Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

← Back to Distinction 43

Dist. 43, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 43

Textus Latinus

p. 883

Articulus I. De resurrectione.

Quaestio I. Utrum resurrectio sit futura.

Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur, et ostenditur, quod resurrectio sit futura:

1. Primo auctoritate Iob decimo nono¹: In novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum.

2. Item, Ioannis undecimo² Martha fidelis dixit: Scio, quia resurget in resurrectione in novissimo die.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia praemium respondet merito: ergo si anima meretur in corpore, debet etiam remunerari in ipso corpore; sed Deus est iustus remunerator: ergo oportet, quod anima resumat corpus, et sic³ etc.

4. Item, anima habet naturalem appetitum ad corpus; quod patet, quia non vult separari, etiam corpore existente misero⁴; sed beatitudo est quies omnium desideriorum: ergo ad hoc, quod perfecte beatificetur anima, necesse est, corpus sibi reddi; et si hoc, patet etc.

5. Item, perfectior est forma compositi quam aliqua pars, quia partes ordinantur ad formam compositi: ergo completior et perfectior est forma humanitatis quam ipsa forma, quae est anima⁵: ergo cum perfectio gratiae et gloriae praesupponat perfectionem naturae; necesse est, totum hominem, non tantum animam, glorificari.

6. Item, ad perfectionem universi reperitur substantia spiritualis et corporalis et composita ex utraque: ergo cum universum sit incorruptibile, et aliquando stet generatio, ut infra⁶ videbitur; necesse est, compositum aliquod ex anima et corpore remanere. Hoc autem non est nisi homo: ergo post consumtionem istius discretionis necesse est, hominem resurgere.

Contra: 1. Iob decimo quarto⁷: Homo, cum dormierit, non resurget, donec atteratur caelum; sed caelum nunquam atteretur, cum sit incorruptibile: ergo homo non resurget.

2. Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto⁸: Caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia nullum instrumentum remuneratur propter actionem factam per ipsum⁹; sed corpus se habet ad animam ut instrumentum: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod in instrumento coniuncto non est verum; contra: Angelus assumit sibi corpus, per quod ministrat; et tamen illud non resurget: ergo etc.

4. Item, nihil quod impedit viam perveniendi ad beatitudinem, debet resumi, cum perventum fuerit ad beatitudinem; sed corpus impedit, quia concupiscit adversus spiritum¹⁰: ergo ab ipso non debet resumi.

5. Item, «anima vivit Deo, sicut corpus anima¹¹»; sed merito peccati contingit per divinam sententiam animam separari a corpore in morte naturae, et animam a Deo in morte damnationis futurae; sed anima damnata per sententiam nunquam vivificatur: ergo nec corpus mortuum per divinam sententiam debet resumere vitam.

6. Item, facilius coniunguntur quae separantur voluntate, quam quae necessitate; sed spiritus malus separatur a Deo per voluntatem, et ideo non potest ei uniri: ergo nec¹² anima potest uniri corpori, quae separatur ab eo necessitate.

Conclusio.

Fide testante, erit resurrectio corporum nostrorum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod recta fides dicit, resurrectionem corporum nostrorum esse futuram. — Et ad hoc credendum adiuvatur per fidem resurrectionis Christi iam factae. Si enim Christus est caput, et membra debent conformari capiti; cum Christus resurrexerit, consequens est, ut et nos resurgamus. Ut autem credat fidelis resurrectionem Christi, persuasum est sibi per multa testimonia Apostolorum, qui etiam per multa sunt argumenta cer-

