Bonaventure

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

Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem⁵ distinctionis quaeritur de apertione librorum. Et duo de hoc principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de libro vitae.

Secundo, de libris conscientiae.

Articulus II. De libro vitae.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de eius quidditate.

Secundo, de scriptura ipsius.

Tertio, de apertione.

Quaestio I. De quidditate libri vitae.

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

1. Super illud Psalmi⁶: Deleantur de libro, Glossa: id est, « Dei notitia, qua praedestinavit et praescivit, conformes fieri imaginis Filii Dei ».

2. Item, Apocalypsis vigesimo⁷: Alius liber apertus est, Glossa: Liber iste est « praedestinatio, in qua omnes salvandi scripti sunt ».

Quod autem liber vitae sit Christus secundum humanitatem, videtur:

3. Quia Gregorius in Moralibus⁸ dicit: « Liber vitae est visio iudicis advenientis, quia, quisquis eum viderit, mox, teste conscientia, quidquid boni vel mali fecerit, intelligit »; sed Christus iudicaturus est in forma servi: ergo etc.

4. Item, Glossa Apocalypsis vigesimo⁹ dicit, quod « liber vitae est Christus, qui tunc potens omnibus apparebit »; sed non apparebit omnibus nisi secundum humanitatem: ergo etc.

5. Sed quod sit vis quaedam, nec Divinitas nec humanitas, videtur dicere Augustinus vigesimo de Civitate Dei¹⁰: « Vis quaedam divina nomine libri intelligenda, qua fiet, ut cuique bona et mala ad memoriam revocentur, quae libri nomen accepit ».

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

Sed contra: 1. Quod non sit Dei notitia, videtur: quia in libro est scripturae impressio, in Deo autem nulla est impressio: ergo si translatio debet esse secundum similitudinem¹, non videtur talis translatio recta.

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

3. Item, quod non sit virtus, videtur: quia illa virtus ita mala reducet ad memoriam, ut bona, secundum quod dicit Augustinus²; sed mala sunt ratio mortis: ergo esset tunc dicendus liber mortis, non vitae.

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

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod libri duplex est proprietas: una in se, scilicet scientiae retentio in simultate et uniformitate; et ratione huius proprietatis nomen libri transfertur ad Dei notitiam. Alia proprietas est ad nos, quia per librum est in nobis oblitorum recordatio; et ratione huius transfertur ad vim illam, per quam fit recordatio praeteritorum. Humanitas autem sive visio eius non dicitur liber; et quod dicit Gregorius et Glossa intelligitur³ per quandam concomitantiam. — Concedendum igitur, quod liber dicitur Dei notitia, et quod dicitur illa virtus divina secundum duplicem proprietatem, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

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

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod virtus illa reducit mala ad memoriam, quae sunt causa mortis; dicendum, quod liber et vis Dei causa vitae in se est, et quod mortis sit, hoc est solum per occasionem et rationem aliorum librorum, scilicet conscientiarum⁴; et ideo ab eo denominatur, ad quod principaliter est. — Vel dicendum, quod non dicitur liber vitae, quia det vitam; sed notitia Dei dicitur liber vitae, quia omnia ibi sunt vita⁵. Similiter, vis illa liber dicitur, quia recolit; sed vita dicitur, quia hoc non facit per creaturae defectibilitatem et fallibilitatem, sed secundum divinae notitiae vivam veritatem.

Consequently, as to the second part⁵ of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the opening of the books. And two things are principally asked about this.

First, inquiry is made concerning the book of life.

Second, concerning the books of conscience.

Article II. On the book of life.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First, inquiry is made concerning its quiddity.

Second, concerning its writing.

Third, concerning its opening.

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

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

1. On that [text] of the Psalm⁶: Let them be blotted out of the book, the Gloss: that is, "the knowledge of God, by which he predestined and foreknew [them] to be made conformed to the image of the Son of God."

2. Likewise, Apocalypse chapter twenty⁷: Another book was opened, the Gloss: This book is "the predestination, in which all who are to be saved are written."

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

3. Because Gregory in the Morals⁸ says: "The book of life is the vision of the coming Judge, because whoever shall see it, at once, with conscience as witness, understands whatever of good or of evil he has done"; but Christ is to judge in the form of a servant: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Gloss on Apocalypse chapter twenty⁹ says that "the book of life is Christ, who then, powerful, will appear to all"; but he will not appear to all except according to his humanity: therefore etc.

5. But that it is a certain power, neither the Divinity nor the humanity, Augustine seems to say in the twentieth [book] of the City of God¹⁰: "A certain divine power is to be understood by the name of the book, by which it will come about that to each one the good and evil things are recalled to memory — [a power] which has received the name of a book."

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

On the contrary: 1. That it is not the knowledge of God is shown: because in a book there is an impression of writing, but in God there is no impression: therefore, if the transferring [of the term] ought to be according to a likeness¹, such a transfer does not seem correct.

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

3. Likewise, that it is not a power is shown: because that power would bring evils to memory just as [it does] good things, according to what Augustine says²; but evils are the ground of death: therefore it would then have to be called the book of death, not of life.

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

I respond: It must be said that a book has a twofold property: one in itself, namely the retention of knowledge in simultaneity and uniformity; and by reason of this property the name book is transferred to the knowledge of God. The other property is toward us, because through a book there is in us a recollection of things forgotten; and by reason of this it is transferred to that power by which the recollection of past things comes about. But the humanity, or the vision of it, is not called a book; and what Gregory and the Gloss say is understood³ by way of a certain concomitance. — It must therefore be granted that the book is called the knowledge of God, and that that divine power is so called according to a twofold property, as the reasons brought forward for this show.

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

To the 3rd. To that which is objected, that that power brings evils to memory, which are the cause of death; it must be said that the book and power of God is the cause of life in itself, and that it is [a cause] of death, this is only by the occasion and ground of the other books, namely of the consciences⁴; and therefore it is named from that to which it principally pertains. — Or it must be said that it is not called the book of life because it gives life; but the knowledge of God is called the book of life because all things there are life⁵. Likewise, that power is called a book because it recalls; but it is called life because it does this not through the defectibility and fallibility of a creature, but according to the living truth of the divine knowledge.