In addition to Hugh of St. Cher and Bernardino of Siena, here is another one in a different quoted context, from the Jesuit Pedro de Calatayud, Exercicios Espirituales, 1748.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=K_sz_9_ ... &q&f=false



You have to second guess the OCR in Google books searches sometimes to catch these (e.g. "f" for "s", "v" and "u" interchanged; and don't forget that in Latin books the OCR won't read the overstrokes that stand for a final "m" or other kinds of abbreviations and ligatures, so the final "m" in "judicium" (which can also be "iudicium") can be omitted (I found a few of those, but in the longer version of "venite ad judicium") - iudiciu.

Another use by Jacques Marchant, 1537-1609, The Garden of Preachers. Here is a 19th century version of the text with a French translation:



I don't believe a direct source is needed - it seems to me to be an economical way of saying it. Rather than the most typical "long form", we get various abridgements -

Surgite mortui et venite ad judicium
Surgite mortui venite ad judicium
Surgite mortui ad judicium
Surgite ad judicium

But if a written source is preferred, I'll take Hugo over Bernardino, only because Hugo's writings were around already much longer, and I have no idea when Bernardino wrote his commentary on the Apocalypse or how much it was copied and known.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: I don't believe a direct source is needed - it seems to me to be an economical way of saying it. Rather than the most typical "long form", we get various abridgements -

Surgite mortui et venite ad judicium
Surgite mortui venite ad judicium
Surgite mortui ad judicium
Surgite ad judicium

Thank you very much Ross! I understand your point and I agree with you. The sentence only points to a class of related sources that can be considered as relevant. But actually it adds very little to the image painted on the card, which is specific enough.