taken away from the elements, and will not return into nothing, but will fall into the region of the damned, as Basil holds upon that text[^p993-1]: *The voice of the Lord divideth the flame of fire*. For he says that « the heat should go over to the portion of the damned, but the light into the region of those to be saved »; and likewise in water the *cold* [goes] to afflicting; but the dry and the moist will not be taken away, but will be brought to their term. And therefore they say that Bede[^p993-2] says that « two will be wholly consumed » on account of the conjunction which arose from the twofold quality, not as to the *integrity of the substance*, but as to the *totality of the twofold quality* by reason of the active one. — But since Augustine says in the twentieth [book] *On the City of God*[^p993-3] that « the qualities of all the elements will utterly perish in the burning », and dryness and moisture are corruptible qualities; there seems to be no greater reason concerning heat and cold than concerning the other two.

Therefore others say otherwise, that all things, so far as in them lies, desire a perpetual and divine *being*[^p993-4]; but there are *certain* forms which desire to continue their *being* through the multiplication of themselves in another, as for instance the *active* forms, both accidental and substantial; while *certain* others desire to continue their *being* through a continual adherence to matter, as are the *passive* forms and qualities. Since therefore after the judgment every ground of multiplying themselves will be taken away from the elements, and there will be given a power of continuing themselves in themselves, because they will be incorruptible; hence it is that the elements which have *active* qualities are said to be *wholly consumed*, because there will be entirely taken away from them the ground of acting and of multiplying themselves; while the other two are said to be *restored to a better appearance*[^p993-5], because the appetite of continuing their *being* in themselves, which is now in them according to an *imperfect being*, will be completed and perfected. The qualities of all the elements will therefore remain as to *substance*, but as to their *character of corruptibility* they will be renewed; and likewise the substantial forms[^p993-6]. — And this opinion is the more probable.

**To the opposing arguments:**
*Ad 1.* And the objections are clear except the first, which says that the figure does not pass away. For I say that *figure* is spoken of in three ways: in one way as the *disposition arising from the enclosure of lines*; and this passes away as regards the earth, because it is not wholly spherical. In a second way figure is called the *outer face of a thing* or its beauty; and this will pass away, as is said in the Gloss[^p993-7], « not the substance, but the beauty ». In a third way figure is called *fashioning* or *frailty*, from *fingo, fingis*, as the potter's vessels; and thus too it will pass away. — And thus it is clear that the *substance* will not pass away, but the *disposition of parts* as regards the earth, and the *beauty* and the *frailty*[^p993-8].

---

la: Vers. 31: *Praeterit enim figura* etc. — De *primo* disiunctionis membro vide supra pag. 959, nota 6; de *secundo* supra q. 1.

en: Verse 31: *For the figure passeth away* etc. — On the *first* member of the disjunction see above p. 959, note 6; on the *second*, above, q. 1.

la: Cap. 37, ubi auctor huius libri Gennadius ait: *Elementa, id est caelum et terra, non credimus abolenda per ignem, sed in melius commutanda.*

en: Ch. 37, where Gennadius, the author of this book, says: *The elements, that is, heaven and earth, we do not believe are to be abolished by fire, but to be changed into something better.*

la: Vide supra pag. 976, nota 8. verba August.

en: See above p. 976, note 8, the words of Augustine.

la: Cfr. supra d. 47. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. et q. 3. ad 3.

la: Vers. 35. — Seq. locus est I. Cor. 7, 31: *Praeterit enim figura* etc.; super quem August., XX. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 14, ait: *Figura ergo praeterit, non natura.* — De *figura* quatenus respicit quantitatem cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1. in corp. — In fine arg. post *non circulare* edd. addunt: *sed fiet triangulare vel quadrangulare* etc.

en: Verse 35. — The following passage is 1 Cor. 7:31: *For the figure passeth away* etc.; upon which Augustine, in *On the City of God* XX, c. 14, says: *The figure therefore passeth away, not the nature.* — On *figure* insofar as it regards quantity, cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 1, in the body. — At the end of the argument, after *non circulare*, the editions add: *but it will become triangular or quadrangular* etc.

