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

source_text:
<!-- page 984 -->

### Articulus I. *De iudicis apparitione.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum potestas iudiciaria sit Christi secundum humanitatem an secundum Divinitatem.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 1–8 of page 984, and note 1 of page 985. Of page 985 this chunk claims only the first note; notes 2 and 3 of that page anchor in Quaestio II and are rendered there.

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et quaeritur, utrum potestas iudiciaria sit Christi secundum humanitatem, an secundum Divinitatem. Et quod secundum Divinitatem, videtur:

1. Quia Danielis septimo[^p984-1], ubi agitur de iudicio, dicitur, quod *throni positi sunt, et Antiquus dierum sedit*; et Glossa exponit « de Patre »: sed quod convenit Christo cum Patre convenit ratione Divinitatis; iudicare est huiusmodi, ut probatum est: ergo etc.

2. Item, Ioannis quinto[^p984-2]: *Pater omne iudicium dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut omnes honorificant Patrem*; sed Filius non est honorandus ut Pater nisi solum secundum Divinitatem: ergo cum iudicium sit ad hoc datum, ergo secundum Divinitatem.

3. Item, eius est iudicare, cuius est retribuere; sed retribuere est secundum Divinitatem, quia *de Deo oportet credere quoniam est et remunerator est*, ad Hebraeos undecimo[^p984-3]: ergo et iudiciaria potestas inest ei ratione Divinitatis.

4. Item, a sententia Christi nullus poterit appellare: ergo secundum illam potentiam iudicabit, secundum quam non habet superiorem; sed haec est Divinitas: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Ioannis quinto[^p984-4]: *Pater non iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit Filio*; sed omnis actus, qui convenit Filio secundum Divinitatem, convenit Patri; sed iudicare non: ergo etc.

2. Item, Iob trigesimo sexto[^p984-5]: *Causa tua quasi impii iudicata est*; Glossa: « a Pilato »; ideo *iudicium causamque recipies*, « ut iuste iudices »: ergo si iudicatus est secundum humanitatem, potestatem iudicandi habebit secundum humanitatem.

3. Item, Ioannis quinto[^p984-6] expresse dicitur: *Potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est.*

4. Item, ratione: constat, quod ipse secundum humanitatem promulgabit sententiam[^p984-7]; et secundum illam naturam promulgabit, secundum quam habet auctoritatem et potestatem ad hoc faciendum, alioquin esset iudicium usurpatum: ergo secundum humanitatem habebit auctoritatem et potestatem.

5. Item, ipse Christus erit iudex secundum humanitatem, aut principalis, aut delegatus. Si delegatus: ergo ab eius sententia poterit appellari, quod nefarium est dicere: erit ergo iudex principalis. Sed iudex principalis in iudicando habet auctoritatem principalem: ergo secundum humanitatem habet praecipuam auctoritatem.

### Conclusio

> Potestas iudiciaria est Christi secundum Divinitatem principaliter et per naturam, secundum humanitatem per gratiam et commissa; sed latio sententiae fit a Christo secundum humanitatem, non ut iudice delegato, sed principali.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad hoc, quod iudicium sit firmum, concurrit auctoritas et potestas: auctoritas in sententiando et potestas in retribuendo praemium secundum meritum. Si alterum horum deficiat, non est firmum iudicium. Haec duo principaliter sunt in *Deo*. Nam in ipso est auctoritas ad sententiandum, quia Dominus omnium est, et nos omnes servi eius; est etiam *potestas* ad retribuendum, quia potentissimus, et non est qui contra eum se valeat erigere vel eius sententiam irritare. — Haec duo communicavit Deus-Trinitas homini Christo: *auctoritatem* dando dominium, sicut dicitur Actuum secundo[^p984-8]: *Dominum fecit Deus hunc Iesum*; *potestatem* etiam sibi cetera subiiciendo, Matthaei ultimo: *Data est mihi omnis potestas*. Et ideo

<!-- page 985 -->

ipse est *qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum*, sicut dicitur Actuum decimo.

Quoniam igitur potestas iudiciaria respicit illa duo iam dicta, et illa sunt in *Deo* per *naturam*, in *Christo homine* per *gratiam*; ideo iudiciaria potestas est Christi secundum *Divinitatem* per *naturam*, secundum *humanitatem* collata per *gratiam*. Unde secundum utramque naturam habet auctoritatem, sed secundum Divinitatem *principalem* et naturalem, secundum humanitatem *commissam*, unde *constitutus est*.

Cum igitur sit *potestas*[^p985-1] primaria in Deo, sed commissa in homine Christo, *latio sententiae* debet fieri a Christo-homine secundum *humanitatem*: quia, si fieret secundum potestatem primariam, cum secunda nihil det primae, non esset vere iudex secundum humanitatem; sed quando secunda operatur, cum recipiat a prima, ratio iudicandi residet penes utramque; secunda enim recipit a prima. Ideo latio sententiae fiet a Christo secundum humanitatem. Sed quia Christus est Deus et homo, sententia eius non erit tanquam iudicis delegati, sed tanquam principalis. Et ideo ab ea propter utramque potestatem nullus poterit appellare.

**Ad argumenta:** Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad utramque partem: primae, quia verum concludunt, quod iudiciaria potestas sit Christi secundum Divinitatem; similiter ad oppositum, quia verum concludunt, quod sit Christi secundum humanitatem, maxime quantum ad sententiae lationem. Robur tamen sententiae, ut dictum est, non principaliter est ex humanitate Christi, sed potius ex eius Divinitate.

english:
### Article I. *On the appearing of the Judge.*
### Question I. *Whether the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his humanity or according to his divinity.*

As to the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his humanity or according to his divinity. And that it is according to his divinity, it seems:

1. Because in Daniel the seventh[^p984-1], where judgement is treated of, it is said that *thrones were set, and the Ancient of days sat down*; and the Gloss explains it "of the Father": but what belongs to Christ in common with the Father belongs to him by reason of his divinity; to judge is of this sort, as has been proved: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, John the fifth[^p984-2]: *The Father has given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son, as all honour the Father*; but the Son is not to be honoured as the Father except only according to his divinity: therefore, since judgement has been given for this purpose, therefore it is according to his divinity.

3. Likewise, it belongs to him to judge, to whom it belongs to repay; but to repay is according to the divinity, since *concerning God one must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder*, Hebrews the eleventh[^p984-3]: therefore the judiciary power also is in him by reason of his divinity.

4. Likewise, from Christ's sentence no one will be able to appeal: therefore he will judge according to that power according to which he has no superior; but this is the divinity: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. John the fifth[^p984-4]: *The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son*; but every act which belongs to the Son according to his divinity belongs to the Father; but to judge does not: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Job the thirty-sixth[^p984-5]: *Thy cause has been judged as that of an impious man*; the Gloss: "by Pilate"; therefore *thou shalt receive judgement and cause*, "that thou mayest judge justly": therefore if he was judged according to his humanity, he will have the power of judging according to his humanity.

3. Likewise, in John the fifth[^p984-6] it is expressly said: *He has given him power to do judgement, because he is the son of man.*

4. Likewise, by reason: it is agreed that he will promulgate the sentence according to his humanity[^p984-7]; and he will promulgate it according to that nature according to which he has the authority and the power for doing this, otherwise the judgement would be usurped: therefore according to his humanity he will have the authority and the power.

5. Likewise, Christ himself will be judge according to his humanity, either as principal or as delegate. If as delegate: then from his sentence it will be possible to appeal, which it is wicked to say: he will therefore be a principal judge. But a principal judge has principal authority in judging: therefore according to his humanity he has the chief authority.

### Conclusion

> The judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his divinity principally and by nature, according to his humanity by grace and as committed to him; but the pronouncing of the sentence is made by Christ according to his humanity, not as by a delegated judge, but as by a principal one.

**I respond:** It must be said that, for a judgement to be firm, authority and power concur: authority in passing sentence, and power in repaying the reward according to merit. If either of these be lacking, the judgement is not firm. These two are principally in *God*. For in him is the authority to pass sentence, since he is Lord of all, and we are all his servants; there is also the *power* to repay, since he is most mighty, and there is none who can raise himself against him or annul his sentence. — These two the Triune God communicated to the man Christ: giving him *authority* by lordship, as is said in Acts the second[^p984-8]: *God has made this Jesus Lord*; and also *power* by subjecting the rest to him, in the last chapter of Matthew: *All power is given to me*. And therefore

<!-- page 985 -->

he is the one *who has been appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead*, as is said in Acts the tenth.

Since, therefore, the judiciary power regards those two things already spoken of, and those are in *God* by *nature*, in *Christ as man* by *grace*; therefore the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his *divinity* by *nature*, and according to his *humanity* as conferred by *grace*. Hence according to both natures he has authority, but according to his divinity a *principal* and natural authority, according to his humanity a *committed* one, whence he has been *appointed*.

Since therefore the primary *power*[^p985-1] is in God, but committed in the man Christ, the *pronouncing of the sentence* ought to be made by Christ as man according to his *humanity*: because, if it were made according to the primary power, since the second gives nothing to the first, he would not truly be judge according to his humanity; but when the second operates, since it receives from the first, the ground of judging resides with both; for the second receives from the first. Therefore the pronouncing of the sentence will be made by Christ according to his humanity. But since Christ is God and man, his sentence will not be as that of a delegated judge, but as that of a principal one. And therefore from it, on account of both powers, no one will be able to appeal.