p. 884

tificati¹. Persuadet etiam ipsa pietas fidei, quae nullo modo corpus Christi incineratum potest excogitare². — Super hoc fidei fundamentum superaedificatur persuasio rationis, quia quod resurrectio sit futura, exigit remuneratio divinae iustitiae, quae homini retribuit, sicut et meruit; secundo, consummatio gloriae, quae omnem animae appetitum complebit vel quietabit; tertio perfectio naturae, quae consistit in toto composito, non in altera eius parte. Et hae sunt rationes supra fidem fundatae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod illa attritio intelligitur quantum ad figuram, non quantum ad substantiam; figura autem accipitur, secundum quod accipit Apostolus³, pro exteriori rei facie.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro et sanguis etc.; dicendum, quod illud non intelligitur de carne quantum ad substantiam, sed quantum ad corruptionem et malitiam, sicut accipitur ad Galatas quinto⁴.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod instrumentum non debet remunerari; dicendum, quod est instrumentum, quod est separatum, et instrumentum sive organum unitum, non tantum ad aliquam operationem faciendam, sed ad unam formam constituendam; et hoc perficitur et convenit cum motore in unitate formae totius, et operationis per consequens; et sine tali nunquam habet motor perfecte compleri propter colligantiam ad illud. Ideo non est simile de instrumento separato, vel de corpore ab Angelo assumto⁵.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod impedit; dicendum, quod non impedit secundum substantiam, quia natum est obedire, sed ratione corruptionis; et illa non resumetur, sed corpus incorruptum.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima vivit Deo, sicut corpus anima etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia sententia damnationis est sententia aeterna, sed sententia mortis non est aeterna. Ratio autem huius est meritum, quia culpa Adae deleta est morte Christi, sed culpa animae post mortem est indelebilis, pro eo quod in culpa illa perpetuo vivet. Amplius, sententia mortis lata contra hominem non fuit sententia definitiva, sed potius propter inobedientiam fuit sententia interlocutoria⁶; sed ultima sententia est definitiva, a qua non potest appellari, nec potest retractari.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod facilius coniunguntur quae separantur voluntate, quam illa quae necessitate etc.; dicendum, quod quaedam separantur ita, quod post separationem unum non habet inclinationem ad alterum; et talia non sunt apta ad reiungendum; et quia sic est angelicus spiritus a Deo separatus, ut ipsum odiat, non satisfactione appetat: ideo non potest nec debet ei coniungi⁷. — Quaedam separantur, ita tamen, quod unum habet appetitum et inclinationem ad alterum, et talia sunt ad iteratam coniunctionem habilia; talia autem sunt anima et corpus. — Quod ergo obiicitur de voluntate et necessitate, dicendum, quod hoc nihil facit ad reiunctionem, scilicet modus separandi, sed qualitas separatorum, vel potius divinum iudicium.

Scholion

I. Corpora humana vere resurrectura esse, testantur contra Sadducaeos, paganos omnesque incredulos tum s. Scriptura tum omnia Symbola. Error etiam Origenis, quod in ἀποκαταστάσει corpora in nihil sint desitura, animaeque solae et nudae remansurae, damnatus est a Concilio V. can. 10. 11. 14.

De 1. et 2. quaestione: Scot., hic q. 1, praecipue n. 11. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 75. a. 1. 2; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 79. seq. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1-3. — Durand., hic q. 1. n. 13. seqq. — Dionys. Carth., de tota dist. hic q. unica.

II. Quoad 3. quaestionem notandum est, speciali privilegio in nonnullis anticipatam esse resurrectionem carnis; quod certum est respectu Christi (hic ad 2.) eiusque beatissimae Matris, et non improbabiliter a nonnullis docetur respectu Henoch et Eliae et eorum Patrum, qui cum Christo resurrexerunt; licet S. Thom. (hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. ad 3; Suppl. q. 77. a. 1. ad 3; Sum. III. q. 53. a. 3. ad 2.) cum S. Augustino probabilius esse censeat, Patres illos resurrexisse iterum morituros. — Quomodo intelligendum sit, quod resurrectio fiat in instanti, vide infra dub. 1. et q. 6. ad 4-6. — De dubio, utrum, adveniente Christo ad iudicium, aliqui non moriantur, cfr. infra dub. 5. — Plura de opinionibus circa ordinem resurrectionis cum aliis referunt S. Thom. et Scot. (hic q. 5. n. 10.).

De 3. quaestione: Scot., loc. cit. — S. Thom., hic et Suppl. locis citt. — B. Albert., hic a. 21. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1. 2, cfr. a. 1. q. 1. — Durand. hic, q. 1.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the resurrection.

Question I. Whether the resurrection will be.

As, then, to the first, the procedure is as follows, and it is shown that the resurrection will be:

1. First, by the authority of Job, chapter nineteen¹: In the last day I shall rise again out of the earth.

2. Likewise, in John, chapter eleven², the faithful Martha said: I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

3. Likewise, it appears by reason: because the reward corresponds to the merit: therefore if the soul merits in the body, it ought also to be rewarded in the body itself; but God is a just rewarder: therefore it is necessary that the soul take up again the body, and so³ etc.

