Article 9 — Whether anything can be removed from the book of life

Ninth, it is asked whether someone can be removed from the book of life. (Parallel texts: In I Sent., d. 40, q. 3, ad 3; In III Sent., d. 31, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 3; Commentary on Philippians, ch. 4, lect. 1)

Obj. 1: It seems not, for commenting on the text, I will not remove his name from the book of life (Rev 3:5), the Gloss says, the book of life is God's foreknowledge, in which all things are constant. (Glossa Ordinaria, at Rev 3:5, 6.1486 (PL 114:716); the words are found in Alexander of Hales, Summa fratris Alexandri, part 1, inq. 1, tract. 5, sect. 2, q. 4, tit. 5, ch. 2, n. 263, 1:357.) But they would not be constant if they were removable, therefore nothing can be removed from the book of life.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, nothing is removed from a book unless because it is either superfluous or else corrupted, but there is nothing of the kind in the book of life. Therefore, nothing can be removed from it.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher in On the Soul, (Aristotle, On the Soul 3.4, 429b31.) before our intellect understands, it is like a blank slate on which nothing is written. Therefore, by that metaphor something is said to be inscribed in the book of life because God understands it. Thus, since removal implies variation, it seems that no one can be removed from the book of life.

Obj. 4: But one might object that some are inscribed simply in the book of life for the sake of possessing glory, and these cannot be removed from the book of life; (Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa fratris Alexandri, part 1, inq. 1, tract. 5, sect. 2, q. 4, tit. 5, n. 261, sol., 1:354.) whereas others are inscribed therein according to present righteousness, and these are inscribed in a certain respect and can be removed. (Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 3, d. 31, ch. 1.)

On the contrary, a cause is more worthy than its effect: yet however much worth something has, so much more is it invariable. Now glory is an effect of grace. If, then, those who are inscribed for the sake of possessing glory cannot be removed, it would seem that neither can those who are inscribed for the sake of possessing grace, and thus it would seem that no one can be removed from thence.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, that which is in another is in it according to the manner of the thing in which it is. (The same notion is ascribed to different authors, though in different forms, e.g.: the Book of Causes; cf. Commentary on the Book of Causes, 10 [9] and 12 [11]; to Dionysius together with the Book of Causes in the Scriptum on The Sentences II, d. 17, q. 2, a. 1, arg. 3 [cf. Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4, para. 1 (PG 3:693B); and Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 12, para. 2 (PG 3:293A)]; to Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, bk. 5, prose 4 (PL 63:848C).) But the book of life is invariable. Therefore, whoever is inscribed in the book of life is invariably written therein, and so no one can be removed from thence.

Obj. 6: But one might object that the argument follows for those who are simply inscribed in the book of life, but not for those who are inscribed according to present righteousness.

On the contrary, the book of life is a divine predestination of those to whom eternal life will be given, as Augustine says in the City of God. (Augustine, City of God, bk. 20, ch. 15 (PL 41:681). These words are also found in Alexander of Hales, Summa fratris Alexandri, part 1, inq. 1, tract. 5, q. 4, tit. 5, n. 259, 1:352.) But neither present nor foreknown merits are the cause of predestination; therefore, nothing is to be said about those who are written in the book of life according to present righteousness.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, we do not say that some are predestined according to present righteousness. If, therefore, the book of life is predestination, as the gloss also says on Phil. 4:3, whose names are in the book of life, namely in the predestination of God, (Peter Lombard, Commentary on Philippians, at Phil 4:3 (PL 192:252C).) it seems that it ought not to be said that they are written there according to present righteousness.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, God does not know things in the manner of those things but in his very own manner, and he therefore knows things in the same way before they exist and after they exist. Thus it says in Ecclesiastes 23:29, all things were known to the Lord our God before they were created: so also after they were perfected he beholds all things. Now, that something is said to be according to present righteousness pertains to the manner in which the thing exists, whose being varies according to the present, past, and future. Therefore, the manner of divine knowledge ought not to be put here such that someone is said to be written in the book of life according to present righteousness since the book of life pertains to divine knowledge, as has been said.