**To the arguments:** The reasons on both sides are therefore to be conceded: the first ones, because they conclude what is true, namely that the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his divinity; and likewise those to the opposite, because they conclude what is true, namely that it belongs to Christ according to his humanity, especially as regards the pronouncing of the sentence. Yet the strength of the sentence, as has been said, is not principally from the humanity of Christ, but rather from his divinity.

la: Vers. 9. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Lyranum. — Quod *iudicare* sit Divinitatis, insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Verse 9. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* one, in Lyra. — That *to judge* belongs to the divinity is intimated here in the letter of the Master, c. 2.

la: Vers. 22. seq.: Neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium... sicut honorificant Patrem.

en: Verse 22 and following: For neither does the Father judge anyone, but all judgement... as they honour the Father.

la: Vers. 6: Credere enim oportet accedentem ad Deum, quia est et inquirentibus se remunerator sit.

en: Verse 6: For he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him.

la: Vers. 22.

en: Verse 22.

la: Vers. 17. — Glossa, quae etiam a S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1.) allegatur, non exhibetur a Glossariis (in hunc loc.), quae prae manibus habemus. August., Serm. 127. (alias 64. de Verbis Domini) c. 7. n. 10: Forma illa hic iudicabit, quae iudicata est... Sedebit iudex, qui stetit sub iudice. Damnabit veros reos qui factus est falsus reus. Cfr. in Ioan. Evang. tr. 19. n. 16.

en: Verse 17. — The Gloss, which is also alleged by St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1.), is not exhibited by the Glossaries (on this passage) which we have at hand. Augustine, Sermon 127 (elsewhere 64, *On the Words of the Lord*) c. 7. n. 10: That form will judge here which was judged... He will sit as judge who stood beneath a judge. He will condemn true culprits, who was made a false culprit. Cf. *on the Gospel of John*, tract 19. n. 16.

la: Vers. 27.

en: Verse 27.

la: Cfr. Matth. 25, 31. seqq. — Superius post *ratione* in codd. O S U additur *videtur* (cod. X a secunda manu *videtur, quia*).

en: Cf. Matt. 25, 31 and following. — Above, after *ratione*, in codices O S U there is added *videtur* (codex X, by a second hand, *videtur, quia*).

la: Vers. 36: Quia et Dominum eum et Christum fecit Deus hunc Iesum. — Seq. textus est Matth. 28, 18; tertius est Act. 10, 42. — Edd. ponunt *et* ante *dominium*.

en: Verse 36: That God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ. — The following text is Matt. 28, 18; the third is Acts 10, 42. — The editions place *et* before *dominium*.

la: Cod. E *potestas iudiciaria*.

en: Codex E reads *potestas iudiciaria*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Christum in forma *humana*, et quidem *gloriosa*, iudicaturum mundum, S. Scriptura, consensus Patrum et unanimis sententia doctorum catholicorum testatur. Hoc tamen non ita intelligitur, ut excludatur causa principalis efficiens, quae est ipsa Divinitas; quia « iudicabit quidem in humana natura, sed ex virtute Divinitatis » (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 2; Suppl. q. 90. a. 1. ad 2.); quod praecipue urget Scot. (hic q. 1. n. 1-10.). — De loco iudicii et de aliis iudicium concomitantibus cfr. infra dub. 1-4.

De 1. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 25. m. 4. quaest. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de toto articulo hic q. 1.

**II.** Conclusio 2. quaestionis unanimiter recipitur, si agitur de *facto*, licet reprobi, Christum Deum esse, tunc certo cognoscant « per manifestissima Divinitatis indicia » (S. Thom., locis citt. a. 3. ad 1.). Insuper S. Thom. (articulis citt.) quaerit, utrum Divinitas sine gaudio *possit* videri; et resolvit: « Impossibile est, quod eius essentia apprehensa non delectet ». Sed Scot. (loc. cit. n. 5.) vult, loquendo de *potentia Dei absoluta*, hoc non esse impossibile (cfr. q. 2. in fine).

De 2. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § ult. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2.

**III.** Circa 3. quaestionis solutionem Scot. (loc. cit. n. 11.) dubitat, utrum mali *nullo modo* videant formam gloriosam humanae Christi naturae, an *eo modo*, quem cum S. Bonav. S. Thom. ponit, scil. ad maiorem confusionem et contristationem.

De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

**IV.** Quoad 4. quaestionem manifestum est, quod saltem respectu *viatorum* Deus cognitionem temporis, quo finitur mundus, sibi reservavit; unde plurimi hucusque frustra laboraverunt, ut tempus vel proximam instantiam extremi iudicii determinarent. — Locos Scripturae (Matth. 24, 36; Marc. 13, 32.), qui ipsi Filio hanc scientiam denegare videntur, Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. m. 2.) secundum Gregorium sic exponit: « Per hoc non excluditur Christus-homo a notitia illius diei, sed per hoc excluditur, quod non ex virtute humanitatis ipsam habet, sed ex virtute Divinitatis habet ». De eodem loco dicit S. Thom. (supra d. 47. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 88. a. 3.): « Dicitur autem Filius nescire, in quantum nos scire non facit ».

De eadem 4. quaestione praeter citatos: Scot., Report. supra d. 43. q. 5. n. 8. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. ad 5. — Richard. a Med., supra d. 43. a. 6. q. 2, et d. 47. a. 1. q. 8. — Durand., supra d. 47. q. 1. n. 10.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That Christ will judge the world in his *human* form, and indeed in his *glorious* one, Holy Scripture, the consensus of the Fathers and the unanimous judgement of the catholic doctors attest. This, however, is not so understood as to exclude the principal efficient cause, which is the divinity itself; because "he will indeed judge in the human nature, but by the power of the divinity" (St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. ad 2; Suppl. q. 90. a. 1. ad 2.); which Scotus especially urges (here q. 1. nn. 1-10.). — On the place of the judgement and on the other things accompanying the judgement, see below dub. 1-4.

On the 1st question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III. q. 25. m. 4. quaest. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, on the whole article, here q. 1.

**II.** The conclusion of the 2nd question is unanimously received, if it is a matter of *fact*, that the reprobate, granted that Christ is God, then know it with certainty "by the most manifest signs of the divinity" (St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 3. ad 1.). Moreover St. Thomas (in the articles cited) asks whether the divinity *can* be seen without joy; and he resolves: "It is impossible that its essence, once apprehended, should not delight." But Scotus (loc. cit. n. 5.) holds, speaking of the *absolute power of God*, that this is not impossible (cf. q. 2. at the end).

On the 2nd question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § ult. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2.

**III.** Concerning the solution of the 3rd question, Scotus (loc. cit. n. 11.) doubts whether the wicked see the glorious form of Christ's human nature *in no way*, or *in that way* which St. Thomas, along with St. Bonaventure, posits, namely for their greater confusion and sorrow.

On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. — St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 2.

**IV.** As to the 4th question, it is manifest that at least with respect to *wayfarers* God has reserved to himself the knowledge of the time at which the world is ended; whence very many have hitherto laboured in vain to determine the time, or the nearest instant, of the last judgement. — The places of Scripture (Matt. 24, 36; Mark 13, 32.) which seem to deny this knowledge to the Son himself, Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. m. 2.) expounds thus, following Gregory: "By this Christ as man is not excluded from the knowledge of that day, but by this it is excluded that he has it from the power of his humanity; rather he has it from the power of his divinity." On the same place St. Thomas says (above d. 47. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 3; Suppl. q. 88. a. 3.): "But the Son is said not to know, inasmuch as he does not make us to know."

On the same 4th question, besides those cited: Scotus, Report. above d. 43. q. 5. n. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 4. ad 5. — Richard of Middleton, above d. 43. a. 6. q. 2, and d. 47. a. 1. q. 8. — Durandus, above d. 47. q. 1. n. 10.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L104696–L104902, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p98{4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (pre-measured gutters 984:2143, 985:1529 — not regenerated). Left column top→bottom, then right; body bands then footer bands.

**Printed-page correction (report to coordinator).** The skeleton frontmatter listed `printed_pages: [983, 984, 985]`. Band `vol4-p984-L-0.png` shows the running head `984 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` immediately above the `ARTICULUS I.` header — i.e. **this article begins at the top of p.984**, and nothing in this chunk's body sits on p.983. Frontmatter corrected to `[984, 985]` / `pdf_pages: [1004, 1005]`. **p.983 therefore belongs entirely to `d48-divisio`**; this chunk claims no p.983 footer note. Derived independently from the bands, not from any neighbour's account.

**Title verification.** The line after the `QUAESTIO I.` header on the page reads *Utrum potestas iudiciaria sit Christi secundum humanitatem an secundum Divinitatem* — matching the skeleton `title_la` exactly. No correction needed.

**Apparatus split map (9 entries claimed).**
- **p.984 — notes 1–8, all claimed here.** The entire page is this quaestio; no sharing. Binding on this page is **straight reading order** (verified by content, not by position): left column arg. 1→1, arg. 2→2, arg. 3→3, contra 1→4, contra 2→5, contra 3→6; right column contra 4→7, Respondeo→8. Content check: 1 = Dan. 7,9; 2 = Ioan. 5,22; 3 = Hebr. 11,6; 4 = Ioan. 5,22; 5 = Iob 36,17 + Augustine; 6 = Ioan. 5,27; 7 = Matth. 25,31 + codd. variant; 8 = Act. 2,36. Notes 1–5 print in the left footer band, 5 (run-over)–8 in the right.
- **p.985 — 3 notes printed; note 1 only claimed here.** Note 1 (`Cod. E potestas iudiciaria`) anchors at *Cum igitur sit potestas¹ primaria in Deo* in this chunk's Respondeo, left column. **Notes 2 (Isidore, Libr. 1 Sent. c. 27 n. 8 + August. de Trin.) and 3 (1 Tim. 6,16; II Sent. d. 3 p. II a. 2 q. 2; d. 23 a. 2 q. 3; III Sent. d. 14 a. 1 q. 3; supra d. 44 p. I a. 3 q. 2) anchor in Quaestio II's body and belong to `bon-sent-IV-d48-a1-q2`** — forwarded as a hand-off, derived independently from the p.985 footer bands.

**Missing-footer check (the d.47 failure mode recurring).** The raw OCR does carry p.984's footer block, but **carries no p.985 footer at all** — it runs from the scholion straight to `QUAESTIO II.` The p.985 register (3 notes, plus the `S. Bonav. — Tom. IV.` signature line and gathering number 124) was recovered entirely from the bands.