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

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

la: Aristot., *de Praedicam.* c. *de Substantia*. — Quod accidentia sint *inalterabilia* insinuatur ab eodem supra pag. 282, nota 4. relato et a Boethio in verba ista (cfr. tom. III. pag. 497, nota 8.). — De axiomate *posita causa* etc. vide supra pag. 102, nota 3. Porro ante *remanebit* solae edd. *si* pro *sed*.

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, ch. *On Substance*. — That accidents are *unalterable* is intimated by the same author, cited above p. 282, note 4, and by Boethius upon these words (cf. vol. III, p. 497, note 8). — On the axiom *the cause being posited* etc., see above p. 102, note 3. Further, before *remanebit* the editions alone read *si* for *sed*.

la: Psalm. 28, 7. Vide supra pag. 925, nota 9. — De praenotatis *qualitatibus* elementorum cfr. Aristot., II. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 7. seqq. (c. 2.). — Paulo ante pro *redibunt* cod. L *cedent*, quod idem cod. L cum codd. E I K aa etiam substituit pro *cadent*.

en: Psalm 28:7. See above p. 925, note 9. — On the aforementioned *qualities* of the elements cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 7 ff. (c. 2). — A little before, for *redibunt* codex L has *cedent*, which the same codex L, together with codices E I K aa, also substitutes for *cadent*.

la: In Glossa supra arg. 2. ad oppos. allegata. — Superius post *frigiditas* Vat. supplet *erit*, et pro *terminabuntur* substituit cod. U *transmutabuntur*. Inferius pro *ratione activae* Vat. *ratione activitatis*; cod. L legit: *ad totalitatem ratione activae duplicis qualitatis*.

en: In the Gloss cited above in the second argument to the contrary. — Above, after *frigiditas*, the Vatican edition supplies *erit*, and for *terminabuntur* codex U substitutes *transmutabuntur*. Below, for *ratione activae* the Vatican edition has *ratione activitatis*; codex L reads: *ad totalitatem ratione activae duplicis qualitatis*.

la: Cap. 16. Cfr. supra pag. 976, nota 8.

en: Ch. 16. Cf. above p. 976, note 8.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 59. (c. 10.), et II. *de Anima*, text. 34. seq. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 59 (c. 10), and *On the Soul* II, text 34 f. (c. 4).

la: In Glossa Bedae supra arg. 2. ad oppos.

en: In the Gloss of Bede, above, in the second argument to the contrary.

la: Apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum est *interlinearis*. In Comment. in hunc loc., quod habetur inter opera Ambrosii dicitur, « non substantiam eius praeterire, sed formam »; et apud Haym.: *Transibit figura et species mundi per ignem, remanebit substantia renovata* etc. — Inferius post *pertransibit* ex codd. L R S T X Y (E a secunda manu) supplevimus *sic patet, quod non transibit*.

en: In Peter Lombard and in Lyra it is the *interlinear* [gloss]. In the Commentary on this passage, which is found among the works of Ambrose, it is said « that its substance does not pass away, but its form »; and in Haymo: *The figure and species of the world will pass away through fire; the substance will remain renewed* etc. — Below, after *pertransibit*, from codices L R S T X Y (E by a second hand) we have supplied *sic patet, quod non transibit*.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L105611–L105766, reflowed column-by-column and verified against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p99{2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 992:2067, 993:1623 — already correct; **no bands were regenerated**). The Respondeo and both page footers are cascade-shattered in the OCR; in those regions the band read is authoritative per the Vol II/IV override.