Obj. 9: Furthermore, when someone is said to be written in the book of life according to presence justice, either this is said inasmuch as knowledge is in God regarding his present righteousness absolutely speaking, or else as ordered to possessing eternal life. If absolutely, then it is not erased in any way, for God never stops having knowledge of his present righteousness; but if it is ordered to glory, then he can never be said to have been written in the book of life since God foreknew that he would not possess eternal life through that present righteousness. Therefore, it cannot be said in any way that he who is written in the book of life according to present righteousness is able to be erased from it.

Obj. 10: Furthermore, something is written in a book inasmuch as it is commended to memory; but God does not hold in his memory those who are not predestined to life, about whom it says, the just shall be in everlasting remembrance (Ps 112:6), (Vulg.: Ps 111:7.) which pertains to the knowledge of approval. (Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 1, d. 36, ch. 2.) Therefore, such as these are not written in the book of life, and so it cannot be said that they are erased from it.

Obj. 11: Furthermore, just as to disappoint or to fail pertains to a change in predestination or of foreknowledge, so also does being removed seem to pertain to a change in the book of life. But in no way is it to be granted that divine foreknowledge disappoints or that predestination either perishes or fails. Thus also in no way should it be granted that something in the book of life is erased.

Obj. 12: But one may object that the argument proceeds for those who are written in the book of life simply speaking, but not of those who are written in a certain respect.

On the contrary, the book of life is divine knowledge, as has been said above. (Above: a. 6.) However, God knows nothing in a certain respect but all things simply. Therefore, it cannot be said that some are written in the book of life in a certain respect.

Obj. 13: Furthermore, Gregory says on the verse, set your house in order (Isa 38:1), that although God changes his thought, yet he never changes his counsel. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 16, ch. 10 (PL 75:1127B); cf. Glossa ordinaria, at Isaiah 38:1, 4.336 (PL 113:1279).) Now it seems to pertain to God's counsel that someone be written in the book of life; therefore, in no way can those who are written be erased.

Obj. 14: Furthermore, it seems to pertain to the same argument that someone be inscribed anew in the book of life and that one who is inscribed be erased, for just as some who are righteous fall from grace, so also are some sinners converted to righteousness. But it seems that it cannot be fittingly said that someone is written anew in the book of life, for there cannot be anything new in God; thus it seems that neither can someone who is inscribed be erased from thence.

Obj. 15: Furthermore, grace is a sign of the eternal life that is to be possessed, which is clear from what it says in 2 Cor. 1:21–22, he who anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts. Now this sign would be false if someone having grace would not come to possess glory. Therefore, since divinely given signs cannot be false, it seems that whoever has grace would come to possess glory so that one who is inscribed in the book of life according to present righteousness could not be erased.

On the contrary (1), is what it says in the Psalms, let them be blotted out from the book of the living (Ps 69:28).

Furthermore (2), the Lord says in Exodus 32:33, whoever should sin against me, I will erase him from my book. But many do sin, therefore many are erased from the book of the living.

Furthermore (3), that whose contrary is impossible to exist is promised in vain to someone as a reward. For to be an animal cannot be said to be man’s reward. But not to be erased from the book of life is promised to the rightous as a reward; for it says in Revelation 3:5, he who shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments: and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. Therefore, it is not impossible for someone to be erased from the book of life.

Furthermore (4), the Lord said to the disciples, rejoice because your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and yet some of them turned back, as it says in John 6:67, and especially Judas about whom it says in Acts 1:25 that he went to his own place, and the Gloss says: that is to hell. (Glossa interlinearis, at Acts 1:25 (in Glossa ordinaria 6.985). Therefore, some who are written in the Book of Life are erased from it.)

But one might object (5), that the Lord said those disciples who turned back were written in heaven not because they were written according to the truth of the matter but according to their opinion.

On the contrary, joy that is not of what is true but that is only of an opinion is a vain joy. Now the Lord would not have invited his disciples to a vain joy, and yet he said to them, rejoice because your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20). Therefore, they were not only written according to their opinion but according to the truth of the matter.