**Scholion.** Art. I's scholion (raw `SCHOLIOK`, L104867) is rendered here in both languages, sections I–IV, and placed **last** in each language block per the parser requirement. It prints on p.985 spanning both columns (I–II left, III–IV right) between the Respondeo and `QUAESTIO II.`

**Seams.** Opening: `Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic…` picks up the divisio's question enumeration and parses cleanly. The short `ARTICULUS I. De iudicis apparitione` header plus the question title are folded into this q1 per the frozen convention (not dropped at the header↔QUAESTIO seam — the d.42 failure mode). Closing: `…sed potius ex eius Divinitate.` parses as a complete sentence; the next chunk opens `Secundo quaeritur de forma, in qua Christus apparebit…`, confirmed on band `vol4-p985-L-2.png`.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial furniture, not Bonaventure's text): `Argg. pro 1. parte.`, `Pro 2. parte.`, `Conclusio.`, `Conclusio 1.`, `Conclusio 2.`, `Conclusio 3.`, `Ad argg.`, `notandum`. Running heads (`DIST. XLVIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`) likewise dropped as page furniture.

**Anchor count.** 9 `[^` anchors in the Latin body, 9 in the English body, 9 apparatus definitions — matched.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every band read on these two pages was legible; nothing was guessed.

**Bands regenerated:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 985 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christus in forma Divinitatis apparebit malis.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels are page-qualified: notes 2–3 of page 985 and notes 1–13 of page 986. Note 1 of page 985 anchors in the preceding question and is rendered there.

Secundo quaeritur de forma, in qua Christus apparebit; et quaeritur, utrum in forma Divinitatis appareat malis. Et quod non:

1. Isidorus[^p985-2] dicit, et habetur ab Augustino: «In forma, in qua iudicatus est, videbunt eum, ut doleant, in forma Divinitatis non videbunt, ne gaudeant».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia lux illa est inaccessibilis oculis intellectus nostri secundum statum infirmitatis[^p985-3]: ergo si damnati surgent cum in-

<!-- page 986 -->

firmitatibus et imperfectionibus, ergo inaccessibilis erit ipsis.

3. Item, Ioannis decimo septimo[^p986-1]: *Haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te, verum Deum:* ergo cum *videre Deum* sit vita aeterna, et mali non sint habituri vitam aeternam; ergo non videbunt eum in forma Divinitatis.

4. Item, reprobi debent puniri et quantum ad rationem et quantum ad voluntatem; sed quantum ad voluntatem Deum non poterunt[^p986-2] amare: ergo nec quantum ad rationem videre.

**Contra:** 1. Reprobi, qui noluerunt Christum credere esse Deum, tunc non dubitabunt, ipsum esse Deum: ergo Christi Divinitas erit eis manifesta cognitione certissima: ergo ipsam videbunt non solum *per speculum*[^p986-3], sed per se ipsam.

2. Item, videtur, quod debeant videre, quia reprobi debent terreri ad aspectum Christi; sed quod summe terret est potestas Divinitatis et maiestas; et quod ita sit, dicitur Matthaei vigesimo quarto[^p986-4]: *Veniet Filius hominis cum potestate magna et maiestate:* ergo etc.

3. Item, nemo punitur perfecte ex amissione alicuius boni, nisi illud cognoscat: ergo si reprobi debent puniri carentia visionis Dei, debet eis ostendi, quantum bonum sit visio Dei; sed hoc non potest scire, nisi qui videt: ergo saltem in iudicio debent videre.

Item, quaero rationem: quare non debent videre? *Si dicas,* «ne gaudeant», sicut dicit Isidorus et Augustinus[^p986-5]; *contra:* «Omne quod recipitur in aliquo, est ibi per modum recipientis»: ergo si habent oculos infirmos, lux vera potius contristabit, quam delectet, sicut patet etiam in luce corporali.

Item, possibile est Deo separare in reprobis cognitionem a delectatione, sicut in iudicio in igne lucem a calore[^p986-6]; et si hoc, tunc videtur, quod propter istam rationem non debeat dimittere.

Item, secundum humanitatem apparebit blandus iustis et terribilis malis[^p986-7], quare non potest similiter facere secundum Divinitatem?

### Conclusio

> *Christus reprobis non apparebit in forma Dei.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p986-8] et Isidorus et Magister in littera et etiam Hugo, de Sacramentis, «Patrem nullus de reprobis videbit in iudicio, sed omnes Filium, quia *filius hominis est,* ut ab omnibus possit videri». Unde non apparebit malis in forma Dei.

Propter quod nota, quod duplex est cognitio Divinitatis: una *per signa et effectus,* alia *in sua forma et essentia.* Dico ergo, quod reprobi bene habebunt cognitionem de Christi Divinitate per *signa certissima,* et per *effectus manifestos* cognoscent, quod ipse est Deus omnipotens. Cognitionem autem, quae est *in propria forma,* quae est per visionem apertam, hanc quidem non habebunt. — Et prima ratio huius est, quia talis forma omnino est improportionalis oculis peccatoris et improportionalis oculis omnibus, qui non sunt sublimati per gloriam, vel per superabundantiam gratiae; et quia reprobis non dabitur[^p986-9] gratia nec *simpliciter* nec *ad tempus:* ideo non videbunt.

Ratio autem, quare non dabitur eis virtus, quae faciat eorum aspectum habilem ad videndum illam lucem, est illa, quam tangit Isidorus et Augustinus[^p986-10], quia si haberent oculum aptum, haberent summam delectationem, quam impossibile est esse et indecens in peccatoribus.

*Ad 1. 2. 3.* Ex his patent obiecta[^p986-11]. Prima enim tria ostendunt, quod habebunt cognitionem de Deo quantum ad *maiestatem* et *bonitatem;* sed non ostendunt, quod *per speciem,* sed sufficit, quod *per signa certa.*

Ad aliud[^p986-12] iam patet responsio, quae sit ratio, quia scilicet sunt improportionales, et impossibile est intelligere, quod fiant proportionales et non gaudeant; non sic est in *luce creata,* quia oculus est proportionalis per naturam et per infirmitatem non omnino efficitur improportionalis, sed tamen minuitur proportio, et ideo videt cum tristitia; illa autem lux cum tristitia videri non potest[^p986-13].

---

english:
<!-- page 985 -->

### Question II. *Whether Christ will appear to the wicked in the form of his divinity.*

Secondly it is asked about the form in which Christ will appear; and it is asked whether he will appear to the wicked in the form of his divinity. And that he will not:

1. Isidore[^p985-2] says, and it is had from Augustine: «In the form in which he was judged they will see him, that they may grieve; in the form of divinity they will not see him, lest they rejoice».

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason:* because that light is inaccessible to the eyes of our intellect according to the state of infirmity[^p985-3]: therefore if the damned shall rise with in-

<!-- page 986 -->

firmities and imperfections, therefore it will be inaccessible to them.

3. Likewise, in John the seventeenth[^p986-1]: *This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the true God:* therefore, since *to see God* is eternal life, and the wicked are not going to have eternal life; therefore they will not see him in the form of his divinity.

4. Likewise, the reprobate ought to be punished both as to reason and as to will; but as to will they will not be able[^p986-2] to love God: therefore neither as to reason to see him.

**On the contrary:** 1. The reprobate, who refused to believe Christ to be God, will then not doubt that he is God: therefore Christ's divinity will be manifest to them by a most certain cognition: therefore they will see it not only *through a mirror*[^p986-3], but through itself.

2. Likewise, it seems that they ought to see, because the reprobate ought to be terrified at the sight of Christ; but what terrifies most of all is the power of the divinity and its majesty; and that this is so is said in Matthew the twenty-fourth[^p986-4]: *The Son of man shall come with great power and majesty:* therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no one is perfectly punished by the loss of some good unless he knows it: therefore if the reprobate ought to be punished by the lack of the vision of God, it ought to be shown to them how great a good the vision of God is; but this no one can know except him who sees: therefore at least in the judgement they ought to see.

Likewise, I ask for the reason: why ought they not to see? *If you say,* "lest they rejoice", as Isidore and Augustine say[^p986-5]; *on the contrary:* "Everything that is received in something is there according to the mode of the receiver": therefore if they have infirm eyes, the true light will sadden them rather than delight them, as is also plain in bodily light.

Likewise, it is possible for God to separate in the reprobate cognition from delight, just as in the judgement he separates light from heat in fire[^p986-6]; and if this is so, then it seems that on account of that reason he ought not to withhold it.

Likewise, according to his humanity he will appear gentle to the just and terrible to the wicked[^p986-7]; why can he not do likewise according to his divinity?

### Conclusion

> *Christ will not appear to the reprobate in the form of God.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Augustine[^p986-8] says, and Isidore, and the Master in the text, and also Hugh, *On the Sacraments,* "None of the reprobate will see the Father in the judgement, but all will see the Son, because *he is the Son of man,* that he may be able to be seen by all". Hence he will not appear to the wicked in the form of God.

On account of which note that the cognition of the divinity is twofold: one *through signs and effects,* the other *in its own form and essence.* I say therefore that the reprobate will indeed have cognition of Christ's divinity through *most certain signs,* and through *manifest effects* they will know that he is God omnipotent. But the cognition which is *in his proper form,* which is through open vision, this indeed they will not have. — And the first reason for this is that such a form is altogether disproportionate to the eyes of a sinner and disproportionate to all eyes which are not raised up through glory or through a superabundance of grace; and because to the reprobate grace will not be given[^p986-9] either *simply* or *for a time:* therefore they will not see.

But the reason why the power will not be given them which would make their sight capable of seeing that light is that which Isidore and Augustine touch upon[^p986-10]: because if they had a fitting eye, they would have the highest delight, which it is impossible and unfitting should be in sinners.

*To 1, 2, 3.* From these things the objections are clear[^p986-11]. For the first three show that they will have cognition of God as to *majesty* and *goodness;* but they do not show that it is *through the species,* rather it suffices that it be *through certain signs.*

To the other[^p986-12] the answer is already clear, namely what the reason is: because they are disproportionate, and it is impossible to understand that they should be made proportionate and not rejoice; it is not so in *created light,* because the eye is proportionate by nature, and through infirmity it is not made altogether disproportionate, but nevertheless the proportion is lessened, and therefore it sees with sadness; but that light cannot be seen with sadness[^p986-13].