4. Likewise, the soul has a natural appetite toward the body; which is evident because it does not will to be separated, even while the body is in misery⁴; but beatitude is the rest of all desires: therefore for the soul to be perfectly beatified, it is necessary that the body be restored to it; and if this, it is evident, etc.

5. Likewise, the form of the composite is more perfect than any part, because the parts are ordered to the form of the composite: therefore the form of humanity is more complete and more perfect than the form itself which is the soul⁵: therefore, since the perfection of grace and glory presupposes the perfection of nature, it is necessary that the whole man, not only the soul, be glorified.

6. Likewise, for the perfection of the universe there is found spiritual substance and corporeal substance and that composed of both: therefore since the universe is incorruptible, and generation will at some time cease, as will be seen below⁶, it is necessary that some composite of soul and body remain. But this is nothing but man: therefore after the consummation of this present state of separation it is necessary that man rise again.

On the contrary: 1. Job, chapter fourteen⁷: Man, when he is fallen asleep, shall not rise again, till the heavens be broken; but the heaven will never be broken, since it is incorruptible: therefore man will not rise again.

2. Likewise, First Corinthians, chapter fifteen⁸: Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God.

3. Likewise, it appears by reason: because no instrument is rewarded on account of an action done through it⁹; but the body stands to the soul as an instrument: therefore etc. If you say that this is not true of a conjoined instrument; on the contrary: an Angel takes to himself a body through which he ministers; and yet that body will not rise again: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, nothing which impedes the way of arriving at beatitude ought to be taken up again, once beatitude has been attained; but the body impedes, because it lusts against the spirit¹⁰: therefore it ought not to be taken up again by it.

5. Likewise, «the soul lives to God, as the body lives to the soul¹¹»; but by the merit of sin it happens through the divine sentence that the soul is separated from the body in the death of nature, and the soul from God in the death of the damnation to come; but the damned soul is never quickened by the [divine] sentence: therefore neither ought the dead body by the divine sentence to take up life again.

6. Likewise, things that are separated by will are more easily joined together than things separated by necessity; but the evil spirit is separated from God by will, and therefore cannot be united to Him: therefore neither¹² can the soul be united to the body, which is separated from it by necessity.

Conclusion.

By the testimony of faith, there will be a resurrection of our bodies.

I respond: It must be said that right faith declares that the resurrection of our bodies will be. — And to believe this we are helped by the faith of the resurrection of Christ already accomplished. For if Christ is the head, and the members ought to be conformed to the head; since Christ has risen again, the consequence is that we too rise again. And that the believer may believe the resurrection of Christ, it is proved to him through many testimonies of the Apostles, who also were made certain through many

p. 884

proofs¹. The very piety of faith also persuades this, which can in no way conceive the body of Christ reduced to ashes². — Upon this foundation of faith is built up the persuasion of reason, because the fact that the resurrection will be is demanded by the reward of divine justice, which renders to man as he also merited; secondly, by the consummation of glory, which will fill or set at rest every appetite of the soul; thirdly, by the perfection of nature, which consists in the whole composite, not in one of its parts. And these are the reasons founded upon faith.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, it must be said that that wearing-away is understood with respect to figure, not with respect to substance; and figure is taken, according as the Apostle takes it³, for the outward face of a thing.

2. To that which is objected, that flesh and blood etc.; it must be said that this is not understood of flesh with respect to substance, but with respect to corruption and malice, as it is taken in Galatians, chapter five⁴.

3. To that which is objected, that an instrument ought not to be rewarded; it must be said that there is an instrument which is separate, and an instrument or organ that is united, [ordered] not only to the doing of some operation, but to the constituting of one form; and this is accomplished and agrees with the mover in the unity of the form of the whole, and consequently of the operation; and without such [an organ] the mover never comes to be perfectly completed on account of its bond to it. Therefore it is not similar in the case of a separate instrument, or of a body assumed by an Angel⁵.

4. To that which is objected, that it impedes; it must be said that it does not impede with respect to substance, because it is by nature apt to obey, but by reason of corruption; and that corruption will not be taken up again, but an incorrupt body.

