Bonaventure

Articulus II. De innovatione corporum superiorum.

Quaestio IV. Utrum innovabuntur plantae et animalia bruta.

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

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

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

2. Item, omnia quae innovabuntur, habent formam perfectivam, ordinatam ad incorruptionem; sed plantae et animalia non habent animas incorruptibiles¹: ergo etc.

3. Item, si innovantur, aut ergo omnia, aut quaedam. Si omnia; tunc² omnes plantae, quae fuerunt ab initio, et omnia animalia occuparent centum tales mundos: ergo oporteret, mundum dilatari. Si quaedam innovantur, quaedam non, quaero: quae sunt illa quae innovantur? Et non videtur esse maior ratio de uno quam de alio.

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

Contra: 1. Caeli ornatus innovabitur, ut patet in corporibus supercaelestibus³: ergo pari ratione ornatus terrae; sed ornatus terrae sunt plantae et animalia: ergo etc. Alioquin, si non innovabuntur, ergo remunerabitur terra sine ornatu, et ita imperfecte: ergo etc.

2. Item, corpora supercaelestia et elementa serviunt homini, et ideo remunerantur; sic plantae et animalia serviunt⁴ et magis serviunt, quia praestant cibum, et magis laborant in serviendo, quia dant suam substantiam et moriuntur: ergo magis sunt renovanda.

3. Item, plantae et animalia sunt ad laudem Dei, ut patet, quia in Psalmo⁵ invitantur ad laudandum Deum: ergo si laus Dei post iudicium non debet minui nec decrescere, sed augeri; ergo non debent cessare plantae et animalia.

4. Item, quae sunt de perfectione universi non debent cessare; sed plantae et animalia sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Prima patet, quia tunc universum erit perfectius. Secunda patet, quia nunc superfluerent, si non essent de perfectione; et praeterea sunt creata inter opera sex dierum⁶, in quibus mundus est constitutus ante hominis lapsum.

5. Item, quae sunt nobiliora magis sunt de perfectione; sed vegetabilia et animalia nobiliora sunt corporibus elementaribus, quia habent vitam⁷: ergo etc.

6. Item, differentiae dividentes genus sunt de perfectione universi; sed differentiae accipiuntur penes haec duo⁸: ergo haec ad universi perfectionem debent innovari.

Conclusio

Plantae et animalia non innovabuntur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod plantae et animalia non innovabuntur, propter hoc quod ultima eorum perfectio est corruptibilis per naturam et ortum et radicem habet a materia; unde non sunt idonea ad vivendum sive durandum aeternaliter. — Formae autem corporum supercaelestium sunt incorruptibiles omnino⁹; similiter formae elementorum incorruptibiles sunt secundum totum et secundum partem, quantum est in se, quia sunt corpora simplicia; unde quod corrumpantur, hoc est per actionem venientem ab extrinseco; et ideo, remota illa actione, remanent incorruptibiles.

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

Ad argumenta pro parte opposita:

Ad 1. 2. 3. 4. Et ex hoc patet primum, quia caeli ornatus naturaliter est dispositus ad incorruptionem. — Similiter homini non convenit eorum obsequium post resurrectionem, sicut obsequium solis et lunae; et ideo non remunerantur. — Similiter sunt ad laudandum Deum secundum statum infirmitatis, quando ipse in se non est manifestus; sed cum in se cognoscetur sufficienter, in se laudabitur, nec oportet, ad hoc esse multitudinem creaturarum. — Similiter sunt de perfectione universi, quatenus est habitaculum hominis viventis animaliter, sed post spiritualis effecti¹ non; et ideo concreata sunt homini, quia homo alimoniis indigebat; et praeterea, Deus eum peccaturum esse praesciebat.

Ad 5. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur: quod nobilius est magis est de perfectione universi; dicendum, quod habere esse nobilius, hoc est dupliciter: vel quia permanentius, et quod sic est magis est de integritate universi; vel nobilius, quia completius, et hoc non magis est de integritate universi, nisi cum perfectione completionis habeat incorruptionem durationis; hoc enim ipso, quod corruptibile, non est de perfectione².