---

la: Libr. I. Sent. c. 27. n. 8: «In iudicio reprobi humanitatem Christi, in qua iudicatus est, videbunt, ut doleant; Divinitatem vero eius non videbunt, ne gaudeant». Eandem sententiam exhibet August., I. de Trin. c. 13. n. 30. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: *Sentences* Book I, c. 27, n. 8: «In the judgement the reprobate will see the humanity of Christ, in which he was judged, that they may grieve; but his divinity they will not see, lest they rejoice». Augustine presents the same opinion, *On the Trinity* I, c. 13, n. 30. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: De hac propos., in qua respicitur I. Tim. 6, 16: *Lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem,* cfr. II. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2; d. 23. a. 2. q. 3, et III. Sent. d. 14. a. 1. q. 3. — De infirmitatibus, in quibus damnati resurgent, cfr. supra d. 44. p. I. a. 3. q. 2.

en: On this proposition, in which I Tim. 6, 16 is regarded — *He inhabiteth light inaccessible* — cf. II *Sent.* d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2; d. 23, a. 2, q. 3; and III *Sent.* d. 14, a. 1, q. 3. — On the infirmities in which the damned will rise, cf. above, d. 44, p. I, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Vers. 3: *Haec est autem vita... te, solum Deum verum* etc.

en: Verse 3: *Now this is life... thee, the only true God,* etc.

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *poterant.*

en: The editions, with several codices, read *poterant.*

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 13, 12. — Mox post *sed* cod. L supplet *etiam.* Superius verbo *noluerunt* codd. R S praemittunt *prius.*

en: I Cor. 13, 12 is regarded. — Presently, after *sed,* codex L supplies *etiam.* Above, codices R S prefix *prius* to the word *noluerunt.*

la: Vers. 30: *Et videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus caeli cum virtute multa et maiestate.* Cfr. Luc. 21, 27: *Et tunc videbunt... cum potestate magna et maiestate* (codd. omittunt *magna*).

en: Verse 30: *And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.* Cf. Luke 21, 27: *And then they shall see... with great power and majesty* (the codices omit *magna*).

la: Supra in fundam. 1. — Seq. axioma est secundum auctorem libri de Causis, propos. 10. 12. 20. et 24. Cfr. Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 4, tom. II. pag. 361, nota 3. allegatus. — Inferius pro *infirmos* permulti codd. *infirmitatis.*

en: Above, in foundation 1. — The following axiom is according to the author of the *Book of Causes,* propositions 10, 12, 20, and 24. Cf. Boethius, *On Consolation* V, prose 4, cited in tom. II, p. 361, note 3. — Below, for *infirmos* very many codices read *infirmitatis.*

la: Vide supra pag. 925, nota 9. verba Basilii. — Pro *in iudicio* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *in inferno.*

en: See above, p. 925, note 9, the words of Basil. — For *in iudicio,* codex K (and I by a second hand) reads *in inferno.*

la: Secundum Isidor., I. Sent. c. 27. n. 9. Vide quaest. seq. arg. 5. ad oppos.

en: According to Isidore, *Sentences* I, c. 27, n. 9. See the following question, argument 5 to the opposite.

la: Libr. I. de Trin. c. 13. n. 29, ex quo sunt verba inferius posita, in quibus respicitur Ioan. 5, 27, et textus originalis substituit *ab impiis* pro *ab omnibus* (edd. *hominibus*). Post *omnes* codd. S U addunt *videbunt.* — Sententiam Isidori vide supra fundam. 1, Magistri, hic in lit. c. 1. seq., et Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XVII. c. 7. et p. XVIII. c. 16.

en: *On the Trinity* Book I, c. 13, n. 29, from which come the words set down below, in which John 5, 27 is regarded; and the original text substitutes *by the impious* for *by all* (the editions: *by men*). After *omnes,* codices S U add *videbunt.* — For Isidore's opinion see above, foundation 1; for the Master's, here in the text, c. 1 f.; and Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XVII, c. 7, and p. XVIII, c. 16.

la: Cod. G addit *gloria nec.*

en: Codex G adds *gloria nec.*

la: Hic in fundam. 1. — Superius pro *habilem,* quod non pauci codd. omittunt, cod. G (E a secunda manu) *idoneum.* Subinde pro *aptum* codd. I K L *apertum.*

en: Here in foundation 1. — Above, for *habilem,* which not a few codices omit, codex G (and E by a second hand) reads *idoneum.* Thereafter, for *aptum,* codices I K L read *apertum.*

la: Plures codd. addunt *omnia.* — In fine solut. respicitur II. Cor. 5, 7: *Per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem.*

en: Several codices add *omnia.* — At the end of the solution II Cor. 5, 7 is regarded: *For we walk by faith and not by sight.*

la: Codd. M O aa *alia.*

en: Codices M O aa read *alia.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L104903–L105060, verified line-by-line against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p98{5,6}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (bands pre-existing at the measured gutters 985:1529, 986:2115; **no bands were regenerated**). Body reflowed column-by-column (L top→bottom, then R), not in raw-line order.

**Printed-page span corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter listed `printed_pages: [985, 986, 987]`. The body of this quaestio ends with *«…illa autem lux cum tristitia videri non potest»* at the foot of p. 986 R; L105056 is the p.987 running head (`DIST. XLVIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 987`), which is page furniture belonging to `d48-a1-q3`. Frontmatter corrected to `[985, 986]` / `pdf_pages: [1005, 1006]`. **No body or apparatus of p.987 is claimed here.**

**Title + opener verified.** The line after the `QUAESTIO II.` header on p. 985 reads *Utrum Christus in forma Divinitatis apparebit malis* — matches the skeleton title exactly. Opener reads *Secundo quaeritur de forma…* — correctly aligned with q2; no chunker q-swap.

**Apparatus: 15 entries.** Page→split map:
- **p. 985 — 3 notes printed, 2 claimed here.** Note 1 (*Cod. E potestas iudiciaria*) anchors in `d48-a1-q1`'s body (*potestas iudiciaria*) and is **NOT** claimed here. Notes 2 and 3 anchor in this quaestio (*Isidorus*², *secundum statum infirmitatis*³) and are rendered here. Independently derived from the p.985 L-2 and R-2 footer bands; the coordinator should reconcile against q1's account.
- **p. 986 — 13 notes printed, all 13 claimed here.** The whole page is this quaestio; the page is shared with no other chunk.
- **p. 987 — none claimed.** That page's register belongs entirely to `d48-a1-q3`.

**Binding order on both pages is straight reading order**, verified anchor-by-anchor against the bands, not assumed: p.986 anchors 1–7 fall in the left body column and 8–13 in the right, while the footer *block* prints 1–6 under the left column and 7–13 under the right — i.e. note 7 (anchor *terribilis malis*⁷, last line of the left body column) overflows into the right-hand footer column. That is footer overflow, not column-order numbering. No marker was relabelled by position.

**OCR corrections resolved at band time** (raw disagreed, band was legible — no `[?]` warranted): raw rendered p.985's note-3 marker as `5` (both the anchor and the footer opener); the band shows `3`, and p.985 carries only three notes, so `3` is correct. Also silently corrected from the bands: `Ortnitalibus`→`firmitatibus` (the word breaks across the p.985/986 page turn as *in-|firmitatibus*), `videbnnt`→`videbunt`, `forina`→`forma`, `Divinilalis`→`Divinitatis`, `noslri`→`nostri`, `Malthaei`→`Matthaei`, `Ilugo`→`Hugo`, `esl`→`est`, `raalis`→`malis`, `subliraali`→`sublimati`, `gra.[\a`→`gratia`, `Angustinus`→`Augustinus`, `oculura`→`oculum`, `suramam delectationera, quara irapossibile`→`summam delectationem, quam impossibile`, `m.aiestatem`→`maiestatem`, `iara`→`iam`, `ralio`→`ratio`, `iinpossibile`→`impossibile`, `ocnlus`→`oculus`, `infirinitatera`→`infirmitatem`, `efficilur iraproportionalis, sed taiuen rainuitur`→`efficitur improportionalis, sed tamen minuitur`, `punilur`→`punitur`, `deheat dimittere`→`debeat dimittere`, `sirailiter`→`similiter`, `Cbristum`→`Christum`, `lerreri`→`terreri`, `Divinitalis`→`Divinitatis`, `niodum`→`modum`. In the apparatus: `Respiciiur`→`Respicitur`, `l\lox`→`Mox`, `vei'bo`→`verbo`, `noluenmt`→`noluerunt`, `frius`→`prius`, `virtule`→`virtute`, `poteslate`→`potestate`, `ctorcm`→`ctorem`, `dc`→`de`, `posila`→`posita`, `ct`→`et`, `loan. -3, 27`→`Ioan. 5, 27`, `omiliunt`→`omittunt`, `idoncum`→`idoneum`, `aperlum`→`apertum`, `codd. m aa alia`→`codd. M O aa alia`, `Codd. K L aperlum`→`codd. I K L apertum`, `Secnnduni`→`Secundum`, `U. de Sacram.`→`II. de Sacram.`, `d. U. a. 1. q. 3`→`d. 14. a. 1. q. 3`.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial glosses, not Bonaventure's text): *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Quaestiones incidentes.*, *Conclusio* (×2), *Duplex cognitio*, *Ratio.*, *Confirmatio*, *Notandum*, *Solutio positorum*, *Ad quaestiones incidentes.*

**Hand-offs forwarded.** To `d48-a1-q1`: p.985 note 1 (*Cod. E potestas iudiciaria*) is yours — this chunk does not render it. To `d48-a1-q3`: p.987 is entirely yours, including its running head at L105056; nothing on it is claimed here.

**Scholion.** None in this quaestio. Article I's scholion (L104867) belongs to `d48-a1-q1`; p.986 note 13 explicitly redirects — *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — confirming that q2 is meant to carry no scholion of its own. `has_scholion: false`.