**Recovered-question boundary verification.** The header at L105611 reads `QUAESTIO lU.` in the OCR; the band (`p992-L-0` bottom + `p992-R-0` bottom) shows it printed as **`QUAESTIO III.`, centred across the full page width** — which is why the two column bands each hold only a fragment (`QUAEST` / `AESTIO III`). The title line beneath likewise spans the page: `Utrum elementa innovabuntur` (the OCR's `Ulrum` is a garble). This matches the skeleton's `title_la`; no correction needed. The ordinal opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum innovabuntur elementa` aligns with Quaestio III. Opening and closing sentences both parse; no cascade-merge signature. Nothing of a2-q4 (`QUAESTIO IV. Utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia bruta`, L105767, printed p. 994) is trapped in this range, and nothing of this question's opening was left in a2-q2 — a2-q2's text ends at `…terminum intra de se.` (p.992-L) and `…conditiones mobilis et spatii ³` (p.992-R), both **above** the page-spanning QUAESTIO III header.

**Page layout of p.992 (important for the seam).** The page is NOT a simple two-column read. Its upper half is a two-column block belonging entirely to `d48-a2-q2` (left = the tail of q2's corpus, right = q2's *Ad opposita* 1–4). The `QUAESTIO III` header and title then span the full page width, and a **new** two-column block below it begins this question. So both p.992 columns are shared.

**Page → apparatus split map.**

| Page | Notes on page | Bound to this chunk | Bound elsewhere |
|---|---|---|---|
| 992 | 10 (left footer 1–6, right footer 7–10) | **4–10** (7 entries) | **1–3** → `d48-a2-q2` |
| 993 | 8 (left footer 1–2, right footer 3–8) | **1–8** (8 entries) | none |

Total for this chunk: **15 entries**.

**Marker binding order.** Both pages bind in **straight reading order**, verified anchor-by-anchor against note content on the bands (e.g. p992 n. 8 = Matt. 24:35 ↔ `Matthaei vigesimo quarto ⁸`; p993 n. 3 = *de Civ. Dei* c. 16 ↔ `vigesimo de Civitate Dei ³`). No relabelling by position was performed. Note that on p.992 the reading order runs through the a2-q2 block first, so notes 1–3 are exhausted before this question's first anchor at note 4.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- **To `d48-a2-q2` (p.992):** notes **1, 2, 3** of p.992 are yours, not mine. Their anchors, read off the bands: n. 1 at `…ut sunt motus recti ¹;` (p.992 left column, corpus); n. 2 at `…sicut obsequium luminis ².` (p.992 right column, *Ad 1*); n. 3 at `…qui respicit conditiones mobilis et spatii ³.` (p.992 right column, end of *Ad 4*). Their texts: **n. 1** `Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 75. seqq. (c. 9.). — Superius vocibus in loco codd. B L interserunt illo.`; **n. 2** `Vide quaest. praeced. in fine corp. et ad 4.`; **n. 3** `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` Derived independently from the bands.
- **To `d48-a2-q4` (p.993):** **nothing.** p.993 is held entirely by this question — its body ends at `…pulcritudo et fragilitas ⁸.` and Quaestio IV opens on p. 994. `printed_pages: [992, 993]` is therefore correct as skeletonised; no change.

**Scholion.** None in this question. Art. II's scholion sits in `a2-q1` (L105417) — and p.993 note 8 (`Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.`) confirms that placement from the page itself.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every OCR garble in this range (`Ulrum`, `QUAESTIO lU.`, `C N C L IT s I 0.`, `h. Item` for `4. Item`, `IVIanebunt`, `qm\\[a,[e?. a.ctivas`, `cabditas`, `semuiliplicandi`, `fignra`, `li'ansibit`, `pertran.sibit`) was resolved as legible on the bands.

**Unmapped material:** none. Two page-furniture items were excluded as expected: the running head `DIST. XLVIII. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 993`, and the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. IV.` / `125` in the p.993 footers. The editorial marginalia (`Fundamenta.`, `Ad oppositum`, `Conclusio 1/2`, `Distinctio`, `Non probatur.`, `Opinio 2.`, `Ad opposita.`, `Figura dicitur tripliciter.`) were trimmed as marginal glosses per the OCR-cleanup rule.


title: Dist. 48, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 994 -->

### Articulus II. *De innovatione corporum superiorum.*
### Quaestio IV. *Utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia bruta.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels are page-qualified: notes 1–9 of page 994, then notes 1–4 of page 995 (page 995's register continues at note 5 into the following *Dubia* chunk).

