S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIX

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio 2.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 466-468.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 466-468.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum, Adam peccante, corpus eius per esum ligni vitae posset perpetuari.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether, with Adam sinning, his body could be perpetuated through the eating of the Tree of Life?

SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum, Adam peccante, corpus eius posset perpetuari per esum ligni vitae.  Et quod sic, videtur:

SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether, with Adam sinning, his body could be perpetuated through eating [esum] of the Tree of Life.  And that (it is) so, seems:

1. Primo per textum Genesis tertio:5  Nunc ergo ne forte sumat de ligno vitae et vivat in aeternum; hoc dictum est de Adam post peccatum:

1. First through the text of Genesis in (its) third (chapter):5  Therefore now, lest he perchance take of the Tree of Life and live unto eternity; this was said of Adam after the sin:

5  Vers. 22:  Nunc ergo ne forte mittat manum suam et sumat etiam de ligno vitae et comedat et vivat in aeternum.

5  Verse 22:  Now, therefore, lest perhaps he stretch out his hand and take also of the Tree of Life and eat and live unto eternity [Nunc ergo ne forte mittat manum suam et sumat etiam de ligno vitae et comedat et vivat in aeternum].

 

p. 467

 

ergo si post peccatum sumsisset, in aeternum vixisset, et corpus eius perpetuum fuisset.

therefore, if he has taken (of it) after (his) sin, he would have lived unto eternity, and his body would have been perpetual.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per Richardum de sancto Victore,1 qui de Adam ait sic:  Habuit ante peccatum corruptibilitatem, post peccatum corruptionem; sed utroque modo per esum ligni vitae potuit sustentari.

2.  Likewise, this very (thing) seems through Richard of Saint Victor,1 who spoke of Adam thus:  “Before sin he had a corruptibility, after sin a corruption; but in each manner he could have been sustained through eating of the Tree of Life.

3. Item, hoc probatur per experimentum.  Henoch enim et Elias, sicut dicunt Glossa2 et auctoritates Sanctorum, in paradiso conservantur per esum ligni vitae usque ad antichristi adventum; sed qua ratione usque ad illud tempus conservari possunt, eadem ratione et deinceps:  ergo pari ratione et corpus Adae.

3. Likewise, this is proven through experiment [per experimentum].  For Enoch and Elijah, just as the Gloss2 and the authorities of the Saints say, were conserved in Paradise until the advent of the Antichrist, through eating of the Tree of Life; but according to that reckoning by which they can be conserved until that time, by the same reckoning also thereafter [deinceps]:  therefore for an equal reason also the body of Adam.

4. Item, non fuit maioris efficaciae lignum scientiae boni et mali ad corpus perdendum, quam lignum vitae ad conservandum; sed per esum illius ligni corpus hominis factum est dissolubile:  ergo pari ratione per esum alterius ligni poterat corpus corruptibile solidari et perpetuari, sicut econtra alterius ligni comestio corpus sanum et solidum reddidit dissolubile et infirmum.

4. Likewise, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not of a greater efficacy regarding loosing the body, than the Tree of Life (was) regarding conserving (it); but through the eating of the former Tree the body of man was made able to be dissolved [dissolubile]:  therefore for an equal reason through the eating of the other Tree (his) corruptible body could be made solid [solidari] and be perpetuated, just as contrariwise the eating [comestio] of the other Tree rendered a healthy and solid body able to be dissolved and infirm.

5. Item, post peccatum, si spiritus hominis iungeretur fonti vitae,3 disponeretur ad perpetuam beatitudinem et vitam immortalem:  ergo si lignum vitae corporale sic se habebat ad corpus servandum, sicut lignum vitae spirituale se habet ad spiritum; videtur, quodsi homo poenituisset et de ligno vitae gustasset, quod corpus eius esset factum indissolubile.

5. Likewise, after the sin, if the spirit of man were joined to the Fount of Life,3 it would be disposed to perpetual beatitude and to immortal life:  therefore if the corporal Tree of Life held itself in the same manner to guarding the body, as the spiritual Tree of Life holds Himself to (his) spirit; it seems, that if man had repented [poenituisset] and had tasted of the (corporal) Tree of Life, that his body would have been made unable to be dissolved [indissolubile]

6. Item, homo bene complexionatus, si non habet impedimentum extrinsecum, vivere potest usque ad consumtionem humidi radicalis.4  Si igitur illud humidum posset restaurari, posset corpus eius in perpetuum incorruptum servari:  si ergo illud lignum vitae, sicut dicunt doctores, habebat vim restaurandi humidum radicale; videtur, quodsi homo de illo comedisset, quod corpus eius in aeternum posset durare, etiam post commissionem culpae.

