Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 13
## ARTICULUS I.
De ipsa lucis productione.
Quaestio I. Utrum lux primo die facta fuerit corporalis, an spiritualis.
Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod illa lux, quae dicitur primo die fuisse creata, non erat lux corporalis.
Fundamenta ad oppositum.
1. Lux enim corporalis est ad decorem et complementum caeli siderei sive firmamenti: si ergo quod ornat et decorat aliquod corpus non potest nec debet ante ipsum fieri, cum productio firmamenti spectet ad opus secundae diei; videtur, quod primo die lux corporalis nec potuit nec debuit fieri. Et fuit facta lux corporalis, vel lux spiritualis: ergo etc.
2. Item, in enumeratione operum sex dierum intendit Scriptura explicare productionem illorum quae constituunt universum, sicut manifestum est: ergo vel creatura spiritualis, utpote Angelus, non est de constitutione universi, vel Scriptura rerum productionem insufficienter explicat et tradit, vel oportet per aliquid ibi positum exprimi. Sed primi duo modi sunt inconvenientes: restat ergo, quod Scriptura explicat productionem creaturae angelicae; sed creatura angelica fuit in principio creata, sicut ostensum est supra1, quia prior omnium creata est sapientia: ergo eius productio exprimitur per opus primae diei, vel saltem formatio. Sed opus primae diei non fuit nisi productio lucis: ergo per lucem intelligit Scriptura naturam spiritualem.
3. Item, lux de spiritualibus et corporalibus dicitur proprie, magis tamen proprie de spiritualibus quam de corporalibus, sicut dicit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram2. Propriissime enim Deus lux est, et quae ad ipsum magis accedunt plus habent de natura lucis. Ergo in productione lucis illa creatura debet principaliter intelligi, cui principalius convenit; sed haec est creatura spiritualis: ergo etc.
4. Item, lux ista corporalis est ad fomentum plantarum et animalium, et etiam ad solatium hominum: si ergo primo et secundo die non erant plantae, quae foverentur, nec animalia nec homines, quibus ista lux aliquod ferret obsequium, videtur, quod Deus frustra fecisset eam in primo dierum. Quodsi Deus nihil frustra facit, restat, quod per illam lucem non intelligitur lux corporalis; sed intelligitur corporalis, vel spiritualis: ergo etc.
5. Item, si lux illa, quae primo die creata est, erat lux corporalis, ergo diem et noctem corporaliter faciebat: ergo videtur ex hoc, quod productio solis fuerit superflua3.
6. Item, si lux illa fuit corporalis4, cum esset bona, debuit a divina bonitate in suo esse conservari. Sic enim exponit Augustinus5: Vidit Deus, quod esset bonum, « id est, quod placuit, ut fieret, placuit etiam, ut in suo genere permaneret ». Ergo videtur, quodsi lux illa facta esset in principio, quod adhuc maneret: ergo si magnae claritatis esset illa, impossibile esset, quod sensum nostrum lateret. Si igitur lumen eius non percipimus sensu, et usum eius non capimus intellectu, ipsa non est: ergo nunquam fuit.
Sed contra hoc obiicitur et ostenditur, quod lux illa corporalis fuerit:
Fundamenta.
1. Per textum6 primo, quia ante formationem lucis praemittitur, quod tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi: ergo si per abyssum intelligitur materia corporalis, lux, quae facta est ad expulsionem illarum tenebrarum, erat corporalis.
2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per multos expositores, et primo per Bedam7: « Occidente luce paulatim et post spatium diurnae lucis inferiores partes subeunte, factum est vespere, sicut nunc usitato cursu solis fieri solet ». Ergo si hoc non potest intelligi nisi de luce corporali, patet etc.
3. Item, quod de luce corporali intelligatur, videtur. Scriptura numerat senarium dierum, et constat, quod dies isti omnes sunt eiusdem naturae, alioquin non essent insimul connumerabiles: sed post formationem solis a quarto die in antea fuerunt dies corporales: ergo in tribus diebus antecedentibus fuerunt dies corporales. Sed tales dies non possunt esse nisi a luce corporali: ergo etc.