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

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. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 987 -->

### Articulus I. *De iudicis apparitione.*
### Quaestio III. *Utrum Christus apparebit reprobis in forma humanitatis gloriosa.*

> The footnotes below are Quaracchi's, which restarts its numbering on every printed page. Labels here are page-qualified: notes 1–10 of page 987 and notes 1–2 of page 988. Notes 3 and following of page 988 anchor in the next question and are rendered there.

Tertio quaeritur de qualitate formae, in qua apparebit Christus, utrum scilicet in forma gloriosa appareat reprobis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia in primo adventu apparuit passibilis, quia adventus ille fuit in infirmitate: ergo cum secundus adventus sit in virtute, ergo apparebit gloriosus[^p987-1].

2. Item, in iudicio apparebit talis, qualem decet apparere ad confusionem inimicorum et laetitiam amicorum; sed inimici maxime confunduntur in gloria et in exaltatione illius, quem despexerunt, et e converso amici laetantur: ergo apparebit in gloria.

3. Item, nulla erit in eo fictio, ergo talem ostendet formam, qualem habebit; sed habebit gloriosam: ergo ostendet reprobis gloriosam formam.

**Contra:**
1. Matthaei vigesimo quarto[^p987-2]: *Apparebit signum Filii hominis in caelo*; hoc erit signum crucis: ergo cum crux sit signum infirmitatis, videtur, quod appareat in infirmitate, non in gloria.

2. Item, Chrysostomus[^p987-3]: « Veniet in iudicio Christus, non solum vulnerum cicatrices, sed etiam ipsam mortem exprobratissimam ostendens ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, sicut oculus spiritualis se habet ad lucem spiritualem, ita corporalis ad corporalem; sed sic est, quod oculus spiritualis malorum non videt lucem spiritualem, quia est improportionalis: ergo similiter, cum oculus non[^p987-4] glorificatus sit improportionalis, non videbit claritatem corporis glorificati.

4. Item, si videbit; cum « sensus exterior pascatur in contemplatione humanitatis, sicut interior in contemplatione Divinitatis[^p987-5] »; videtur, quod habeant delectationem; sed non videbunt Divinitatem, ne delectentur: ergo nec humanitatem.

5. Item, quamvis « Christus sit benignus secundum veritatem, tamen apparebit terribilis reprobis », sicut dicit Isidorus[^p987-6]: ergo pari ratione, quamvis sit gloriosus, tamen debet reprobis apparere ingloriosus.

### Conclusio

> *Christus tam bonis quam malis apparebit in forma gloriosa, bonis quidem cum gaudio, sed malis cum confusione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Christus apparebit in forma gloriosa, ut ostensum est, non tantum bonis, sed etiam reprobis; et non erit differentia ex parte *apparentis*, sed ex parte *recipientium*[^p987-7]. Boni enim recipient gloriosam formam cum gaudio et gloria, sed mali cum confusione et poena. Confundentur enim in aspectu eius et non poterunt eius sustinere vultum propter conscientiae remorsum et propter exspectationem ferendae sententiae contra eos; sed econtra boni oblectabuntur.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod apparebit cum cruce et cicatricibus; dicendum, quod sicut cicatrices in Martyribus non sunt signum infirmitatis *praesentis*, sed infirmitatis *praeteritae*, immo quantum ad gloriam et decentiam et pulcritudinem sunt signa *victoriae* et *gloriae*[^p987-8]; sic in Christo intelligendum, quia illae cicatrices et crux signa erunt mortis vilissimae, quam sustinuit; sed tamen, quia apparebunt in excellentia gloriae, signum erunt gloriae tunc praesentis. Unde Chrysostomus dicit super Matthaeum[^p987-9], quod « crux radiis solis erit lucentior », similiter et cicatrices.

*Ad 3, 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod oculi eorum sunt improportionales; dicendum, quod improportionales erunt per privationem *sufficientis* proportionis; ideo retundentur visus et confundentur; sed tamen non erunt omnino improportionales per defectum *omnis* proportionis. Nec est simile de luce spirituali, quia illa excedit multo plus oculum peccatoris[^p987-10], quam lux corporis gloriosi oculum corporis passibilis.

<!-- page 988 -->

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videbitur terribilis et blandus, ergo similiter gloriosus et ingloriosus; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia terribilis et blandus dicitur ad alterum; unde benignum hominem potest homo aspicere ut terribilem, quia eum timet; sed gloriosum et non gloriosum dicunt dispositionem *a parte visibilis*. Unde nisi fiat per deceptionem, vel per miraculum et divinam virtutem, quae teneat oculos, sicut dicitur Lucae ultimo[^p988-1]: *Oculi eorum tenebantur*; res talis videtur, qualis est secundum veritatem[^p988-2].

---

english:
### Article I. *On the appearing of the Judge.*
### Question III. *Whether Christ will appear to the reprobate in the glorious form of his humanity.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the quality of the form in which Christ will appear — namely, whether he appears to the reprobate in a glorious form. And that he does, seems to be so:

1. Because in his first coming he appeared passible, since that coming was in weakness: therefore, since the second coming is in power, he will accordingly appear glorious[^p987-1].

2. Likewise, at the judgement he will appear such as it befits him to appear for the confounding of his enemies and the gladness of his friends; but enemies are most of all confounded at the glory and exaltation of him whom they despised, and conversely friends rejoice: therefore he will appear in glory.

3. Likewise, there will be no pretence in him, therefore he will show such a form as he will have; but he will have a glorious one: therefore he will show the reprobate a glorious form.

**On the contrary:**
1. Matthew, chapter twenty-four[^p987-2]: *There shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven*; this will be the sign of the cross: therefore, since the cross is a sign of weakness, it seems that he appears in weakness, not in glory.

2. Likewise, Chrysostom[^p987-3]: « Christ will come at the judgement, showing not only the scars of his wounds, but even that most reproachful death itself ».

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because, as the spiritual eye stands to spiritual light, so the bodily eye to bodily light; but so it is, that the spiritual eye of the wicked does not see the spiritual light, because it is disproportionate to it: therefore likewise, since an eye not[^p987-4] glorified is disproportionate, it will not see the brightness of a glorified body.

4. Likewise, if it will see; since « the exterior sense is fed in the contemplation of the humanity, as the interior in the contemplation of the Divinity[^p987-5] »; it seems that they would have delight; but they will not see the Divinity, lest they be delighted: therefore neither the humanity.

5. Likewise, although « Christ is kind according to the truth, yet he will appear terrible to the reprobate », as Isidore says[^p987-6]: therefore by parity of reasoning, although he is glorious, yet he ought to appear inglorious to the reprobate.

### Conclusion

> *Christ will appear to the good as well as to the wicked in a glorious form — to the good indeed with joy, but to the wicked with confusion.*

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ will appear in a glorious form, as has been shown, not only to the good, but also to the reprobate; and there will be no difference on the side of *the one appearing*, but on the side of *those receiving*[^p987-7]. For the good will receive the glorious form with joy and glory, but the wicked with confusion and punishment. For they will be confounded at the sight of him and will not be able to bear his countenance, on account of the remorse of conscience and on account of the expectation of the sentence to be borne against them; but on the contrary the good will be delighted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected, that he will appear with the cross and the scars; it must be said that, just as the scars in the Martyrs are not a sign of *present* weakness, but of *past* weakness — nay rather, as regards glory and comeliness and beauty they are signs of *victory* and of *glory*[^p987-8] — so it is to be understood in Christ, since those scars and the cross will be signs of the most vile death which he underwent; but nevertheless, because they will appear in the excellence of glory, they will be a sign of the glory then present. Hence Chrysostom says on Matthew[^p987-9] that « the cross will be brighter than the rays of the sun », and likewise the scars.

*To 3 and 4.* To that which is objected, that their eyes are disproportionate; it must be said that they will be disproportionate by the privation of a *sufficient* proportion; therefore their sight will be blunted and they will be confounded; but nevertheless they will not be altogether disproportionate through the lack of *every* proportion. Nor is the case like that of the spiritual light, because that light exceeds the eye of the sinner[^p987-10] far more than the light of a glorious body exceeds the eye of a passible body.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that he will be seen as terrible and as gentle, and therefore likewise as glorious and inglorious; it must be said that the case is not alike: because "terrible" and "gentle" are said in relation to another; hence a man can look upon a kind man as terrible, because he fears him; but "glorious" and "not glorious" express a disposition *on the side of the visible thing*. Hence, unless it come about through deception, or through a miracle and divine power which holds the eyes — as it is said in the last chapter of Luke[^p988-1]: *Their eyes were held* — a thing is seen such as it is according to the truth[^p988-2].