6. Likewise, a well complexioned man [homo], if he has no extrinsic impediment, can live until the consummation of the radical humor [humidi radicalis].4  Therefore, if that humor could be restored, his body could be kept [servari] incorrupt in perpetuity:  therefore if that Tree of Life, as the doctors (of theology) say, had a force for restoring the radical humor; it seems, that if man had eaten of it, that his body would be able to endure unto eternity, even after the commission of fault.

SED CONTRA:  1. Ad Romanos sexto:5  Stipendia peccati mors:  ergo si, postquam homo peccavit, necessarium fuit, ipsum peccasse; necessarium fuit, ipsum mori:  ergo necessarium fuit, corpus eius dissolvi:  ergo non poterat perpetuari per esum alicuius ligni.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY:  1. In the sixth (chapter of the Letter of St. Paul) to the Romans5 (there is written):  The wages [stipendia] of sin (is) death:  therefore, if after [postquam] man sinned, it was necessary, that he sinned; it was necessary, that he die:  therefore it was necessary, that his body be dissolved:  therefore he could not be perpetuated through the eating of any tree.

2. Item, sententia data fuit, Genesis secundo:6  Quacumque die comederitis etc.  Si ergo illam sententiam nulla virtus creata potest infirmare, quantumcumque homo comederet de ligno vitae, necesse erat, ipsum mori et corpus eius resolvi.  Et hoc ipsum dicit alius textus, Genesis tertio:  Pulvis es, et in pulverem etc.

2. Likewise, a sentence was given, according to the second (chapter) of Genesis:6  In whichsoever day thou shalt eat etc..  Therefore, if no created virtue could weaken [infirmare] that sentence, however so much man ate of the Tree of Life, it was necessary, that he die and that his body be resolved.  And this very (thing) does another text say, in the third (chapter) of Genesis:  Thou art dust, and unto dust etc.. 

3. Item, homo per peccatum similis factus est iumentis insipientibus;7 sed iumenta si comederent de ligno vitae, non propter hoc corpora eorum fierent indissolubilia:  ergo si homo quantum ad conditionem mortis iumentis similis effectus est per culpam; quantumcumque de ligno vitae comederet, corpus eius dissolvi necesse esset.

3. Likewise, through sin man was make similar to the foolish beasts of the field [iumentis insipientibus];7 but the beasts of the field, if they ate of the Tree of Life, their bodies would not on this account become unable to be dissolved:  therefore if man, as much as regards the condition of death, was made similar to the beasts of the field through (his) fault; however so much he ate of the Tree of Life, it would be necessary, that his body be dissolved.

4. Item, non minus est de mortali immortalem facere quam de mortuo vivum; sed mortuum suscitare hoc est virtutis solius Dei et virtutis infinitae:  ergo corpus dissolubile ad indissoluble reducere, hoc est solius virtutis divinae:  ergo si homo post peccatum de illo ligno comederet, corpus eius nihilominus dissolvi esset necesse.

4. Likewise, to make of a mortal an immortal is no less than (to make) of one dead one living; but to raise the dead [mortuum suscitare] this belongs to the virtue of God alone and to infinite virtue:  therefore to lead a body able to be dissolved back (to being) unable to be dissolved, this belongs to Divine Virtue alone:  therefore if a man ate of that Tree after the sin, it would be necessary, that his body be dissolved nevertheless.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Esus ligni vitae post peccatum non potuisset Adam reddere immortalem.

CONCLUSION

 

The eating of the Tree of Life could not have rendered Adam immortal after (his) sin.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod eadem lege, qua divina iustitia non patitur, innocentem puniri et mori, non patitur etiam, malum remanere impunitum.  Et ideo divinum decretum fuit, ut, si homo mandatum Dei transgrediendo peccaret et ipsi Auctori suo inobediens existeret, spiritus carnis dominium amitteret; et sicut voluntas a Deo recesserat, sic anima invita corpus ipsum desereret, et dissolutum in suam originem, unde sumtum erat, rediret. Et quoniam divinum decretum erat inviolabile, hinc est, quod postquam homo peccavit, quantumcumque de ligno vitae ederet, corpus eius non fieret indissolubile, ita quod mortem posset evadere.8  —  Ideo concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that by the same law, by which the Divine Justice does not suffer, that the innocent be punished and die, It also does not suffer, that evil remain unpunished.  And for that reason there was a Divine Decree, that, if man sinned by transgressing the mandate of God and stood forth as one not obeying [inobediens] his very own Author, that (his) spirit would loose the dominion of (his) flesh; and just as (his) will had receded from (his) God, so (his) soul would involuntarily [invita] desert (his) very body, and, having been dissolved, return unto it origin, whence it had been taken.  And since the Divine Decree was inviolable, hence it is, that after man sinned, however so much he would eat of the Tree of Life, his body would not become unable to be dissolved, such that he could not evade death.8  —  For that reason the reasons showing this are to be conceded.