4. Item, quod non possit intelligi de luce spirituali, videtur, quia divisio lucis spiritualis a tenebris est separatio bonorum a malis: ergo si simul est divisio lucis a tenebris et formatio lucis, et hoc fuit totum in primae diei initio, videtur, quod lapsus malorum angelorum fuerit absque aliquo spatio temporis interiecto; si ergo hoc est impossibile, sicut supra8 probatum est, patet etc.
Conclusio.
Probabilius est, lucem primo die creatam esse corporalem, licet Augustinus aliter senserit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in hac quaestione differenter senserunt Augustinus et alii doctores, sicut et in quaestione de informis materiae productione.
Expositio Augustini. Augustinus9 enim voluit, quod per caelum intelligeretur natura spiritualis informis; et quia lux respondebat caelo, per consequens per ipsam lucem spiritualem angelicam naturam formatam dixit intelligi ad litteram; per diem vero dixit intelligi ipsam considerationem angelicam; per septenarium dierum, septemplicem considerationem; et per vesperam diei, considerationem creaturae in se ipsam, quia creatura est sicut tenebra; per mane vero, reductionem ipsius cognitionis creaturae in genere proprio ad cognitionem, quae est in summa luce, et ad laudem ipsius Dei. Et quia post perfectam conversionem a laude Dei non cessat, ideo septimum diem, in quo est requies contemplationis, dixit non habere vesperam.
Rationes eiusdem. Ad hanc autem positionem manifestandam, satis Scripturam conformat super Genesim ad litteram10, ubi ostendit, quod multa dicuntur de illa sex dierum enumeratione, quae magis competunt diebus spiritualibus et luci spirituali quam luci materiali. Propter quod in productione omnium rerum corporalium dicitur fiat, fecit, et factum est; in productione vero lucis non dicitur nisi fiat, et factum est. — Et huius ratio est, quia omnes aliae res a creatura spirituali habent triplicem modum essendi, videlicet in sua causa producente, et in mente rationali, et in corporali materia sustinente. Creatura autem rationalis non habet nisi duplicem modum essendi, videlicet in Verbo, et in se. — Multa etiam ad hoc adducit, quae ostendunt, ipsam positionem esse consonam tam fidei quam Scripturae quam etiam rationi; et per hoc veritatem fidei et Scripturae a recto rationis tramite nullatenus etiam deviare ostendit. Unde idem super Genesim ad litteram libro primo11: « Habemus quod secundum fidem respondendum est omnibus, qui calumniari libris nostrae salutis affectant, ut quidquid ipsi de rerum natura veracibus documentis demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus, litteris nostris non esse contrarium; quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris litteris, id est catholicae fidei, contrarium protulerint, aut aliqua facultate ostendamus, aut nulla dubitatione credamus ipsum esse falsissimum ».
Opinio aliorum. Quantumcumque autem haec positio probabilis esset et rationabilis, catholici tamen tractatores, qui Augustinum secuti sunt12, viam aliam magis appro-
baverunt, scilicet quod dierum distinctio esset materialis sive sensibilis, et primae diei operatio esset formatio lucis corporalis, quae tres dies fecit ante productionem solis. — Et quia istam positionem magis insinuat textus Scripturae, et magis sequuntur expositores, etiam illi qui Augustinum libenter secuti sunt; ideo positio ista securius et utilius est sustinenda.
Conclusio. Secundum hanc igitur positionem dicendum est, quod Scriptura per lucem illam, quam dicit primo esse factam, corporalem lucem insinuat; et concedendae sunt rationes, quae illud probant.
Solutio oppositorum.
