Thank you for subscribing to Annotated Thomist...check back each day for a new section of St. Thomas' corpus, annotated and summarized. (FREE TRIAL FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS!!!)
AT is also available to donors of $10 or more on Patreon or SubscribeStar along with all of the other benefits (daily bonus videos, bonus articles, PDFs, etc.
If you need more personalized help reading the Summa, I am available for 1-on-1 sessions, here.
cf., Sent.I.D40.Q1.A2.Rep5, Sent.I.D40.Q3.A1.Rep3, Sent.III.D31.Q1.A2; QDeVer.Q7; Philip.C4.L1.n150-151; Heb.C12.L4.n708
[Since this question is not as significant, I will be treating this in a single article]
Here, St. Thomas proves that "book of life" is really identical with "predestination."
Yet, we can say that "book of life" signifies a more specific aspect of Predestination, for, as he teaches in the reply to the fourth objection, they differ secundum rationem (according to "ratio" or "formal aspect").
Or, as he summarizes in his commentary on Philippians, "hoc est verum secundum rem, sed differt ratione."
As is clear, the "book of life" is a metaphor. This metaphor of such a "book" is an inscription that aids in one's firm remembrance of some thing. The manner of remembrance in this case is by way of similitude. Thus, the "book of life" is going to include those things God knows certainly, in Himself, by way of similitude. This is why there is no corresponding "book of evil" since " God does not know evils through likenesses of evils existing in himself; they are rather known in the manner of privations." (Sent.III.D31.Q1.A2.qa2.C) Nor does this "book of life" include knowledge of Himself, since "God does not know himself through a likeness of himself, but rather by the fact that he is present to himself according to his own essence." (ibid.)