1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de textu, dicendum, quod aeternum non dicit ibi vitae interminabilitatem,9 sed vitae quandam diuturnitatem, quomodo saepe consuevit loqui Scriptura.  Quamvis autem lignum vitae illud corpus non posset perpetuare, poterat tamen adeo naturam ipsius adiuvare et vigorare, ut diutius viveret.10

1. To that which is objected first unto the contrary from the text (of Genesis), it must be said, that there “eternity” [aeternum] does not mean an interminability [interminabilitatem],9 but a certain long duration [diuturnitatem] of life, in the manner in which Scripture is often accustomed to speak.  Moreover, although the Tree of Life could not perpetuate that body, yet it could so help and invigorate [vigorare] its nature, that it would live for a long time.10

1  Libro I. de Emmanuele, c. 11 dicat:  Perdidit sane . . . gloriam incorruptionis, qua immortalis factus est, praerogativam dignitatis . . . abundantiam plenitudinis . . . Denudationem immortalitatis audi, ubi de ligno vetito legis:  Quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris.  Et ibid. c. 15:  Certe lignum vitae ex eo nomen habuit, quod ex insita sibi natura ex eo comedentium vitam servare posse accepit.  —  In textu Richardi pro sustentari multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 suscitari.  —  Sententia similis tenoris invenitur in libro, olim Augustino tributo, cui titulus:  Quaestiones veteris et novi Testamenti, q. 19.

2  In Gen. 5, 24; Eccli. 44, 16; Hebr. 11, 5.  De Glossa cfr. August., VI. Oper. imperf. contra Iulian., c. 30; I. contra Advers. Legis et Prophet. c. 15. n. 26; I. de Peccator. meritis et remiss. et de bapt. parvul. c. 3. n. 3.

3  Psalm. 35, 10:  Quoniam apud te est fons vitae, et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen.

4  Cfr. tom. I. pag. 316, nota 12, ubi ex Scoto cit. videri potest, quid sit humidum radicale iuxta opinionem illius aetatis.  —  Paulo post pro servari codd. T aa conservari.

5  Vers. 23.  —  Paulo post sola Vat. omittit necessarium fuit ipsum peccasse . . . mori, ergo.

6  Vers. 17.  —  Seq. textus est Gen. 3, 19.

7  Psalm. 48, 13.  —  Paulo inferius pro mortis plures codd. mortalitatis.

8  Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 15. et XIV. c. 15.

9  Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 6:  Aeternitas igitur est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio.

10  Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 20.

1  On the Immanuel, Bk. I, ch. 11, he says:  “He indeed lost . . . the glory of incorruption, by which he was made immortal, the prerogative of (his) dignity . . . the abundance of fullness . . . Hear of the denudation of immortality, where you read of the forbidden Tree:  On whatsoever day you eat of it, you shall by death.”  And ibid. in ch. 15:  “Certainly the Tree of Life had (its) name from this, that it accepted a ‘being able’ to conserve the life of those eating it out of the nature engrafted in it.  —  In the text of Richard (above) many codices, together with editions 1 and 2, have been raised [suscitari] for been sustained [sustentari].  —  A sentence of similar tenor is found in the book, attributed long ago to (St.) Augustine, whose title (is):  Question on the Old and New Testament, q. 19.

2  In Gen. 5:24; Eccli. 44_16; Heb. 11_5.  On the Gloss, cf. (St.) Augustine’s unfinished work, Against Julian, Bk. VI, ch. 30; Against the Adversaries of the Law and Prophets, Bk. I, ch. 15, n. 26; On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sinners and On the Baptism of Little Ones, Bk. I, ch. 3, n. 3.

3  Ps. 35:10:  Since with you is the Fount of Life, and in Thy Light we shall see the Light [Quoniam apud te est fons vitae, et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen].

4  Cf. Sent, Bk. I, d. 17, p. II, a. sole, q. 4, p. 316, footnote 12, where one can see from the citation of (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, what the radical humor is according to the opinion of that age.  — A little after this for kept [servari] codices T and aa have conserved [conservari].

5  Verse 23.  —  A little after this the Vatican edition alone omits it was necessary that he sinned . . . that he die, therefore [necessarium fuit ipsum peccasse . . . mori, ergo].