---

la: Vide supra pag. 986, nota 4, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: See above, page 986, note 4, and here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Vers. 30: *Et tunc parebit signum* etc.

en: Verse 30: *And then shall appear the sign* etc.

la: Homil. 76. (alias 77.) in Matth. 24, 30. n. 3. Cfr. Homil. 1. de Cruce et latrone n. 4.

en: Homily 76 (elsewhere 77) on Matthew 24, 30, n. 3. Compare Homily 1, *On the Cross and the Thief*, n. 4.

la: Edd. omittunt *non*. Cfr. infra d. 49. p. II. sectio 2. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 3.

en: The editions omit *non*. Compare below, d. 49, p. II, section 2, a. 2, q. 2, fundamentum 3.

la: Secundum auctorem libri de Spiritu et anima (inter opera August.), c. 9. Vide tom. III. pag. 19, nota 5. — De seq. propos. cfr. quaest. praeced.

en: According to the author of the book *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine), c. 9. See vol. III, page 19, note 5. — On the following proposition compare the preceding question.

la: Libr. I. Sent. c. 27. n. 9: *Pro diversitate conscientiarum et mitis apparebit in iudicio Christus electis et terribilis reprobis. Nam qualem quisque conscientiam tulerit, tale et iudicium habebit; ut, manente in sua tranquillitate Christo, illis solis terribilis appareat, quos conscientia in malis accusat.* Cfr. Gregor., I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 7. n. 20, quem secunda manus in cod. F allegat.

en: *Sentences*, Book I, c. 27, n. 9: *According to the diversity of consciences Christ will appear at the judgement both mild to the elect and terrible to the reprobate. For such a conscience as each one has borne, such also will be the judgement he has; so that, while Christ remains in his own tranquillity, he appears terrible to those alone whom conscience accuses in evils.* Compare Gregory, *Homilies on Ezechiel* I, homily 7, n. 20, whom a second hand in codex F adduces.

la: Edd. *respicientium* et mox *respicient* pro *recipient*. In fine corp. pro *oblectabuntur* permulti codd. *obdelectabuntur*.

en: The editions read *respicientium*, and shortly after *respicient* for *recipient*. At the end of the body, for *oblectabuntur* very many codices read *obdelectabuntur*.

la: Vide August., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 19. n. 3. (alias c. 20.).

en: See Augustine, *On the City of God* XXII, c. 19, n. 3 (elsewhere c. 20).

en: Homily 76 (elsewhere 77), n. 3.

la: Non pauci codd. *peccatorem*.

en: Not a few codices read *peccatorem*.

la: Vers. 16: *Oculi autem illorum tenebantur.* — Superius pro *ut terribilem* cod. bb *quem diligit et cui servivit, et terribilem, quem offendit*.

en: Verse 16: *But their eyes were held.* — Above, for *ut terribilem* codex bb reads *quem diligit et cui servivit, et terribilem, quem offendit* ("whom he loves and whom he has served, and terrible, whom he has offended").

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L105061–L105150, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p987-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p988-{L,R}-{0,2}.png` (gutters 1550 / 2083, pre-measured; **no bands were regenerated**). The right-hand column of p.987 (Conclusio, Respondeo, solutions) and every footer register were read off the bands, per the Vol II/IV override.

**Printed-page span corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter said `printed_pages: [987]`. The question in fact **runs over onto p.988**: the reply *Ad 5* begins at the foot of p.987-R (`5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videbitur ter-`) and completes across the top of p.988 (left column `-ribilis et blandus …` → right column `dispositionem a parte visibilis … secundum veritatem`), ending immediately before the full-width `QUAESTIO IV.` heading. Frontmatter corrected to `[987, 988]` / `pdf_pages: [1007, 1008]`. The `<!-- page 988 -->` break is placed at the *Ad 5* paragraph boundary; the true break falls mid-word inside `ter-|ribilis`.

**Title and opener verified.** The line after the `QUAESTIO III.` header on p.987 reads *Utrum Christus apparebit reprobis in forma humanitatis gloriosa* — matches the skeleton `title_la` exactly (the raw OCR's `humaniiatis` is a scanner artifact). The ordinal opener reads *Tertio quaeritur de qualitate formae…*, correctly aligned with q3; no chunker q-swap here.

**Apparatus split map — 12 entries claimed.**
- **p.987 — all 10 notes are ours.** Binding is **straight reading order**: notes 1–6 anchor in the left body column and print in the left footer column (note 6, the long Isidore quotation, runs over into the right footer column, beginning `bis. Nam qualem quisque…`); notes 7–10 anchor in the right body column and print in the right footer column. Each was bound by content match, not position: 1 = *Vide supra pag. 986* ↔ fundamentum 1; 2 = *Vers. 30* ↔ Matt. 24; 3 = *Homil. 76 in Matth.* ↔ Chrysostom; 4 = *Edd. omittunt non* ↔ `oculus non glorificatus`; 5 = *de Spiritu et anima* ↔ the *sensus exterior* quotation; 6 = *Libr. I. Sent. c. 27* ↔ Isidore; 7 = *Edd. respicientium* ↔ `recipientium`; 8 = *de Civ. Dei* ↔ *signa victoriae et gloriae*; 9 = *Homil. 76 n. 3* ↔ *super Matthaeum*; 10 = *Non pauci codd. peccatorem* ↔ `oculum peccatoris`. **q3 claims nothing on p.986.**
- **p.988 — notes 1–2 only.** Both anchor in our body (`Lucae ultimo` and the closing `secundum veritatem`); note 1's second half (`Superius pro ut terribilem cod. bb…`) explicitly glosses our `aspicere ut terribilem` on p.988-L, confirming the claim. p.988's footer prints as a single block in the left footer column, so notes 1–2 **print in the left footer column but anchor in the right body column** — the footer-overflow shape flagged in the brief, here inverted.

**Hand-off received (verified, agreed).** `a1-q2` reported that its body ends at the foot of p.986-R (*…lux cum tristitia videri non potest*), that L105056 is only the p.987 running head, and that it claims nothing on p.987. Independently confirmed: the raw runs p.986 footer (ending `13 Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) → running head `DIST. XLVIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 987` → `QUAESTIO III.`, with no p.986 body remainder and no p.987 anchor belonging to q2. **Agreed.**

**Hand-off forwarded to `a1-q4`.** p.988 is a shared page. **Notes 3–10 of p.988 belong to q4** and are NOT rendered here. Read off the bands so q4 need not re-derive them: `3` = *Vers. 36: De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque Angeli caelorum, nisi solus Pater.* Cfr. Marc. 13, 32; `4` = *Vers. 15.*; `5` = *Vers. 13: Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit* etc. (codd. omittunt *Spiritus sanctus*); `6` = Cfr. Isai. 13, 9. seqq.; Ioel 2, 1. seqq. — In fine arg. multi codd. *reservat.*; `7` = In lit. Magistri; cfr. ibid. Comment. d. 14. a. 3. q. 2.; `8` = Vide supra pag. 953, nota 8. Notes 3–8 print in p.988's **left** footer column; 9 (*beato Martino*) and 10 (*circumstantiae negotii*) anchor in q4's right body column and print in the right footer column. q4's body on p.988 begins in the left column below the full-width `QUAESTIO IV.` heading.

**No scholion.** Article I's scholion sits in `a1-q1`; p.988 note 2 redirects there (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*). Absence here is expected, not an error.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial, not Bonaventure's text): `Fundamenta.`, `Oppositum.`, `Conclusio 1.`, `Conclusio 2.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Notandum.` (×2 on p.987, ×1 on p.988).

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every band read was legible. OCR disagreements resolved at band time: `humaniiatis`→*humanitatis*, `quaerilur`/`quaiitate`→*quaeritur*/*qualitate*, `Ctiristus`→*Christus*, `ia virtute`→*in virtute*, `corporabs`→*corporalis*, `su/ficientis`→*sufficientis*, `raortis`→*mortis*, `oculura`→*oculum*, `vultura`→*vultum*, `dicendnra`→*dicendum*, `quisqun`→*quisque*, `teri-ibilis`→*terribilis*, `respidentium`→*respicientium*, `ohlectabuntur`→*oblectabuntur*, `nola i` (p.987 n. 1)→*nota 4*, `pag. .953` (p.988 n. 8)→*pag. 953*, `blanclus`/`dicilur`/`biUs`→*blandus*/*dicitur*/*bilis*, `tirao`→*ultimo*.

**Nothing unmapped.** All of p.987's body and footer, and the p.988 remainder through `secundum veritatem`, are accounted for.
</content>
</invoke>


title: Dist. 48, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 988 -->

### Articulus I. *De iudicis apparitione.*
### Quaestio IV. *Utrum hora iudicii sit nota alicui creaturae.*

> **Nota de numeratione.** Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page. The markers below are therefore page-qualified: notes 3–12 of printed page 988, and notes 1–5 of printed page 989. Notes 1–2 of page 988 anchor in the preceding question (a1-q3) and notes 6–8 of page 989 anchor in the following article (a2-q1); they are not reproduced here.

Quarto quaeritur de hora iudicii et quaeritur, utrum alicui creaturae sit nota. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Matthaei vigesimo quarto[^p988-3]: *De illo autem die et hora nemo novit, neque Angeli, qui sunt in caelo, neque Filius:* ergo videtur, quod Christus non noverit: ergo multo minus noscunt alii.

2. Item, Ioannis decimo quinto[^p988-4]: *Omnia, quaecumque audivi a Patre meo, nota feci vobis;* sed istud non notificavit Apostolis: ergo istud non novit etiam ipse Christus.

3. Item, Ioannis decimo sexto[^p988-5]: *Cum venerit Spiritus sanctus, ille docebit vos omnem veritatem;* sed Spiritus adveniens illud non docuit Apostolos: ergo istud non est scibile ab aliqua creatura, quia, si esset scibile, Spiritus sanctus docuisset.

4. Item, Deus revelavit Prophetis multa et futura, diem autem et horam iudicii non expressit per aliquam prophetiam nisi solum per signa quaedam praeambula[^p988-6]: ergo cum Dominus illud non revelaverit Prophetis, videtur, quod sibi soli reservaverit.

**Contra:** 1. *Christus* non profecit nec potest proficere in scientia, sicut supra dicitur libro tertio, distinctione decima tertia[^p988-7]: ergo si unquam sciturus est, modo scit.

2. Item, de *Angelis* videtur: Gregorius[^p988-8]: «Quid est quod non vident qui videntem omnia vident»? ergo videtur, quod illud videant.

3. Item, videtur, quod *omnibus* debuerit revelari: quia magis timendum est iudicium speciale cuiuslibet quam generale, quia qui hoc evadit evadit et illud; sed dies mortis pluribus revelatus est, sicut dicitur de beato Martino[^p988-9] et beato Benedicto: ergo etc.

4. Item, locus et tempus sunt circumstantiae negotii[^p988-10]; sed Dominus revelavit nobis iudicii locum: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod et tempus; aut si non, quare non?

### Conclusio

> *Iudicii hora est nota toti Trinitati et homini assumto, sed ignota omnibus viatoribus; fortasse tamen aliquibus Angelis et Beatis nota est.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio hora diei iudicii est nota toti Trinitati et homini assumto[^p988-11], ignota est omnibus in statu viatorum existentibus.