1. Ratio opposita. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur primo, quod lux est ad decorem et ornatum caeli; dicendum, quod non qualitercumque, sed prout est in distinctione completa secundum numerum et proprietatem corporum caelestium, stellarum scilicet et planetarum; et hoc non fuit ante diem quartum.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod conditio angelicae naturae debet in sex diebus explicari: dicendum, quod illud non oportet explicite dici, sicut etiam nec de lapsu naturae angelicae in Scriptura legitur historialiter, sed magis allegorice. Et ratio huius est, quia Scriptura principaliter intendit agere de operibus reparationis, sicut dicit Hugo13; et propterea, ut illa melius explicentur, agit de lapsu et conditione, et ratione huius determinat de his quae faciunt ad hominis conditionem et conservationem. Et quia in Scriptura non agitur de reparatione angeli lapsi, ideo nec explicite agitur de lapsu nec de conditione instituti.
Alia solutio. Aliter etiam posset dici, quod quia Scriptura tradebatur genti rudi, quae versabatur14 circa sensibilia; ideo primo in operibus sex dierum conditionem sensibilium insinuat, nihilominus tamen praebens viam per haec sensibilia ad intelligenda spiritualia; hoc enim fecit ad illa insinuanda. Unde non indocte per formationem lucis intelligi potest formatio naturae spiritualis, principalius tamen insinuatur formatio corporalis. Et sic patet, qualiter processus Scripturae, quamvis videatur esse vulgaris, tamen est sufficiens et rationalis.
3. Notandum. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux principalius convenit naturae spirituali; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad proprietatem vocabuli, non est tamen verum quantum ad usum communem. Nominata enim luce, nisi determinetur per antecedentia et subsequentia, lucem intelligimus corporalem, per quam tamen perducimur ad intelligendum etiam spiritualem, quia « cognitio nostra incipit a sensu ». Et sic docet Dionysius in libro de Divinis Nominibus15.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lux corporalis est ad fomentum viventium et solatium animalium; dicendum, quod lux non solummodo habet istam utilitatem, immo etiam alias multas, quae fortasse nos latent, quarum etiam usum potuit tunc habere; sicut multae creaturae habent virtutes et utilitates, quas nos ignoramus, et tamen eas habere non dubitamus. — Aliter. Posset tamen dici, quod usus eius fuit diem et noctem facere, non ad animalium illustrationem, sed ad divinorum operum distinctionem; unde, etsi tunc non faceret ad illustrationem humani sensus, facit tamen nunc ex ipsa distinctione ad illustrationem intellectus, dum ex illa intellectus capit distinctionem divinorum operum.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod superfluum fuit facere solem; dicendum, quod falsum est; quia, etsi lux illa perfecte illuminaret et diem faceret, secundum quod sufficiebat pro illo tempore ad dierum distinctionem; placuit tamen Deo, rebus ad maiorem perfectionem deductis, utpote ad ornatum, lucem facere pleniorem, quae etiam diem faceret clariorem. Et propter hoc ex ipsa etiam luce sive nube lucida solem fecit in maiori lumine, sicut dicetur postea16.
6. Et per hoc patet illud quod obiiciebatur ultimo, scilicet quod lux illa debuit manere. Dicendum enim, quod verum est, quod manet secundum formam et naturam, sed non oportet, quod maneat secundum illum statum, secundum quem primo formata erat; manet autem in sole, qui ex ipsa formatus est, sicut innuunt expositores, et melius patebit super litteram17.
I. Praeter creationem, ante omnem diem factam, Scholastici in verbis Genesis communiter insinuatam esse dicebant etiam distinctionem rerum et ornatum, hoc ordine, ut distinctio in primis tribus diebus, ornatus in tribus sequentibus diebus evenerit, et primo die distinctio cum lucis formatione, quarto die ornatus cum formatione luminarium sive corporum luminosorum inceperit. — De interpretatione capituli I. et 2. Genesis, quae placuit Augustino, iam supra d. 12. a. I. q. 2. mentio facta est. Licet autem Seraphicus interpretationem Augustini, quod per lucem intelligatur angelica natura, qualitenus per gratiam fuit formata, non recipiat ut principalem sensum s. Scripturae, sed potius aliam, quae magis litterae Genesis est consona, tamen, ut patet ex solut. ad 2, eam ut minus principalem admittit. — Quoad solutionem ad 3, S. Thom. (cfr. pag. 313, nota 3.) magis approbat sententiam, quam ipse dicit esse Dionysii, qui docet, terminum lucis in spiritualibus tantum metaphorice dici. Dionys. autem Carth., (hic q. 2. in fine) se demonstrasse asserit, Dionysium cum Augustino docere, istum terminum aliosque similes magis proprie Deo et rebus spiritualibus competere quam temporalibus. Opinamur autem, per distinctionem hic a S. Bonaventura et a S. Thoma (S. I. q. 67. a. 1.) factam, hanc differentiam componi posse.