Quarto quaeritur, utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia bruta. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia quae sunt propter hominis necessitatem, homine de necessitate transeunte, debent et ipsa transire; sed plantae et animalia sunt huiusmodi, quia propter hominis cibum: ergo etc.

2. Item, omnia quae innovabuntur, habent formam perfectivam, ordinatam ad incorruptionem; sed plantae et animalia non habent animas incorruptibiles[^p994-1]: ergo etc.

3. Item, si innovantur, aut ergo *omnia*, aut *quaedam*. Si *omnia*; tunc[^p994-2] omnes plantae, quae fuerunt ab initio, et omnia animalia occuparent centum tales mundos: ergo oporteret, mundum dilatari. Si *quaedam* innovantur, *quaedam* non, quaero: quae sunt illa quae innovantur? Et non videtur esse maior ratio de uno quam de alio.

4. Item, innovatio est eiusdem secundum substantiam; sed forma substantialis bruti corrumpitur: ergo si iterum generetur, erit novae rei formatio, non innovatio.

**Contra:** 1. Caeli ornatus innovabitur, ut patet in corporibus *supercaelestibus*[^p994-3]: ergo pari ratione ornatus terrae; sed ornatus terrae sunt plantae et animalia: ergo etc. Alioquin, si non innovabuntur, ergo remunerabitur terra sine ornatu, et ita imperfecte: ergo etc.

2. Item, corpora supercaelestia et elementa serviunt homini, et ideo remunerantur; sic plantae et animalia serviunt[^p994-4] et magis *serviunt*, quia praestant cibum, et magis *laborant* in serviendo, quia dant suam substantiam et moriuntur: ergo magis sunt renovanda.

3. Item, plantae et animalia sunt ad laudem Dei, ut patet, quia in Psalmo[^p994-5] invitantur ad laudandum Deum: ergo si laus Dei post iudicium non debet minui nec decrescere, sed augeri; ergo non debent cessare plantae et animalia.

4. Item, quae sunt de perfectione universi non debent cessare; sed plantae et animalia sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. *Prima* patet, quia tunc universum erit perfectius. *Secunda* patet, quia nunc superfluerent, si non essent de perfectione; et *praeterea* sunt creata inter opera sex dierum[^p994-6], in quibus mundus est constitutus ante hominis lapsum.

5. Item, quae sunt nobiliora magis sunt de perfectione; sed vegetabilia et animalia nobiliora sunt corporibus elementaribus, quia habent vitam[^p994-7]: ergo etc.

6. Item, differentiae dividentes genus sunt de perfectione universi; sed differentiae accipiuntur penes haec duo[^p994-8]: ergo haec ad universi perfectionem debent innovari.

### Conclusio

> *Plantae et animalia non innovabuntur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod plantae et animalia non innovabuntur, propter hoc quod ultima eorum perfectio est corruptibilis per naturam et ortum et radicem habet a materia; unde non sunt idonea ad vivendum sive durandum aeternaliter. — Formae autem corporum *supercaelestium* sunt incorruptibiles omnino[^p994-9]; similiter formae *elementorum* incorruptibiles sunt secundum totum et secundum partem, quantum est in se, quia sunt corpora simplicia; unde quod corrumpantur, hoc est per actionem venientem ab extrinseco; et ideo, remota illa actione, remanent incorruptibiles.

Ex hoc patet, quod plantae et animalia non sunt ad *ornatum terrae*, sed ad *hominis obsequium*, nec ad *Dei laudem* nec ad *universi perfectionem* nisi secundum statum eum, qui est corruptibilis et *variabilis*; et ideo non oportet innovari. Unde terra habebit alium ornatum, nec oportet, quod multiformis sit, immo ipsa uniformitas erit ei in ornatum.