Sed de hoc est contentio inter doctores, utrum nota sit Angelis et animabus beatis. Quidam dicunt, quod sic, quidam, quod non. — Sed certe, quid sit super hoc tenendum, magis docebit experientia pro loco et tempore, quam nunc doceat scientia; utrumque enim est possibile. Cum enim Christo soli communicata sit omnium scientia, non video, quare Angeli illud ignorare non possint, cum istud non sit de substantia gloriae ipsorum; *rursus,* cum Deo sint familiares et nihil in huius rei scientia perdere possint, quare illud non congruat revelari. Non tamen est facile hoc definire. Unde quia aliquae auctoritates Sanctorum videntur sonare, quod Angeli hoc norunt[^p988-12]; aliquae, quod ignorent; sane dici potest, quod istud notum sit aliquibus Angelis et Beatis, aliquibus ignotum; et sicut dicitur circa incarnationis mysterium, sic et in illa parte standum est, quod alicui creaturae hora iudicii nota sit.

<!-- page 989 -->

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod nemo novit; dicendum, quod in illa auctoritate, sicut patet ex Glossa[^p989-1], non excluditur Filius *naturalis,* sed *adoptivus;* nec excluduntur omnes Angeli, sed illi qui sunt *inferioris ordinis;* nec excluduntur omnes homines, sed solum *puri homines et viatores.* — Vel dicendum, quod non noverunt, quia aliis non notificant, id est, non ostendunt se scire, sicut fovea dicitur *caeca,* non quia non videat, sed quia quod habet in se aliis non ostendit[^p989-2].

*Ad 2, 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nota fecit omnia Apostolis Christus et Spiritus sanctus; dicendum, quod istud intelligitur de necessariis ad salutem[^p989-3].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Prophetis, dicendum, quod Deus non revelavit illud Prophetis, quia non erat nobis utile nosse, sed perutile erat ignorare tum propter nostram utilitatem, tum etiam propter istud quod dicitur Iacobi secundo[^p989-4]: *Sic loquimini et sic facite, quasi per legem libertatis incipientes iudicari.*

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 4.* Et ita patet, quare Dominus manifestavit nobis iudicii *locum,* sed non *tempus,* quod ultimo quaerebatur quantum ad primam partem.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Angelis, quod omnia vident; dicendum, quod illud oportet intelligi de his quae sunt de integritate beatitudinis, non sui ministerii[^p989-5].

---

english:
### Article I. *On the appearing of the Judge.*
### Question IV. *Whether the hour of the judgement is known to any creature.*

Fourthly it is asked concerning the hour of the judgement, and it is asked whether it is known to any creature. And that it is not, seems to be the case.

1. Matthew twenty-four[^p988-3]: *But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the Angels who are in heaven, nor the Son:* therefore it seems that Christ did not know it: therefore much less do others know it.

2. Likewise, John fifteen[^p988-4]: *All things whatsoever I have heard from my Father I have made known to you;* but he did not make this known to the Apostles: therefore Christ himself also did not know it.

3. Likewise, John sixteen[^p988-5]: *When the Holy Spirit shall have come, he will teach you all truth;* but the Spirit, when he came, did not teach the Apostles this: therefore this is not knowable by any creature, because, if it were knowable, the Holy Spirit would have taught it.

4. Likewise, God revealed to the Prophets many things and things future, but he did not express the day and hour of the judgement through any prophecy except only through certain preliminary signs[^p988-6]: therefore, since the Lord did not reveal it to the Prophets, it seems that he reserved it to himself alone.

**On the contrary:** 1. *Christ* did not advance nor can he advance in knowledge, as is said above in the third book, distinction thirteen[^p988-7]: therefore if he is ever going to know it, he knows it now.

2. Likewise, concerning the *Angels* it seems so: Gregory[^p988-8]: «What is there that they do not see, who see him who sees all things»? therefore it seems that they see it.

3. Likewise, it seems that it ought to have been revealed *to all:* because the particular judgement of each one is more to be feared than the general one, since he who escapes the one escapes the other also; but the day of death has been revealed to many, as is said of blessed Martin[^p988-9] and blessed Benedict: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, place and time are circumstances of a transaction[^p988-10]; but the Lord has revealed to us the place of the judgement: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that he has revealed the time also; or if not, why not?

### Conclusion

> *The hour of the judgement is known to the whole Trinity and to the assumed man, but unknown to all wayfarers; perhaps, however, it is known to some Angels and to some of the Blessed.*

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt the hour of the day of judgement is known to the whole Trinity and to the assumed man[^p988-11], and is unknown to all existing in the state of wayfarers.

But about this there is contention among the doctors, whether it is known to the Angels and to the blessed souls. Some say that it is, some that it is not. — But certainly, what is to be held upon this matter, experience in its own place and time will teach better than knowledge now teaches; for either is possible. For since the knowledge of all things has been communicated to Christ alone, I do not see why the Angels cannot be ignorant of it, since this is not part of the substance of their glory; *again,* since they are familiars of God and can lose nothing in the knowledge of this matter, [I do not see] why it should not be fitting for it to be revealed to them. Yet it is not easy to define this. Hence, since some authorities of the Saints seem to sound as though the Angels know this[^p988-12], and some as though they are ignorant of it, it can soundly be said that this is known to some Angels and to some of the Blessed, and unknown to others; and as is said concerning the mystery of the incarnation, so also in that matter one must stand by this, that the hour of the judgement is known to some creature.

**To the arguments for the negative side:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that no one knows it: it must be said that in that authority, as is clear from the Gloss[^p989-1], the *natural* Son is not excluded, but the *adoptive* one; nor are all the Angels excluded, but those who are *of the lower order;* nor are all men excluded, but only *mere men and wayfarers.* — Or it must be said that they do not know it, because they do not make it known to others, that is, they do not show that they know it, just as a pit is called *blind,* not because it does not see, but because what it has within itself it does not show to others[^p989-2].

*To 2, 3.* To that which is objected, that Christ and the Holy Spirit made all things known to the Apostles: it must be said that this is understood of the things necessary for salvation[^p989-3].

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the Prophets: it must be said that God did not reveal it to the Prophets, because it was not useful for us to know it, but it was highly useful to be ignorant of it, both on account of our own advantage and also on account of that which is said in James two[^p989-4]: *So speak and so act, as beginning to be judged by the law of liberty.*

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 4.* And thus it is clear why the Lord manifested to us the *place* of the judgement, but not the *time,* which was asked last with respect to the first part.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the Angels, that they see all things: it must be said that this must be understood of those things which pertain to the integrity of their beatitude, not of their ministry[^p989-5].

---

la: Vers. 36: *De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque Angeli caelorum, nisi solus Pater.* Cfr. Marc. 13, 32: *De die autem illo... neque Angeli in caelo neque Filius, nisi Pater.*

en: Verse 36: *But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the Angels of heaven, but the Father alone.* Cf. Mark 13, 32: *But of that day... neither the Angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.*

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Vers. 13: *Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit* etc. (codd. omittunt *Spiritus sanctus*).

en: Verse 13: *But when that Spirit of truth shall have come, he will teach* etc. (the codices omit *Holy Spirit*).

la: Cfr. Isai. 13, 9. seqq.; Ioel 2, 1. seqq. — In fine arg. multi codd. *reservat.*

en: Cf. Isaiah 13, 9 ff.; Joel 2, 1 ff. — At the end of the argument many codices read *reservat* [he reserves].

la: In lit. Magistri; cfr. ibid. Comment. d. 14. a. 3. q. 2.

en: In the text of the Master; cf. ibid., the Commentary, d. 14, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Vide supra pag. 953, nota 8.

en: See above, page 953, note 8.

la: Cfr. Sever. Sulpit. Epist. 3. ad Bassulam. — De B. Benedicto vide Gregor., II. Dialog. (in quo continetur vita Benedicti) c. 37.

en: Cf. Sulpicius Severus, *Letter* 3, to Bassula. — On blessed Benedict see Gregory, *Dialogues* II (in which the life of Benedict is contained) c. 37.

la: Secundum Ciceron.; cfr. supra pag. 400, nota 1. — De *minori* vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: According to Cicero; cf. above, page 400, note 1. — On the *minor* [premise] see here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Respiciuntur verba Isidor.: *Trinitas sibi soli nota est et homini assumto.* Cfr. III. Sent. d. 14. a. 1. q. 2. arg. 3. ad oppos.; ibid. et a. 2. ostenditur, quod Christo communicata sit omnium scientia.

en: The words of Isidore are had in view: *The Trinity is known to itself alone and to the assumed man.* Cf. III *Sentences*, d. 14, a. 1, q. 2, arg. 3 to the opposite; ibid., and at a. 2 it is shown that the knowledge of all things has been communicated to Christ.

la: Praeter Glossam inferius in solut. ad 1. allegatam citatur etiam August., Enchirid. c. 62. n. 16: *Et utique noverunt Angeli sancti, docti de Deo... quanti numeri supplementum de genere humano integritas illius civitatis exspectet.* Bernard., Tract. de baptismo etc. c. 5. n. 19: *Credibilius magis fortasse videtur, ut, sicut futuri adventus Domini, ipso teste, diem prorsus ignorant* [cfr. Matth. 24, 36.], *ita quoque prioris* [scil. incarnationis] *tempus nequaquam praescierint* etc. — De cognitione incarnationis ex parte Angelorum cfr. tom. III. pag. 57, nota 7. — Superius post *Christo* plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *soli.* Subinde verbis *quare illud non congruat* [codd. G H N Y bb addunt *eis*] Vat. praemittit *non video.*

en: Besides the Gloss alleged below in the solution to 1, there is also cited Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 62, n. 16: *And assuredly the holy Angels, taught by God, know... with how great a number from the human race the completeness of that city waits to be supplemented.* Bernard, *Treatise on Baptism* etc., c. 5, n. 19: *It seems perhaps more credible that, just as they are wholly ignorant, on his own testimony, of the day of the Lord's future coming* [cf. Matthew 24, 36], *so likewise they by no means foreknew the time of the former* [i.e. of the incarnation] etc. — On the Angels' knowledge of the incarnation cf. tom. III, page 57, note 7. — Above, after *Christo,* very many codices and edition 1 omit *soli.* Thereafter, before the words *quare illud non congruat* [codices G H N Y bb add *eis*] the Vatican edition places *non video.*

la: Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum: *Qui* [Filius] *quidem omnia scit cum Patre, sed non facit homines scire; sicut Apostolus* [Col. 2, 2.] *ait,* in eo esse absconditos thesauros sapientiae et scientiae. *Non facit scire, quia inutiliter sciretur... Neque electi Angeli quemquam scire fecerunt. Vel nulli sanctorum Angelorum concessit Deus notitiam diei huius neque filio adoptivo, id est neque ulli sanctorum hominum.* Cfr. Hilar., IX. de Trin. n. 58. seqq.; Ambros., V. de Fide, c. 16. n. 193. seqq.; Hieron., IV. in Matth. 24, 36; August., Epist. 197. (alias 78.) et 199. (alias 80.); Gregor., X. Epist. indict. 3. epist. 39. (alias 42.).