II. Sequentem quaest., quae agit de modo, quo lux illa ante formationem solis distinguebat diem et noctem, et de diversa Graecorum Patrum et Latinorum huius rei explicatione, plerumque ab aliis magistris vel omittitur, vel paucis verbis absolvitur, excepto Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 16. m. 3. a. 2. — Eam tangunt S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4. ad 3; S. I. q. 67. a. 4. ad 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. ad 2.
III. De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 49. m. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4; S. I. q. 67. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 1. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., II. Sent. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2.
---
## ARTICLE I.
On the very production of light.
Question I. Whether the light made on the first day was corporeal or spiritual.
Concerning the first [matter] one proceeds thus, and it is shown that that light, which is said to have been created on the first day, was not corporeal light.
Foundations to the opposite.
1. For corporeal light is for the beauty and completion of the starry heaven or firmament: if therefore that which adorns and decorates some body neither can nor ought to be made before that body itself — since the production of the firmament belongs to the work of the second day — it appears that on the first day corporeal light neither could nor ought to have been made. And [the light] made was either corporeal light or spiritual light: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, in the enumeration of the works of the six days Scripture intends to set forth the production of those things which constitute the universe, as is manifest: therefore either spiritual creation (namely the Angel) is not among the constituents of the universe; or Scripture sets forth and hands down the production of things insufficiently; or it must be expressed by something there posited. But the first two modes are unfitting: there remains therefore that Scripture sets forth the production of angelic creation. But angelic creation was created in the beginning, as has been shown above1, because wisdom was created prior to all things: therefore its production is expressed by the work of the first day, or at least its formation. But the work of the first day was nothing other than the production of light: therefore by light Scripture understands spiritual nature.
3. Likewise, light is said properly of both spiritual and corporeal [things], yet more properly of spiritual than of corporeal, as Augustine says on Genesis according to the letter2. For most properly God is light, and the things that approach more nearly to Him have more of the nature of light. Therefore in the production of light that creature must principally be understood to which [light] more principally belongs; but this is spiritual creation: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, that corporeal light is for the fostering of plants and animals, and also for the comfort of humans: if therefore on the first and second day there were not plants which might be fostered, nor animals nor humans to whom that light might offer any service, it appears that God would have made it in vain on the first of the days. But if God makes nothing in vain, there remains that by that light corporeal light is not understood; but it is understood [as either] corporeal or spiritual: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, if that light which was created on the first day was corporeal light, then it was corporeally making day and night: therefore from this it appears that the production of the sun would have been superfluous3.
6. Likewise, if that light was corporeal4, since it was good, it ought to have been preserved in its being by the divine goodness. For thus Augustine5 expounds: God saw that it was good, «that is, [that] which He was pleased should be made, He was also pleased that it should remain in its kind». Therefore it appears that if that light had been made in the beginning, it would still remain. Therefore if it was of great brightness, it would be impossible that it should escape our sense. If therefore we do not perceive its light by sense, and do not grasp its use by the intellect, it does not exist: therefore it never was.
But against this it is objected and shown, that that light was corporeal:
Foundations.
1. By the text6 first: because before the formation of light it is laid down that the darknesses were upon the face of the deep: therefore if by the deep corporeal matter is understood, the light which was made for the expulsion of those darknesses was corporeal.