**Ad argumenta pro parte opposita:**

*Ad 1. 2. 3. 4.* Et ex hoc patet primum, quia caeli ornatus naturaliter est dispositus ad incorruptionem. — Similiter homini non convenit eorum obsequium post resurrectionem, sicut obsequium solis et lunae; et ideo non remunerantur. — Similiter sunt ad laudandum Deum secundum statum *infirmitatis*, quando ipse *in se* non est manifestus; sed cum in se cognoscetur sufficienter, in se laudabitur, nec oportet, ad hoc esse multitudinem creaturarum. — Similiter sunt de perfectione universi, quatenus est habitaculum hominis *viventis animaliter*, sed post *spiritualis effecti*[^p995-1] non; et ideo concreata sunt homini, quia homo alimoniis indigebat; et *praeterea*, Deus eum peccaturum esse praesciebat.

<!-- page 995 -->

*Ad 5.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur: quod nobilius est magis est de perfectione universi; dicendum, quod habere *esse nobilius*, hoc est dupliciter: vel quia *permanentius*, et quod sic est magis est de integritate universi; vel nobilius, quia *completius*, et hoc non magis est de integritate universi, nisi cum perfectione completionis habeat incorruptionem durationis; hoc enim ipso, quod *corruptibile*, non est de perfectione[^p995-2].

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de differentiis, dicendum, quod istud non oportet, quia divisio *generis* in differentias has est secundum *statum*. — Potest nihilominus dici, quod homine innovato, omnes differentiae, quae spectant ad *completionem* eius[^p995-3], salvantur, ut *corporeum, animatum, sensibile, rationale*; aliae differentiae, *inanimatum, insensibile, irrationale*, dicunt perfectionem coniunctam imperfectioni. Unde distinguendum, quod differentiae *quaedam* sunt perfectivae *simpliciter*, *quaedam* perfectivae *cum diminutione*. Et sic solvendum est illud, quia primae sunt de perfectione universi simpliciter, secundae vero solum secundum statum[^p995-4].

---

english:
### Article II. *On the renewal of the higher bodies.*
### Question IV. *Whether plants and brute animals will be renewed.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether plants and brute animals will be renewed. And that they will not, seems [to follow]:

1. Because things that are for the sake of man's necessity ought themselves also to pass away when man of necessity passes away; but plants and animals are of this sort, since they are for man's food: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, all things that will be renewed have a perfective form, ordered to incorruption; but plants and animals do not have incorruptible souls[^p994-1]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if they are renewed, then either *all* [are], or *some*. If *all*; then[^p994-2] all the plants that have existed from the beginning, and all the animals, would occupy a hundred such worlds: therefore the world would have to be enlarged. If *some* are renewed and *some* not, I ask: which are they that are renewed? And there does not seem to be any greater reason for one than for another.

4. Likewise, renewal is of the same thing according to substance; but the substantial form of a brute is corrupted: therefore if it were generated again, it would be the forming of a new thing, not a renewal.

**On the contrary:** 1. The adornment of the heaven will be renewed, as is clear in the *supercelestial* bodies[^p994-3]: therefore by parity of reason the adornment of the earth; but the adornment of the earth is plants and animals: therefore etc. Otherwise, if they will not be renewed, then the earth will be rewarded without adornment, and thus imperfectly: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the supercelestial bodies and the elements serve man, and therefore they are rewarded; so plants and animals serve[^p994-4], and *serve* more, since they furnish food, and *labour* more in serving, since they give their own substance and die: therefore they are the more to be renewed.

3. Likewise, plants and animals are for the praise of God, as is clear, since in the Psalm[^p994-5] they are invited to praise God: therefore if the praise of God after the judgement ought not to be lessened nor to decrease, but to be increased; therefore plants and animals ought not to cease.

4. Likewise, things that belong to the perfection of the universe ought not to cease; but plants and animals are of this sort: therefore etc. The *first* [premise] is clear, because then the universe will be more perfect. The *second* is clear, because they would now be superfluous if they did not belong to its perfection; and *besides*, they were created among the works of the six days[^p994-6], in which the world was constituted before man's fall.