5. To that which is objected, that the soul lives to God, as the body to the soul, etc.; it must be said that it is not similar, because the sentence of damnation is an eternal sentence, but the sentence of death is not eternal. And the reason for this is merit, because the fault of Adam has been blotted out by the death of Christ, but the fault of the soul after death is indelible, in that in that fault it will live perpetually. Furthermore, the sentence of death passed against man was not a definitive sentence, but rather, on account of disobedience, was an interlocutory sentence⁶; but the last sentence is definitive, from which there can be no appeal, nor can it be retracted.

6. To that which is objected, that things separated by will are more easily joined together than those separated by necessity, etc.; it must be said that some things are separated in such a way that after the separation the one does not have an inclination toward the other; and such things are not apt for rejoining; and since the angelic spirit is in this way separated from God, so that it hates Him, and does not seek Him by satisfaction: therefore it cannot and ought not to be joined to Him⁷. — Some things are separated, yet in such a way that the one has an appetite and inclination toward the other, and such things are fit for renewed conjunction; and such are the soul and the body. — As, then, to what is objected concerning will and necessity, it must be said that this does nothing toward the rejoining, namely the mode of separating, but [what does] is the quality of the things separated, or rather the divine judgment.

Scholion

I. That human bodies will truly rise again, the sacred Scripture as well as all the Symbols attest against the Sadducees, the pagans, and all unbelievers. The error of Origen also — that in the apokatastasis the bodies would perish into nothing, and the souls alone and bare would remain — was condemned by the Fifth Council, canons 10, 11, 14.

On the 1st and 2nd questions: Scotus, here q. 1, especially n. 11 and following. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 1, quaestiuncula 1, 2; Suppl. q. 75, a. 1, 2; Summa contra Gentiles IV, c. 79 and following. — B. Albert, here a. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. unica, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1–3. — Durandus, here q. 1, n. 13 and following. — Denis the Carthusian, on the whole distinction, here q. unica.

II. As to the 3rd question, it must be noted that by a special privilege the resurrection of the flesh has been anticipated in some; which is certain in the case of Christ (here, ad 2) and of his most blessed Mother, and is not improbably taught by some in the case of Enoch and Elias and of those Fathers who rose again with Christ; although St. Thomas (here a. 3, quaestiuncula 1, ad 3; Suppl. q. 77, a. 1, ad 3; Summa III, q. 53, a. 3, ad 2) with St. Augustine holds it more probable that those Fathers rose again to die again. — How it is to be understood that the resurrection takes place in an instant, see below, dub. 1 and q. 6, ad 4–6. — On the doubt whether, when Christ comes to judgment, some will not die, cf. below, dub. 5. — More on the opinions concerning the order of the resurrection St. Thomas and Scotus report together with others (here q. 5, n. 10).