2. Likewise, this same is shown by many expositors, and first by Bede7: «With the light going down gradually and after the space of daily light passing under the lower parts, evening was made, just as it is now wont to be done by the customary course of the sun». Therefore if this cannot be understood except of corporeal light, it is clear etc.
3. Likewise, that it is understood of corporeal light appears [thus]: Scripture numbers six days, and it is established that all those days are of the same nature, otherwise they would not be jointly numerable: but after the formation of the sun, from the fourth day onward, they were corporeal days: therefore in the three preceding days also there were corporeal days. But such days cannot exist except from corporeal light: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, that it cannot be understood of spiritual light appears, because the division of spiritual light from darknesses is the separation of the good from the evil: therefore if the division of light from darknesses and the formation of light are simultaneous, and this was wholly at the beginning of the first day, it appears that the fall of the evil angels would have been without any interval of time interposed; but if this is impossible, as has been proved above8, it is clear etc.
Conclusion.
It is more probable that the light created on the first day was corporeal, although Augustine thought otherwise.
I respond: It must be said that in this question Augustine and the other doctors thought differently, just as also in the question concerning the production of unformed matter.
Augustine's exposition. For Augustine9 wished that by heaven be understood unformed spiritual nature; and because light corresponded to heaven, consequently by light itself he said the angelic nature formed was to be understood according to the letter; but by day he said is understood the angelic consideration itself; by the seven days, sevenfold consideration; and by the evening of the day, consideration of the creature in itself, because the creature is as it were a darkness; but by morning, the reduction of that knowledge of the creature in its proper genus to the knowledge which is in the supreme light, and to the praise of God Himself. And because, after perfect conversion, it does not cease from the praise of God, therefore he said that the seventh day, in which is the rest of contemplation, does not have evening.
Reasons of the same [Augustine]. For the manifesting of this position, he sufficiently conforms Scripture [to it] in On Genesis according to the Letter10, where he shows that many things are said in that enumeration of the six days which more befit spiritual days and spiritual light than material light. On account of which, in the production of all corporeal things it is said let it be, He made, and it was done; but in the production of light it is not said except let it be, and it was done. — And the reason of this is, that all other things, [as distinguished] from spiritual creation, have a threefold mode of being, namely in the cause producing them, and in the rational mind, and in the corporeal matter sustaining them. But rational creation has only a twofold mode of being, namely in the Word, and in itself. — He also adduces many [things] to this [point] which show that the position itself is consonant both with faith and with Scripture and also with reason; and through this he shows that the truth of faith and Scripture in no way deviates from the straight path of reason. Hence the same [Augustine] On Genesis according to the Letter, book one11: «We have what is to be answered, according to faith, to all who attempt to slander the books of our salvation — that whatever they themselves shall have been able to demonstrate concerning the nature of things by true documents, we should show is not contrary to our letters; but whatever they shall bring forward from any of their volumes contrary to these our letters, that is, to the Catholic faith, either we should show [it false] by some faculty, or with no doubt should believe it to be most false».
Opinion of others. But however probable and reasonable this position was, nevertheless the Catholic treatise-writers who have followed Augustine12 have approved another way more —
namely that the distinction of days was material or sensible, and the operation of the first day was the formation of corporeal light, which made three days before the production of the sun. — And because this position the text of Scripture more intimates, and the expositors more follow, even those who have willingly followed Augustine, on this account this position is more safely and usefully to be maintained.
Conclusion. According to this position, then, it must be said that Scripture by that light which it says was first made intimates corporeal light; and the reasons which prove it are to be conceded.
Solution of the opposing arguments.
1. The opposing reason. To that which is objected first, that light is for the beauty and adornment of the heaven: it must be said that [it is so] not in any way whatsoever, but as it is in distinction completed according to the number and propriety of celestial bodies, namely of the stars and planets; and this was not before the fourth day.
