← Back to Distinction 13

Dist. 13, Dubia

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 13

Textus Latinus
p. 330

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod in mysterio factum est, quod dies computatur a vespera in vesperam. Contra hoc enim videtur, quod ad ieiunii observantiam oportet ieiunare diem praecedentem cum nocte sequenti. — Item, videtur, quod non congrue significetur mysterium redemptionis, computando diem a vespera in vesperam, immo potius in prima computatione dierum, quia Christus a tenebris nos produxit ad lucem1.

Respondeo: Duplex modus computandi diem iuxta Scripturam. Dicendum, quod duplicem modum computandi diem accipimus in Scriptura. Primus, in quo dies praecedens copulatur nocti sequenti, et hoc quidem fuit in prima dierum enumeratione, in quo, ut dicit Magister2, praefigurabatur lapsus hominis futurus a luce gratiae in tenebras culpae. Alius modus computandi dies attenditur in solemnitatum custoditione, in quo nox praecedens connumeratur diei sequenti: et hoc vult dicere a vespera in vesperam, ut praecedat nox, et sequatur dies, quia eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino3. — Et quod obiicitur de observantia ieiuniorum, dicendum, quod tempus ieiunii competit tempori miseriae; et ideo computatio diei in observatione ieiunii debet fieri secundum conformitatem ad distinctionem temporis primi, in quo erat praefiguratio lapsus humani. — Et quod obiicitur, quod non debet terminari a vespera in vesperam; dicendum, quod prima vespera ponitur ibi, in quantum est principium noctis, et secunda, in quantum est finis diei; et ita pro nocte et die.

Quatuor modi diei computandi. Licet autem hae duae distinctiones in Scriptura maxime exprimantur, quatuor tamen modis secundum diversorum computationes dies consueverunt distingui. Graeci enim computant diem a mane in mane, quia tunc primo apparet sol; Hebraei vero a vespera in vesperam, quia tunc incipiunt solemnizare; astronomi vero a meridie in meridiem, quia tunc est sol in maiori virtute; sancta Ecclesia a media nocte usque ad mediam noctem, quia tunc natus est Christus. Unde versus:

Mane diem Graeca gens incipit; astra sequentes In medio lucis; Iudaei vespere; sancta Inchoat Ecclesia medio sub tempore noctis4.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de illa luce: Aut de ea corpus solis formatum, aut in ea parte caeli esse, in qua sol est. Nam primum videtur esse falsum, quia non est ordo de perfecto ad imperfectum; sed lux illa perfectissima erat, sicut dicit Damascenus5, quod opera primae diei perfectiora sunt. — Item, textus6 videtur esse contrarius; dicitur enim ibi: Vidit Deus lucem, quod esset bona; et Augustinus explanat: «Vidit, id est placuit voluntati Dei, ut pro modo sui generis maneret quod placuit, ut fieret»: ergo adhuc manet in se ipsa lux illa. — Item, si sol factus est de illa luce, unde facta sunt alia luminaria? Si tu dicas, quod de illa luce; tunc videtur, quod una pars illius lucis corporalis7 cessit in corpora luminosa, quae sunt supra solem, et in corpora luminosa, quae sunt infra solem: ergo, si nullum corpus habet mo-

p. 331

veri oppositis motibus, nullum etiam est corpus caeleste, quod per naturam habeat moveri motu recto, sed orbiculari, videtur, quod prima luminarium productio fuerit per violentiam et praeter naturam8. — Item, quod non possit esse in ea parte, in qua est sol, videtur primo, quia duo corpora non possunt esse simul; secundo vero, quia sol sufficienter illuminat: ergo videtur, quod lux illa sit ibi frustra.

Respondeo: Quatuor solutiones. Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur, quid de illa luce factum sit, quatuor modis ad hoc consuevit responderi, quorum duos Magister tangit in littera9.

Prima. Primus est, quod luminaribus caeli factis, lux illa rediit in praeiacentem materiam, quia non erat facta nisi ad faciendam quandam distinctionem dierum semiplenam, qua perfecta inde rediit, unde sumta est. — Improbatur. Sed haec positio est contra rationem et contra litteram10, quod Deus destrueret opera sex dierum principalia, vel quod sineret perire.

Secunda, improbabilis. Secundus modus dicendi est, quod illa lux simpliciter manet11 in forma sua non mutata, nec discernitur quantum ad sensum, propter coniunctionem sui ad solem, nec tamen est frustra, quia ipsius solis auget effectum.

Tertia, non sufficiens. Sed quia difficile est assignare, quem effectum habeat cum sole; ideo est tertius modus dicendi, quod ex ipsa factus sit sol, et in eo salvatur tanquam in re eiusdem generis.