On the 3rd question: Scotus, loc. cit. — St. Thomas, here and in the Suppl. at the places cited. — B. Albert, here a. 21. — Peter of Tarantaise, here a. 5, quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5, q. 1, 2, cf. a. 1, q. 1. — Durandus here, q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Vers. 25.
Verse 25.
2
Vers. 24.
Verse 24.
3
Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 27, inter alia argg. etiam hoc profert. — In maiori pro respondet cod. G debet respondere.
John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith IV, c. 27, among other arguments brings forward this one also. — In the major premise, for respondet codex G reads debet respondere.
4
Epist. II. Cor. 5, 4: Nolumus exspoliari. Cfr. August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 27. n. 38. Ibid. XII. c. 35. n. 68. hoc arg. insinuatur (vide tom. III. pag. 585, nota 8.).
Second Epistle to the Corinthians 5:4: We would not be unclothed. Cf. Augustine, On Genesis to the Letter VII, c. 27, n. 38. In the same work XII, c. 35, n. 68, this argument is suggested (see tom. III, p. 585, note 8).
5
Aristot., I. Polit. c. 3. (2.): Pars enim non solum alterius est pars, sed etiam omnino alterius [scil. totius].
Aristotle, Politics I, c. 3 (2): For a part is not only a part of another, but wholly belongs to another [namely, to the whole].
6
Dist. 48. a. 2. q. 2. seqq. — De maiori, in qua pro reperitur edd. requiritur, cod. U requiritur vel reperitur, cfr. tom. III. pag. 39, nota 3. — Pro stet edd. perperam non stet. Inferius pro discretionis cod. M generationis, edd. addunt vel segregationis.
Distinction 48, a. 2, q. 2 and following. — Concerning the major premise, in which for reperitur the editions read requiritur, codex U requiritur vel reperitur, cf. tom. III, p. 39, note 3. — For stet the editions wrongly read non stet. Below, for discretionis codex M reads generationis, the editions add vel segregationis.
7
Vers. 12. — De minori cfr. II. Sent. d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq.
Verse 12. — Concerning the minor premise cf. II Sent., d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following.
8
Vers. 50, ubi Vulgata possidere non possunt.
Verse 50, where the Vulgate reads cannot possess.
9
Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Ethic. c. 11.
Cf. Aristotle, Ethics VIII, c. 11.
10
Gal. 5, 17.
Galatians 5:17.
11
Secundum August.; cfr. tom. II. pag. 633, nota 5. — Edd. hic et in solut. animae. Cod. aa arg. finit debet vivificari.
According to Augustine; cf. tom. II, p. 633, note 5. — The editions here and in the solution read animae. Codex aa ends the argument debet vivificari.
12
Codd. N aa ergo multo fortius nec.
Codices N aa [read] therefore much more strongly neither.
1
Act. 1, 3: Quibus et praebuit se ipsum vivum post passionem suam in multis argumentis, per dies quadraginta apparens eis etc. Cfr. 1. Cor. 15, 1. seqq., ubi quaedam argumenta afferuntur et etiam haec ratio. Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 22. per totam. — Cod. F quae etiam... certificata.
Acts 1:3: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, etc. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:1 and following, where certain arguments are adduced and also this reason. See Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 22, throughout. — Codex F [reads] quae etiam... certificata.
2
Psalm. 15, 10: Nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Cfr. Act. 13, 35. — Inferius pro retribuit plures codd. retribuat, et pro consummatio, quod praebent codd. AGK, alii codd. et edd. confirmatio.
Psalm 15:10: Nor wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption. Cf. Acts 13:35. — Below, for retribuit several codices read retribuat, and for consummatio, which codices AGK provide, other codices and the editions read confirmatio.
3
Epist. I. Cor. 7, 31: Praeterit enim figura huius mundi. Cfr. infra d. 48. a. 2. q. 3. in fine corp.
First Epistle to the Corinthians 7:31: For the fashion of this world passeth away. Cf. below, d. 48, a. 2, q. 3, at the end of the body.
4
Vers. 16. seqq. Cfr. August., I. Retract. c. 17. et II. c. 3.
Verse 16 and following. Cf. Augustine, Retractations I, c. 17, and II, c. 3.
5
Cfr. II. Sent. d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4. — Post ad illud cod. aa supplet et tale remuneratur.
Cf. II Sent., d. 8, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4. — After ad illud codex aa supplies et tale remuneratur.
6
Scilicet illa quae non decidit principale, vel totum non finit negotium, sed quae ad principalis instructionem pertinet. In Glossa ad legem Cum Clericis (25.), I. C. de Episcopis et clericis (tit. 6.) dicitur: «Est enim sententia interlocutoria, cum praecipit iudex vel eius exsecutor eum pervenire ad causam». Definitiva sententia est quae totum negotium terminat et facit absolvendo, vel condemnando. — Superius pro vivit (ita codd. I K) cod. Z vivet, alii codd. et edd. vixit.
Namely, that sentence which does not decide the principal matter, or does not finish the whole business, but which pertains to the instruction of the principal matter. In the Gloss on the law Cum Clericis (25), Codex, title "On Bishops and Clerics" (tit. 6), it is said: «For it is an interlocutory sentence when the judge or his executor commands that he come to the case». A definitive sentence is one that terminates and finishes the whole business by absolving or condemning. — Above, for vivit (so codices I K) codex Z reads vivet, other codices and the editions vixit.
7
Vide II. Sent. d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro separatus, quod plurimi codd. omittunt, cod. L seiunctus; et pro satisfactione plures codd. satisfactionem, edd. inclinatione. Inferius pro iteratam cod. L iterandam.
See II Sent., d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. — For separatus, which most codices omit, codex L [reads] seiunctus; and for satisfactione several codices [read] satisfactionem, the editions inclinatione. Further below, for iteratam codex L [reads] iterandam.