2. To that which is objected, that the condition of angelic nature ought to be set forth in the six days: it must be said that this need not be expressly said, just as neither concerning the fall of angelic nature is it read historically in Scripture, but rather allegorically. And the reason of this is that Scripture principally intends to treat of the works of reparation, as Hugh says13; and on this account, that those [works] may be better set forth, it treats of fall and condition, and by reason of this it determines about those things which contribute to the condition and conservation of man. And because in Scripture it is not treated about the reparation of the fallen angel, on this account it is not treated about [his] fall expressly either, nor about the condition of the established [angel].
Another solution. It could also be said otherwise: because Scripture was handed down to a rough people, which was occupied14 about sensible things, on this account first in the works of the six days it intimates the condition of sensibles, yet nonetheless providing a way through these sensibles to the understanding of the spirituals; for it did this for the intimating of those [spirituals]. Hence not un-learnedly by the formation of light can be understood the formation of spiritual nature, yet more principally is intimated the corporeal formation. And thus it is clear how the procedure of Scripture, although it appears to be common, is nevertheless sufficient and rational.
3. Note. To that which is objected, that light belongs more principally to spiritual nature: it must be said that this is true as regards the propriety of the term, but is not true as regards the common use. For when light is named, unless it is determined by what precedes and follows, by light we understand the corporeal; through which, however, we are led to the understanding also of the spiritual, because «our knowledge begins from sense». And thus Dionysius teaches in his book On the Divine Names15.
4. To that which is objected, that corporeal light is for the fostering of the living and the comfort of animals: it must be said that light has not only this usefulness, but indeed also many others, which perhaps lie hidden from us, of which it could also have had use then — just as many creatures have powers and uses which we are ignorant of, and yet we do not doubt that they have them. — Otherwise. It could be said, however, that its use was to make day and night, not for the illumination of animals, but for the distinction of the divine works; hence, even if then it did not act for the illumination of the human sense, yet now by that very distinction it acts for the illumination of the intellect, when from that the intellect grasps the distinction of the divine works.
5. To that which is objected, that it was superfluous to make the sun: it must be said that this is false; because, although that light perfectly illumined and made day, in accordance with what sufficed for that time for the distinction of days; yet it pleased God, with things brought to greater perfection — namely to adornment — to make light fuller, which would make the day brighter also. And on this account from that very light, or luminous cloud, He made the sun with greater brightness, as will be said afterwards16.
6. And by this is clear that which was last objected, namely that that light ought to have remained. For it must be said that it is true that it remains as regards form and nature, but it is not necessary that it remain in that state in which it was first formed; but it remains in the sun, which has been formed from it, as the expositors intimate, and as will more clearly be evident upon the text [of Lombard]17.
I. Besides the creation made before any day, the Scholastics commonly said that the distinction of things and [their] adornment were also intimated in the words of Genesis, in this order: that distinction occurred in the first three days, and adornment in the three following days — and on the first day, distinction with the formation of light; on the fourth day, adornment with the formation of luminaries or luminous bodies began. — Concerning the interpretation of chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis which pleased Augustine, mention has already been made above at d. 12, a. I, q. 2. But although the Seraphic [Doctor] does not receive Augustine's interpretation — that by light is understood the angelic nature, inasmuch as it was formed through grace — as the principal sense of holy Scripture, but rather another which is more consonant with the letter of Genesis, nevertheless, as is clear from the solution to [argument] 2, he admits it as a less-principal [sense]. — As regards the solution to [argument] 3, St. Thomas (cf. p. 313, note 3) more approves the opinion which he himself says is Dionysius's — who teaches that the term light is said of spirituals only metaphorically. But Dionysius the Carthusian, (here q. 2 at the end), asserts that he has demonstrated that Dionysius along with Augustine teach that that term and others similar belong more properly to God and to spiritual things than to temporal. We are of the opinion, however, that by the distinction here made by St. Bonaventure and by St. Thomas (S. I, q. 67, a. 1) this difference can be reconciled.