Furthermore (6), it says in Revelation 3:11, hold fast what you have, that no man take your crown. (Thus argues Peter Lombard with Augustine, cited above, and Aquinas as well, ST I.23.6, obj. 1; III.89.5.) Now this would have been said in vain unless someone could relinquish their crown. But this crown is eternal life; therefore, those also who are inscribed to possess eternal life can lose it.

Furthermore (7), prayer is not made concerning what necessarily exists, for we do not pray for those for whom it is now impossible to sin, namely who are in heaven; but the Church prays for some that they not be erased from the book of life, and thus it says in some prayer, may the blessed book of predestination retain inscribed the names of all the faithful living and dead. (Roman Missal, secret "pro vivis et defunctis.") Therefore, it is possible for the names of some who are written there to be erased.

Furthermore (8), when it says that one is able to be erased or written in the book of life, this is not to be referred to a human power but to the divine; for the writing of the book of life is not subject to the power of man but only to the divine. But God can erase even the predestined from the book of life, for he is able not to save them since he saves them from grace alone. Thus, it seems that one must grant simply that someone can be erased from the book of life.

Furthermore (9), the knowledge of the book of life pertains to the knowledge of vision. (Cf. William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, bk. 1, ch. "De hoc verbo scire dicto de Deo"; Alexander of Hales, Summa fratris Alexandri, part 1, inq. 1, tract. 5, sect. 1, q. 1, n. 179, 1:264; Albert the Great, In I Sent., d. 39, a. 4; Bonaventure, In I Sent., d. 39, a. 1, q. 3.) But speaking of this vision, God is able to know something that he does not know; (Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 1, d. 39, ch. 3.) for he is capable of making something that will not be made; and thus for an equal reason can those be inscribed into the book of life who are not yet inscribed or else be erased who are already inscribed.

Furthermore (10), since one who is inscribed into the book of life has a free will that is not confirmed, he could sin mortally and immediately die after the sin because he is mortal. Thus, he is able to be damned while also being able to be inscribed in the book of life since, as it says in Revelation 20:15, whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the pool of fire and sulphur; (Cf. Rev 21:8.) and so it seems that someone can be erased from the book of life.

I answer that it must be said that difficulty is brought to this question on the one hand from the fact that many citations from Sacred Scripture explicitly say that some can be erased from the book of life, and on the other hand from the fact that such a removal would seem to imply a changing of the book of life, which must nevertheless be held to be something uncreated, as has been shown above. (Above: a. 1.) Thus, some have held that one is said to be erased from the book of life not insofar one was first inscribed there and later stopped being inscribed, but rather that one was inscribed according to one’s own opinion and that of other men, though not truly; (Alexander of Hales, Quaestiones disputatae, q. 41, m. 7, n. 32.) and one is then said to be erased when it becomes manifest that one had not been written into the book of life. They have for an authority a certain Gloss on Psalm 69:28, let them be erased from the book of life, (Glossa ordinaria, at Psalm 68:29, 3:938; Peter Lombard, Commentary on the Psalms, at Psalm 68:29 [33] (PL 191:639A).) which seems to say this explicitly. It is also necessary to say this if we hold that to be written in the book of life is nothing else than to be predestined to life, as a certain Gloss and the writings of the saints interpret to be this writing of the book of life. (Glossa Ordinaria, at Rev. 20:12, 6.1666; Augustine, City of God, bk. 20, ch. 15 (PL 41:681);) But since the authority of Sacred Scripture seems to make an explicit mention of the aforesaid removal, and since that joy at being written in the book of life would be in vain if it were only referred to the opinion of men, as was treated in an objection; thus we must make a distinction in common so that some are said to be inscribed in the book of life according to divine predestination, and these are inscribed simply and irremovably; whereas others are inscribed according to present righteousness, and these are inscribed in a certain respect and capable of being blotted out. (This is from Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 3, d. 31, ch. 1.) We can understand this distinction, upon which the entire difficulty of the question hangs, in three ways.