5. Likewise, things that are nobler belong more to perfection; but vegetables and animals are nobler than the elemental bodies, since they have life[^p994-7]: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, the differences dividing a genus belong to the perfection of the universe; but the differences are taken in respect of these two[^p994-8]: therefore these ought to be renewed for the perfection of the universe.

### Conclusion

> *Plants and animals will not be renewed.*

**I respond:** It must be said that plants and animals will not be renewed, on account of this, that their ultimate perfection is corruptible by nature and takes its rise and root from matter; hence they are not fit to live or to endure eternally. — But the forms of the *supercelestial* bodies are altogether incorruptible[^p994-9]; likewise the forms of the *elements* are incorruptible according to the whole and according to the part, so far as lies in themselves, since they are simple bodies; hence that they are corrupted, this is through an action coming from without; and therefore, when that action is removed, they remain incorruptible.

From this it is clear that plants and animals are not for the *adornment of the earth*, but for *man's service*, nor for the *praise of God* nor for the *perfection of the universe* except according to that state which is corruptible and *variable*; and therefore they need not be renewed. Hence the earth will have another adornment, nor is it necessary that it be multiform; rather that very uniformity will be an adornment to it.

**To the arguments for the opposite side:**

*To 1, 2, 3, 4.* And from this the first is clear, since the adornment of the heaven is naturally disposed to incorruption. — Likewise their service does not befit man after the resurrection, as does the service of the sun and moon; and therefore they are not rewarded. — Likewise they are for praising God according to the state of *infirmity*, when he himself is not manifest *in himself*; but when he shall be known sufficiently in himself, he will be praised in himself, nor is a multitude of creatures needed for this. — Likewise they belong to the perfection of the universe insofar as it is the dwelling-place of man *living animally*, but not after he has been *made spiritual*[^p995-1]; and therefore they were created together with man, because man needed nourishment; and *besides*, God foreknew that he would sin.

*To 5.* But to that which is objected — that what is nobler belongs more to the perfection of the universe — it must be said that to have *nobler being* is twofold: either because it is *more permanent*, and what is so belongs more to the integrity of the universe; or nobler because *more complete*, and this does not belong more to the integrity of the universe unless together with the perfection of completeness it has incorruption of duration; for by this very fact, that it is *corruptible*, it does not belong to perfection[^p995-2].

*To 6.* To that which is objected last concerning the differences, it must be said that this does not follow, because the division of the *genus* by these differences is according to a *state*. — It can nonetheless be said that, when man has been renewed, all the differences that pertain to his *completeness*[^p995-3] are preserved, such as *corporeal, animate, sensible, rational*; the other differences, *inanimate, insensible, irrational*, state a perfection joined to imperfection. Hence it must be distinguished that some differences are perfective *simply*, and some perfective *with diminution*. And thus that [objection] is to be resolved, because the first belong to the perfection of the universe simply, but the second only according to a state[^p995-4].

---

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro *perfectivam* (corporis) Vat. *perfectam*.

en: As was shown in II *Sent.*, d. 19, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for *perfectivam* (of the body) the Vatican edition reads *perfectam*.

la: Codd. E F L O U bb addunt *cum*, cod. G *enim*, codd. I K *ergo*, et mox post *animalia* cod. bb addit *si essent*, Vat. *essent et*, codd. I K *et si hoc*. In fine argg. Vat. addit *ergo nulla*, cod. aa *ergo etc.*

en: Codices E F L O U bb add *cum*, codex G *enim*, codices I K *ergo*; and shortly after, following *animalia*, codex bb adds *si essent*, the Vatican edition *essent et*, codices I K *et si hoc*. At the end of the arguments the Vatican edition adds *ergo nulla*, codex aa *ergo etc.*

la: Vide supra q. 1. seq. — Inferius pro *remunerabitur* cod. aa *remanebit*.