II. The following question, which treats of the mode by which that light, before the formation of the sun, distinguished day and night, and of the diverse explanation of this matter by the Greek Fathers and the Latins, is for the most part omitted by other masters, or dispatched in a few words, except [in] Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 16, membrum 3, a. 2. — It is touched on by St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 4 ad 3; S. I, q. 67, a. 4 ad 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I, ad 2.
III. On the first question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 49, membrum 1. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 4; S. I, q. 67, a. 4. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. I, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, II Sentences, d. 12, q. 1, a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, II Sentences, d. 12, q. 1, a. 2.
---
- Dist. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. Cfr. ibid. lit. Magistri, c. 1. et 4. — Sequens textus est Eccli. 1, 4.D. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3. Cf. ibid., the Master's text, c. 1 and 4. — The following text is Ecclesiasticus 1, 4.
- Libr. IV. c. 28. n. 45. — Sequens textus est I. Ioan. 1, 5.[On Genesis according to the Letter,] book IV, c. 28, n. 45. — The following text is 1 John 1, 5.
- Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.). — Hoc arg. insinuatur ab Augustino, I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 16. n. 31.Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World I, text 32 (c. 4). — This argument is intimated by Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 16, n. 31.
- De hoc et seq. arg. cfr. hic litt. Magistri c. 5.On this and the following argument cf. here the Master's text, c. 5.
- Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 8. n. 12: Placuit enim quod factum est in ea benignitate, qua placuit, ut fieret. Duo quippe sunt, propter quae amat Deus creaturam suam, ut sit et ut maneat. Cfr. ibid. II. c. 6. n. 14.[Augustine,] On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 8, n. 12: For that which was done pleased [Him] in that goodness in which it pleased [Him] that it should be made. For there are two [things] on account of which God loves His creature: that it should be, and that it should remain. Cf. ibid., book II, c. 6, n. 14.
- Gen. 1, 2.Gen. 1, 2.
- Libr. I. Hexaem.: « Factum est vespere, occidente paulatim luce post expletum spatium diurnae longitudinis atque inferiores mundi partes subeunte, quod nunc usitato solis circuitu noctibus agi solet ». Alios expositores vide in seq. quaest. — Aliqui codd. post Bedam adiungunt vel qui ait vel dicentem.[Bede,] Hexaemeron book I: «Evening was made, with the light gradually going down after the space of daily length had been completed and passing under the lower parts of the world — which is now wont to be done at night by the customary circuit of the sun». See the other expositors in the following question. — Some codices after Bedam add vel qui ait or dicentem.
- Dist. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. — Paulo superius post bonorum supple cum Vat. Angelorum.D. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 4. — A little above, after bonorum supply with the Vatican [edition] Angelorum.
- Cfr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 2. seq., c. 4. n. 9. seq.; — ibid. c. 9. n. 17, c. 17. n. 32; II. c. 8. n. 16; — IV. c. 22. n. 39; — IV. c. 26. n. 43, c. 34. n. 53; — IV. c. 18. n. 31. seqq.Cf. [Augustine,] On Genesis according to the Letter I, c. 1, n. 2 and following, c. 4, n. 9 and following; ibid. c. 9, n. 17, c. 17, n. 32; II, c. 8, n. 16; — IV, c. 22, n. 39; — IV, c. 26, n. 43, c. 34, n. 53; — IV, c. 18, n. 31 and following.
- Libr. II. c. 8. n. 16. seqq., ubi illa ratio affertur, cuius mox mentio fit, scil. quod in productione lucis non additur: Et fecit Deus. Cfr. I. c. 10. n. 18. seqq. et IV. c. 21. n. 38, ubi alia ratio affertur, petita ex illa difficultate, quae proponitur in seq. quaest., quomodo nempe illa lux facere posset noctem et diem. — Vat. sacra Scriptura confirmatur pro satis Scripturam conformat.[Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter,] book II, c. 8, n. 16 and following, where that reason is adduced of which mention is presently made — namely that in the production of light there is not added: And God made [it]. Cf. I, c. 10, n. 18 and following, and IV, c. 21, n. 38, where another reason is adduced, drawn from that difficulty which is proposed in the following question, namely how that light could make night and day. — The Vatican [edition reads] sacra Scriptura confirmatur for satis Scripturam conformat.