First, because being written in the book of life is said with respect to eternal life, so that he is understood to be written in the book of life whom God knows will have eternal life. However, eternal life is possessed by someone in two ways, in one way simply and in another way in a certain respect. It is simply possessed by those who have it in reality, as it is possessed by the blessed; but it is possessed in a certain respect by those who have it in hope and in merit, for anything is said to be simply when it exists in itself, but in a certain respect when it only exists in its cause. Therefore, when God knows that someone will possess eternal life in reality, he knows that he will possess eternal life simply; and since the book of life is God's knowledge about someone's eternal life, it follows that such a one is written simply into the book of life; and since God's knowledge cannot fail, so neither can someone written into the book of life in this manner be erased. But when God knows that someone possesses or will possess eternal life only in hope and in merit, he knows that he will have eternal life in a certain respect; and thus such a one is said to be written in the book of life in a certain respect or according to present righteousness, and when he should fall from present righteousness, in which he possessed eternal life as being in its cause, he falls from the order that he had toward eternal life, and so he falls from being written in the book of life not by it changing, but by his own change.

This can be understood in another way using a metaphor, for a book, by means of its writing, represents those who are said to be written in it; and thus inasmuch as a spiritual man's life is represented in God, that man is said to be inscribed in the book of life. But a representation or likeness of creatures in God is twofold: in one way in the manner of knowledge, as when, in our case, the likeness of an artifact is in the mind of an artisan, (Averroes, Metaphysics, bk. 12, comm. 16; cf. Aquinas, In II Sent., d. 15, q. 1, a. 2; cf. Albert the Great, Summa Alberti, bk. 1, tract. 15, q. 61, m. 2.) but in another way in the manner of nature, as when an artisan's son is likened to him according to nature. For God both possesses knowledge of creatures, which knowledge is a likeness of the things known, and again, all creatures are likened to God inasmuch as they exist and are good. Someone can therefore be said to be written in the book of life in two ways: in one way because God has knowledge of his eternal life, namely that he will have it, and in this way the writing in the book of life cannot be erased, just as neither can God's foreknowledge fail; but in another way inasmuch as someone imitates God's eternal life, which one imitates even insofar as one possesses grace since one is configured to the divine life by the life of grace, from which configuration one falls insofar as one falls from grace. And thus someone written in this manner can be erased from the book of life by his own change alone, but without the book of life being changed, as when by his own change a man stops being being similar to another but without that other changing.

This can be understood in a third way if we consider that God possesses an unchangeable knowledge about changeable things: for God knows by one and the same manner things that fluctuate in the past, the present, and the future. Thus, it is not unfitting if some variation be implied in a proposition pertaining to divine knowledge, which applies to the variation of the thing known and not of the one who knows; as, for example, if one should say that God foreknew something that he does not foreknow now, or that God knows that this man will be born whom he afterwards does not know will be born. These things are said in this manner because the thing known by God that was in the future is afterward not in the future. But, when someone is said to be inscribed in the book of life, nothing else is said than that God knows him to be ordained to possessing eternal life, as is clear from what was established above, which is similar to how some are said to be enlisted in the military or else into some citizenship. However, someone is ordained to eternal life, which is for him to possess eternal life in the future, in two ways: in one way from an eternal and unchangeable cause, namely from divine predestination itself; and in another way from a temporal and changeable cause, namely from present righteousness. One is said, therefore, to be written in the book of life either from the fact that God knows that he will possess eternal life from the order of predestination, and this is to be inscribed simply in the book of life, and such an inscription is not erased; or from the fact that God knows someone to possess eternal from the order of present righteousness, which order can fail. With regard to this one can possess eternal life in the future who afterwards does not possess it, as when something is in the future in one way which afterwards will no longer be in the future. Thus, just as it is said without prejudice to the divine immutability that God knew something to be in the future which he now knows not to be in the future, so also without prejudice to the same is it said that he knew someone will possess eternal life whom he now does not know will possess it, and this is written in the book of life according to present righteousness, yet to be erased from thence. (The solutions to the arguments are missing.)