6  Verse 17.  —  The following text is Gen. 3:19.

7  Ps. 48:13.  —  A little below this for of death [mortis] several codices have of mortality [mortalitatis].

8  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On the City of God, Bk. XIII, ch. 15, and Bk. XIV, ch. 15.

9  (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, Bk. V, prosa 6:  “Therefore, eternity is the whole and perfect possession together of an interminable life.”

10  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On the City of God¸ Bk. XIII, ch. 20.

 

p. 468

 

2. 3. Et per hoc patet responsio ad duo sequentia, scilicet ad verbum Richardi, et ad illud quod obiicitur de Henoch et Elia.  Utrumque enim non concludit vitae interminabilitatem, sed solum quandam diuturnitatem; quam etsi lignum vitae posset homini lapso conferre per sibi divinitus collatam virtutem, non tamen poterat in aeternum conservare; quia divinum decretum infirmare1 non poterat, et corpus hominis peccantis ad hoc post peccatum habile non erat, et illud lignum in solo eo quod dispositionem habebat ad eius effectum, efficaciam habebat.

2. 3. And through this the response to the two following (objections) is clear, namely to the word of Richard (of St. Victor), and to that which is objected concerning Enoch and Elijah.  for each does not conclude (to) an interminability of life, but only (to) a certain long duration; which (long duration) even if the Tree of Life could confer upon fallen man through a virtue divinely conferred upon it, yet it could not conserve (him) unto eternity; because it could not weaken1 the Divine Decree, and the body of man the sinner was not able for this after the sin, and that Tree had efficacy in this alone that it had a disposition to that effect.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur per simile de ligno scientiae boni et mali, dicendum, quod illud simile deficit dupliciter.  Primum, quia illud lignum scientiae boni et mali non fecit, corpora illa esse dissolubilia, sed solum hominis culpa et divina sententia.  Secundo vero, quia corpus Adae, antequam peccaret, nec habebat necessitatem ad permanendum nec necessitatem ad corrumpendum; sed postquam homo peccavit, corpus eius subiectum fuit necessitati moriendi, et ideo per esum ligni vitae non poterat conservari.

4. To that which is objected through a simile concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it must be said, that that simile fails in a twofold manner.  First, because that Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil did not cause those bodies to be dissolvable, but only the fault of man and the Divine Sentence (did).  But second, because the body of Adam, before he sinned, had neither a necessity to perdure [ad permanendum] nor a necessity to be corrupted [corurmpendum]; but after man sinned, his body was subjected to a necessity of dying, and for that reason through eating of the Tree of Life he it could not be conserved.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de coniunctione spiritus ad fontem vitae spiritualis etc., dicendum, quod illud simile deficit dupliciter.  Primo, quidem, quia voluntas facilius vertitur et revertitur quam natura.  Secundo vero, quia fons vitae spiritualis multo potentior est super animam, quam illud lignum esset super corpus; et ideo non sequitur, quodsi divinus Spiritus recreat et vivificat animam, quod lignum vitae reformet et consolidet corpus in statum pristinum.

5. To that which is objected concerning the conjunction of (man’s) spirit to the Fount of spiritual life etc.; it must be said, that that simile fails in a twofold manner.  First, indeed, because the will more easily turns and turns back than nature (does).  But second, because the Fount of spiritual life is much more potent over the soul, than that Tree was over the body, and for that reason it does not follow, that if the Divine Spirit recreates and vivifies the soul, that the Tree of Life reforms and consolidates the body unto (its) pristine state.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lignum vitae restauraret humidum radicale; dicendum, quod etsi per sui esum sufficienter restauraret humidum in corpore hominis secundum statum naturae institutae, nunquam tamen in statu naturae lapsae sic restauraret, quin semper aliqua deperditio fieret; et ita, quamvis diutius conservaret, nihilominus tamen aliquando illud radicale humidum deficeret, et corpus ad dissolutionem perveniret.2

6. To that which is objected, that the Tree of Life restored the radical humor [humidum radicale]; it must be said, that even if through its eating it sufficiently restored the humid [humidum] in the body of man according to the state of instituted nature, yet never would it restore (it) thus in the state of lapsed nature, that some loss (thereof) would never be caused; and thus, though it would conserve (it) longer, yet, nevertheless, that radical humor would at sometime fail, and the body arrive at (its) dissolution.2

1  Cod. aa melius infirmari.

2  Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

1  Codex aa has better the Divine Decree could not be weakened [infirmari] for it could not weaken the Divine Decree [infirmare].

2  See the Scholium to the preceding Question.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.