en: See above, q. 1 and following. — Below, for *remunerabitur* codex aa reads *remanebit*.

la: Codd. E Z supplent *homini*. Edd. superius voci *corpora* praemittunt *sicut*. In fine arg. pro *renovanda* cod. G *remuneranda*.

en: Codices E Z supply *homini*. The editions above prefix *sicut* to the word *corpora*. At the end of the argument, for *renovanda* codex G reads *remuneranda*.

la: Psalm. 148, 9. seq.: *Ligna fructifera et omnes cedri. Bestiae* etc.

en: Psalm 148:9 and following: *Fruit trees and all cedars. Beasts* etc.

la: Vide Gen. 1, 11. et 20. seqq. — Superius ex cd. 1 substituimus *quia nunc* pro *quia tunc*. Pro *et praeterea, sunt* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *cum primo sint*.

en: See Genesis 1:11 and 20 and following. — Above, from edition 1 we have substituted *quia nunc* for *quia tunc*. For *et praeterea, sunt* codex K (I by a second hand) reads *cum primo sint*.

la: Cfr. August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 16.

en: Compare Augustine, *On the City of God* XI, c. 16.

la: Scil. plantas et animalia, quoniam corpus animatum (quod est genus) dividitur in corpus animatum *sensibile* sive *sensitivum* et *insensibile*.

en: Namely plants and animals, since animate body (which is the genus) is divided into animate body *sensible* or *sensitive* and *insensible*.

la: Secundum doctrinam Aristot.; cfr. II. Sent. d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

en: According to the doctrine of Aristotle; compare II *Sent.*, d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 15, 44. seqq. — Superius pro *multitudinem* cod. L *multiplicitatem*.

en: Reference is made to 1 Corinthians 15:44 and following. — Above, for *multitudinem* codex L reads *multiplicitatem*.

la: Cod. R addit *et integritate*. Pro *ipso quod* edd. *eo ipso, quod est*.

en: Codex R adds *et integritate*. For *ipso quod* the editions read *eo ipso, quod est*.

la: Scilicet universi. — Pro *completionem* edd. cum pluribus codd. *complexionem*.

en: Namely, of the universe. — For *completionem* the editions, with several codices, read *complexionem*.

la: Edd. *secundum hunc statum*. Voci *solum* codd. I K praemittunt *non nisi*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: The editions read *secundum hunc statum*. To the word *solum* codices I K prefix *non nisi*. — See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR, raw lines 105767–105901 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, reflowed column-by-column and verified throughout against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p99{4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 994:2126, 995:1616 — bands were already correct; **no bands were regenerated**). English translated literally, paragraph for paragraph. No scholion in this quaestio — Art. II's scholion sits in `d48-a2-q1` (raw L105417), which is the normal shape here.

**Printed-page span corrected: [993, 994, 995] → [994, 995].** The skeleton inherited p.993 from the auto-chunker. The bands show `QUAESTIO IV.` printed as a full-width centred header at the **top of p.994**, immediately under the running head `994 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (raw L105763), which itself follows p.993's closing signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. IV. 123` (raw L105762). **p.993 is wholly `d48-a2-q3`'s** — this chunk anchors nothing on it and claims none of its footer notes. Frontmatter `pdf_pages` narrowed to [1014, 1015] accordingly.

**Apparatus split map (13 entries claimed).**

| Printed page | Footer notes on the page | Claimed by this chunk | Handed off |
|---|---|---|---|
| 993 | (a2-q3's register) | none | **all** → `d48-a2-q3` |
| 994 | 1–9 (left footer 1–4, right footer 5–9) | **1–9** (all) | none |
| 995 | 1–9 (left footer 1–6, right footer 7–9) | **1–4** | **5–9** → `d48-dubia` |

**Marker binding order — p.994 and p.995 both bind in straight reading/document order.** Verified content-by-content against the bands, not by position: p.994 notes 1–4 anchor in the left body column (arg. 2 *incorruptibiles*¹, arg. 3 *tunc*², Contra 1 *supercaelestibus*³, Contra 2 *serviunt*⁴) and print in the left footer; notes 5–9 anchor in the right column (Contra 3 *in Psalmo*⁵, arg. 4 *sex dierum*⁶, arg. 5 *habent vitam*⁷, arg. 6 *haec duo*⁸, Respondeo *incorruptibiles omnino*⁹) and print in the right footer. No overflow or inversion on either page — unlike pp.987/988/992 elsewhere in this distinction.