en: The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra: *He* [the Son] *indeed knows all things with the Father, but he does not make men know them; as the Apostle* [Col. 2, 2] *says,* that in him are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. *He does not make it known, because it would be known to no profit... Nor have the elect Angels made anyone know it. Or: God has granted the knowledge of this day to none of the holy Angels, nor to the adoptive son, that is, to none of the holy men.* Cf. Hilary, *On the Trinity* IX, n. 58 ff.; Ambrose, *On the Faith* V, c. 16, n. 193 ff.; Jerome, *On Matthew* IV, 24, 36; Augustine, *Letters* 197 (alias 78) and 199 (alias 80); Gregory, *Letters* X, indiction 3, letter 39 (alias 42).

la: Haec solutio invenitur apud August., I. de Trin. c. 12. n. 23: *Eo namque genere locutionis nescire quisque dicitur quod occultat, quo dicitur fossa* caeca, *quae occulta est.* Cfr. I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 22. n. 34, et in Ioan. Evang. tr. 43. n. 6, ubi idem exemplum de fossa caeca adhibetur.

en: This solution is found in Augustine, *On the Trinity* I, c. 12, n. 23: *For by that manner of speaking anyone is said not to know what he conceals, by which a pit is called* blind, *which is hidden.* Cf. *On Genesis against the Manichees* I, c. 22, n. 34, and *On the Gospel of John,* tract 43, n. 6, where the same example of the blind pit is employed.

la: Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 86. n. 1. et tr. 96. n. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Gospel of John,* tract 86, n. 1, and tract 96, n. 1 ff.

la: Vers. 12, ubi Vulgata *sicut* pro *quasi.* — August., Enarrat. in Ps. 36. serm. 1. n. 1: *Utiliter autem Deus latere voluit illum diem, ut semper sit paratum cor ad exspectandum quod esse venturum scit, et quando venturum sit nescit.*

en: Verse 12, where the Vulgate has *sicut* for *quasi.* — Augustine, *Expositions on Psalm 36,* sermon 1, n. 1: *But God usefully willed that day to lie hidden, so that the heart may always be prepared to await what it knows is to come, while it does not know when it is to come.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 45. dub. 9, et II. Sent. d. 11. dub. 2. — Vat. *vel sui* pro *non sui.* — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above, d. 45, dubium 9, and II *Sentences*, d. 11, dubium 2. — The Vatican edition reads *vel sui* for *non sui.* — See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR, raw lines 105151–105279 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, verified column-by-column against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p98{8,9}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (gutters 988:2083, 989:1552; bands used as supplied, **none regenerated**). Per the Vol II/IV override the band read was taken as authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo, solutions and footers. English is a fresh literal translation.

**`printed_pages` CORRECTED: [987, 988, 989] → [988, 989].** The skeleton was wrong. The 450 dpi bands show that **p.987 belongs entirely to a1-q3**: p.987-L-2 ends mid-argument at *«Christus sit benignus secundum veritatem, tamen apparebit terribilis reprobis», sicut dicit Isidorus⁶: ergo pari ratione,* and p.987-R-2 ends at *5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videbitur ter-*. Quaestio IV's centred header stands on **p.988**, below q3's five-line tail (which runs across both columns of p.988's top block). `pdf_pages` corrected to [1008, 1009] accordingly.

**Title + opener verified.** The page prints the title *Utrum hora iudicii sit nota alicui creaturae* (p.988, centred beneath `QUAESTIO IV.`), matching the skeleton — no TRACTATIO-paraphrase divergence. The ordinal opener reads *Quarto quaeritur de hora iudicii et quaeritur, utrum alicui creaturae sit nota* — correctly aligned to q4; no chunker q-swap.

**Marker binding order.** Straight reading order on both pages (left column's notes numbered first, then the right column's). p.988: L footer holds notes 1–8, R footer holds 9–12 — and the body anchors fall 3–8 in the left column, 9–12 in the right, so column order and reading order coincide. p.989: L footer holds the unnumbered run-over of p.988 note 12, then notes 1–2; R footer holds the tail of note 2 and notes 3–8. **No footer-overflow case on either page** (unlike a1-q2's pp.985/986). No relabelling by position was performed; each anchor was bound by content match.

**Apparatus split map (15 entries claimed).**
- **p.988 — 12 printed notes; I claim 3–12 (10 entries).** Notes **1** (*Vers. 16: Oculi autem illorum tenebantur* + the *ut terribilem* / cod. bb variant) and **2** (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) anchor in a1-q3's tail at the top of p.988 (*sicut dicitur Lucae ultimo¹: Oculi eorum tenebantur; res talis videtur, qualis est secundum veritatem²*) — **they belong to `d48-a1-q3`, not to me.** Derived independently from the bands, not taken from the neighbour.
- **p.989 — 8 printed notes; I claim 1–5 (5 entries).** Notes **6, 7, 8** anchor in Articulus II, q.1 (*Isaiae trigesimo⁶*, the Isai. 30, 26 Gloss, and *Vide I. Sent. d. 44. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.*) — **forwarded to `d48-a2-q1`.**
- **Run-over recovered:** p.988's note 12 does not end on p.988. Its continuation (the Bernard *Tract. de baptismo* quotation from *Credibilius magis fortasse videtur…* through *…Vat. praemittit non video*) prints **unnumbered at the head of p.989's left footer column** and has been folded into `p988-12` here. Read off the bands; the raw OCR truncates note 12 mid-quotation at *Credibilius magis fortasse*.

**RAW-vs-BAND divergences resolved at band time (no `[?]` raised).** The raw is heavily cascade-shattered here and its footer transcription is lossy: it drops the whole p.989 footer block (all 8 notes plus the run-over) — the raw runs from *sui ministerii* straight to `ARTIGULUS 11.` with no apparatus at all. Every p.989 entry above was recovered from the bands. Raw garbles silently corrected against the bands include *loanuis*→*Ioannis*, *Deiis*→*Deus*, *Chrisius*→*Christus*, *raulto*→*multo*, *igilorare*→*ignorare*, *cura istud*→*cum istud*, *substaulia*→*substantia*, *famiiiares*→*familiares*, *mysleriura*→*mysterium*, *crealurae*→*creaturae*, *obiicilur*→*obiicitur*, *inteliigitur*→*intelligitur*, *lacobi*→*Iacobi*, *nolificant*→*notificant*, *Bassuhim*→*Bassulam*, *rrdnori*→*minori*, *supplementura*→*supplementum*, *resermt*→*reservat*, *pag. .953*→*pag. 953*, *d. M. a. 3. q. 2.*→*d. 14. a. 3. q. 2.*, and *Vers. IS.*→*Vers. 15.*

**Structural notes.**
- **No scholion.** Article I's scholion sits in `a1-q1` (raw L104867), and p.989 note 5 explicitly points there (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*). Its absence here is expected, not a dropout.
- **The replies are printed out of sequence and are incomplete, and are transcribed as printed.** The negative-side replies run 1 · 2–3 · 4; the marginal gloss *Ad argg. pro parte affirm.* then opens the affirmative-side replies at **«4. Et ita patet, quare Dominus manifestavit nobis iudicii locum, sed non tempus»**, which is followed by **«2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Angelis»**. So the affirmative replies print in the order 4, 2, and **contra 1 and contra 3 receive no reply at all.** Verified against p.989-R-0; not an OCR artifact and not a transcription loss.
- **Running-head bleed.** The raw carries `DIST. XLVI». ART. II. QUAEST. I. 989` at L105255, in the middle of this question's solutions. The band confirms p.989's running head genuinely reads *DIST. XLVIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.* — the head anticipates Articulus II, which begins lower on the same page. It is page furniture, not a semantic header, and does not indicate that the solutions above it belong to a2-q1.
- **Closing seam verified.** This question ends at *…non sui ministerii⁵* (raw L105275), and `ARTIGULUS 11.` / *De innovatione corporum superiorum* follows immediately on p.989 (raw L105280). Nothing lies between the two on the band; the chunk is not truncated and no text was dropped at the seam. The opening sentence (*Quarto quaeritur…*) is a fresh sentence following a1-q3's closing *…qualis est secundum veritatem*, which parses complete.

**Hand-offs forwarded.**
1. → **`d48-a1-q3`**: p.988 footer notes **1 and 2** are yours (full Latin quoted above in the split map). Also flagging that **p.987's entire footer — 10 notes — is missing from the raw OCR** and must be read off `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p987-{L,R}-2.png`; all 10 are yours, and p.987 note 6 (*Libr. I. Sent. c. 27. n. 9*) itself runs over into p.987-R's footer column.
2. → **`d48-a2-q1`**: p.989 footer notes **6, 7, 8** are yours. Note also that p.989's left footer column **opens with an unnumbered run-over paragraph that belongs to p.988's note 12** — do not mistake it for p.989 note 1 or for orphaned text.

**`[?]` flags:** none. Every divergence between the raw and the bands was legible on the bands and resolved there.