Ad 6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de differentiis, dicendum, quod istud non oportet, quia divisio generis in differentias has est secundum statum. — Potest nihilominus dici, quod homine innovato, omnes differentiae, quae spectant ad completionem eius³, salvantur, ut corporeum, animatum, sensibile, rationale; aliae differentiae, inanimatum, insensibile, irrationale, dicunt perfectionem coniunctam imperfectioni. Unde distinguendum, quod differentiae quaedam sunt perfectivae simpliciter, quaedam perfectivae cum diminutione. Et sic solvendum est illud, quia primae sunt de perfectione universi simpliciter, secundae vero solum secundum statum⁴.

---

Article II. On the renewal of the higher bodies.

Question IV. Whether plants and brute animals will be renewed.

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

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

2. Likewise, all things that will be renewed have a perfective form, ordered to incorruption; but plants and animals do not have incorruptible souls¹: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if they are renewed, then either all [are], or some. If all; then² all the plants that have existed from the beginning, and all the animals, would occupy a hundred such worlds: therefore the world would have to be enlarged. If some are renewed and some not, I ask: which are they that are renewed? And there does not seem to be any greater reason for one than for another.

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

On the contrary: 1. The adornment of the heaven will be renewed, as is clear in the supercelestial bodies³: therefore by parity of reason the adornment of the earth; but the adornment of the earth is plants and animals: therefore etc. Otherwise, if they will not be renewed, then the earth will be rewarded without adornment, and thus imperfectly: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the supercelestial bodies and the elements serve man, and therefore they are rewarded; so plants and animals serve⁴, and serve more, since they furnish food, and labour more in serving, since they give their own substance and die: therefore they are the more to be renewed.

3. Likewise, plants and animals are for the praise of God, as is clear, since in the Psalm⁵ they are invited to praise God: therefore if the praise of God after the judgement ought not to be lessened nor to decrease, but to be increased; therefore plants and animals ought not to cease.

4. Likewise, things that belong to the perfection of the universe ought not to cease; but plants and animals are of this sort: therefore etc. The first [premise] is clear, because then the universe will be more perfect. The second is clear, because they would now be superfluous if they did not belong to its perfection; and besides, they were created among the works of the six days⁶, in which the world was constituted before man's fall.

5. Likewise, things that are nobler belong more to perfection; but vegetables and animals are nobler than the elemental bodies, since they have life⁷: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, the differences dividing a genus belong to the perfection of the universe; but the differences are taken in respect of these two⁸: therefore these ought to be renewed for the perfection of the universe.

Conclusion

Plants and animals will not be renewed.

I respond: It must be said that plants and animals will not be renewed, on account of this, that their ultimate perfection is corruptible by nature and takes its rise and root from matter; hence they are not fit to live or to endure eternally. — But the forms of the supercelestial bodies are altogether incorruptible⁹; likewise the forms of the elements are incorruptible according to the whole and according to the part, so far as lies in themselves, since they are simple bodies; hence that they are corrupted, this is through an action coming from without; and therefore, when that action is removed, they remain incorruptible.

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

To the arguments for the opposite side:

To 1, 2, 3, 4. And from this the first is clear, since the adornment of the heaven is naturally disposed to incorruption. — Likewise their service does not befit man after the resurrection, as does the service of the sun and moon; and therefore they are not rewarded. — Likewise they are for praising God according to the state of infirmity, when he himself is not manifest in himself; but when he shall be known sufficiently in himself, he will be praised in himself, nor is a multitude of creatures needed for this. — Likewise they belong to the perfection of the universe insofar as it is the dwelling-place of man living animally, but not after he has been made spiritual¹; and therefore they were created together with man, because man needed nourishment; and besides, God foreknew that he would sin.

To 5. But to that which is objected — that what is nobler belongs more to the perfection of the universe — it must be said that to have nobler being is twofold: either because it is more permanent, and what is so belongs more to the integrity of the universe; or nobler because more complete, and this does not belong more to the integrity of the universe unless together with the perfection of completeness it has incorruption of duration; for by this very fact, that it is corruptible, it does not belong to perfection².

To 6. To that which is objected last concerning the differences, it must be said that this does not follow, because the division of the genus by these differences is according to a state. — It can nonetheless be said that, when man has been renewed, all the differences that pertain to his completeness³ are preserved, such as corporeal, animate, sensible, rational; the other differences, inanimate, insensible, irrational, state a perfection joined to imperfection. Hence it must be distinguished that some differences are perfective simply, and some perfective with diminution. And thus that [objection] is to be resolved, because the first belong to the perfection of the universe simply, but the second only according to a state⁴.

---