**⚠ p.995's footer block is MISSING ENTIRELY from the raw OCR.** The raw runs from the last body line (L105898, `secundum statnm \`) straight to the `DUBfA CIRCA UTTERAM MAGISTRI.` header at L105902 with no footer at all. All four of this chunk's `p995-N` entries were recovered from `vol4-p995-L-2.png`. **This is the fifth confirmed missing-footer page in d.48** (after pp. 981, 983, 985, 992) — and, as the brief warns, `audit-apparatus-count` cannot see it, since the raw is the empty side.

**OCR disagreement resolved at band time (no `[?]`).** The raw carries the string `Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.` at L105760, i.e. inside p.993's footer block. The band shows this same clause as the tail of **p.995 note 4**. The band read is authoritative here; `d48-a2-q3` should verify independently whether p.993 also carries a note ending in that clause rather than assuming a duplicate.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
- → `d48-a2-q3`: p.993 is entirely yours, footer and body; this chunk claims nothing on it. Your close should run to the bottom of p.993's right column (last body line before the `S. Bonav. — Tom. IV. 123` signature at raw L105762). See the OCR-disagreement note above.
- → `d48-dubia`: **p.995's footer notes 5–9 are yours** — they anchor in the dubia body (note 6 at *ut dicit Hieronymus*⁶ and note 5 at *Vers. 11* in Dub. I's left column; note 7 at *divina suspendente virtute*⁷; notes 8–9 in Dub. II). They are **not in the raw** — read them off `vol4-p995-L-2.png` (notes 5–6) and `vol4-p995-R-2.png` (notes 7–9). Note that p.995's footer register is a **single continuous 1–9 sequence running straight through the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` header** — the numbering does not restart at the header, so your first p.995 label is `p995-5`, not `p995-1`.

**Seam verification.** The ordinal opener aligns: *Quarto quaeritur, utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia bruta* ↔ Quaestio IV. The title on the page (`Utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia bruta.`, the line after the `QUAESTIO IV.` header) matches the skeleton's `title_la` exactly — no correction needed. The chunk's close parses cleanly and is a complete sentence: *…primae sunt de perfectione universi simpliciter, secundae vero solum secundum statum.* Nothing of the dubia is trapped in this range: the bands confirm that the full-width `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` header follows the end of *Ad 6* with a clear rule, and it sits at raw **L105902**, one line past this chunk's `line_end`. (Confirming the brief: **L105868 is the running head `DIST. XLVIII. DUBIA. 995`, not the dubia header** — the older setup file's L105868 boundary would have swallowed this chunk's entire p.995 portion, i.e. *Ad 5* and *Ad 6* plus four apparatus entries, into the dubia. That is exactly the d.42 failure mode; the corrected boundary avoids it.)

**Page-break placement.** The printed p.994→995 break falls *mid-paragraph*, inside the *Ad 1. 2. 3. 4.* solution (p.994 ends `…secundum statum infirmitatis, quando`; p.995 opens `ipse in se non est manifestus…`). The `<!-- page 995 -->` comment is placed at the nearest clean paragraph boundary, immediately before *Ad 5.*, per the corpus convention of putting page comments at paragraph boundaries.

**Marker count.** Latin `[^` anchors: 13. English `[^` anchors: 13. Apparatus definitions: 13. Matched.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every band read was legible.

**Unmapped:** nothing. All 9 notes of p.994 and all 9 of p.995 are accounted for across this chunk and the two forwarded hand-offs.