- Cap. 21. n. 41; in quibus verbis textus originalis substituit hominibus pro omnibus, et multi codd. cum ed. 1 in fine omittunt ostendamus.[On Genesis according to the Letter I,] c. 21, n. 41; in which words the original text substitutes hominibus for omnibus, and many codices with edition 1 at the end omit ostendamus.
- Cfr. d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 2. — Codd. Q cc et ed. 1 secuti non sunt, scil. in sua opinione.Cf. d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, fundamentum 2. — Codices Q and cc and edition 1 [read] secuti non sunt, namely in his opinion.
- De Sacram. Prolog. c. 2. — Vat. post reparationis addit humanae. Deinde post agit de lapsu prosequitur: hominis et conditione naturae humanae institutae et ratione huius… Et quia in Scriptura non agitur de lapsu naturae angelicae, nec etiam in ea agitur de conditione Angeli instituti. Quae lectio quoad primam partem est contra omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3; quoad secundam partem vero contra plures codd. ut FIPQ bb cum ed. 1, licet unus alterque eorum omittat vel lapsi vel ideo vel expresse; alii codd. hanc propositionem vel incomplete exhibent, vel ipsam cum sequente connectunt, quod etiam faciunt edd. 2, 3: Et quia in Scriptura non agitur de lapsu nec de conditione instituti, aliter etiam posset etc. Subinde autem plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 4 et propter illa [cod. bb hoc] ut melius explicentur pro et propterea, ut illa melius explicentur.[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments, Prologue c. 2. — The Vatican [edition] after reparationis adds humanae. Then after agit de lapsu it continues: of man and of the condition of human nature instituted, and by reason of this… And because in Scripture it is not treated about the fall of angelic nature, nor is it treated in it about the condition of the angel instituted. This reading as to the first part is against all codices and editions 1, 2, 3; as to the second part it is against several codices such as FIPQ bb with edition 1, although one or another of them omits lapsi or ideo or expresse; other codices either present this proposition incompletely or connect it with what follows — which editions 2, 3 also do: And because in Scripture it is not treated about fall nor about the condition of [the angel] instituted, it could also otherwise etc. Then most codices with editions 1, 2, 3, 4 [read] et propter illa [cod. bb hoc] ut melius explicentur for et propterea, ut illa melius explicentur.
- Multi codd. cum ed. 1 versatur.Many codices with edition 1 [read] versatur.
- Cap. 4. § 4, ubi docet, Deum dici lumen, quia similitudo eius maxime resultat in radio solari quantum ad causalitatem. S. Thomas (hic q. 1. a. 2.), opinionem Augustini (quod lux in spiritualibus verius invenitur, quam in corporalibus) deserens, sequitur illam sententiam, quam attribuit Ambrosio et Dionysio, secundum quam lux non nisi metaphorice in spiritualibus invenitur. — De eo, quod cognitio nostra incipit a sensu, cfr. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 30. et 39. (c. 7. et 8.) et de Sensu et sens. c. 6. Vide infra d. 39. a. 1. q. 2, ubi doctrina Philosophi exponitur.[On the Divine Names,] c. 4, § 4, where he teaches that God is called light because His likeness most fully shines back in the solar ray as regards causality. St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 2), abandoning Augustine's opinion (that light is more truly found in spirituals than in corporeals), follows that opinion which he attributes to Ambrose and Dionysius, according to which light is not found in spirituals except metaphorically. — On the [thesis] that our knowledge begins from sense, cf. Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 30 and 39 (c. 7 and 8) and On Sense and the Sensed, c. 6. See below d. 39, a. 1, q. 2, where the Philosopher's teaching is set forth.
- Hic dub. 2.Here, dubium 2.
- Dub. 2. — Aliquanto superius aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 quia manet pro quod manet.Dubium 2. — A little above, some codices with edition 1 [read] quia manet for quod manet.