Quarta. Sed quoniam non videtur Scriptura12 exprimere, quod Deus post primum diem produxerit novam lucem, sed solummodo luminaria distinxit; ideo est quarta opinio, quod ex illa luce facta sunt corpora luminosa, inter quae principatum tenet sol; nec fuit ibi aliqua violentia, quia unaquaeque creatura eum locum accipiebat, quem sibi Dominus per naturam deputabat13. — Et sic patent obiecta, quia nec fuit illius lucis corruptio, nec etiam violentia, sed quaedam maior et perfectior distinctio. — Quod autem dicit Damascenus, opus primae diei fuisse perfectissimum; hoc dicit per comparationem ad alia corpora, quae a luce habent recipere influentiam, non per comparationem ad luminaria, quae ex ipsa luce sunt formata.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Dixit Deus: Fiat etc. non temporaliter nec sono vocis, sed in Verbo sibi coaeterno. Videtur enim hoc esse falsum; statim enim cum dixit Deus, res factae sunt, sicut dicitur in Psalmo14: Dixit, et facta sunt: ergo cum productio rerum sit temporalis, dictio non fuit aeterna. — Item, in dictione aeterna non dicit Deus nisi semel, sicut dicitur in Psalmo15: Semel locutus est Deus; sed cum produxit opera sex dierum, in productione cuiuslibet operis dixit: ergo illud dicere non est aeternum, sive generare Filium. Si tu dicas, quod illud dicere non fuit nisi unum solum, iteratur tamen propter multos effectus; tunc videtur, quod si ad dicere sequitur facere, et simul dixit, ergo simul omnia fecit; sed non simul fecit, sicut dicit Scriptura, et supra16 probatum est: ergo non simul dixit.

Quaestiones. Propter hoc quaeritur, utrum dicere accipiatur hic temporaliter, vel aeternaliter; et si aeternaliter, quomodo dictum possit esse temporale? et si temporaliter, quomodo dicere temporale potuit omnem creaturam praecedere? — Item, quaestio est, utrum accipiatur notionaliter vel essentialiter. Si enim accipiatur notionaliter, quomodo poneret effectum? aut quomodo effectus creationis, quem Deus dicendo produxit, competat toti Trinitati? Si vero essentialiter, quomodo poterit dici, illud referri ad naturam Verbi, per quod facta sunt omnia17? cum Verbum dicatur personaliter, sicut in primo libro ostensum est.

Respondeo: Triplex connotatio in termino dicere. Dicendum, quod dicere uno modo connotat effectum in actu, alio modo connotat effectum in habitu, tertio modo nec in habitu nec in actu. Dicit enim uno modo quasi actum ad exterius, et sic dicere est aliquem effectum efficere, in quo dicens exprimit se; et hoc modo dicitur Deus dicere sive creaturam producendo, in qua se declarat, sive aliquid animae inspirando, in quo voluntatem suam demonstrat; et sic pluries accipitur in Scriptura18 et connotat effectum actualiter. — Alio modo dicere dicit actum quasi interius, nihilominus tamen relatum; et hoc modo dicit compa-

p. 332

rationem ad Verbum conceptum, per quod dicens se et omnia loquitur. Per quem modum accipitur in Psalmo19: Semel locutus est Deus, Glossa: id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit; et sic dicere connotat effectum in habitu, quia dicere importat dispositionem, et ad dispositionem sequitur opus. — Tertio modo dicere dicit actum intrinsecum et absolutum; et hoc modo dicit Anselmus20, quod «dicere non est aliud quam videndo intueri», et sic quaelibet persona dicit se et alia; et huic dicere non respondet verbum conceptum, quia secundum hunc modum idem potest esse dicens et dictum et quo dicitur. Quaelibet enim persona se ipsam videt et intuetur se ipsam; et sic non connotat effectum, nec actu nec habitu.

Resp. 1. Si ergo quaeritur, quomodo accipiatur dicere in rerum productione; dicendum, quod potest accipi primo modo, scilicet prout connotat effectum in actu; et tunc dicere idem est quod producere, nec est ibi nugatio, cum dicitur21: Dixit Deus: Fiat, quia non tantum importat ipsam actionem in se, sed etiam prout est ad ipsius manifestationem; et praemittit Scriptura verbum dicendi verbo faciendi, ut in hoc ostendat, quod Deus maxima facilitate producit singula, non quia aliqua vox creata rerum productionem antecedat. Et sic dicere in diversis diebus potest plurificari non ratione principalis significati, sed connotati; sicut patet, quia plurium productorum plures sunt productiones passivae, et ratione connotati activa22 dici potest plurificari.

Resp. 2. Potest etiam nihilominus accipi secundo modo, et sic est sensus: Dixit, id est Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit et per quem omnia produxit; et sic exponit beatus Augustinus23, cum dicit, quod vox Dei ad naturam Verbi, per quod omnia facta sunt, refertur. Et ad illud dicere sequitur creaturam fieri, sicut ad dispositionem sequitur opus, non immediate, ut tunc sit, quando quis primo disponit, sed pro loco et tempore, scilicet sicut dicentis dispositio ordinavit; et sic est in proposito. Nam Deus produxit non tunc, cum Filium genuit, in quo disposuit; sed sicut generando Filium ab aeterno disposuit, se producturum in tempore, sic produxit in tempore. In ipsa enim dispositione Dei aeterna non solum erat, quod res producerentur, sed etiam quando producerentur. Et hoc modo dicere in diversis diebus dictum eandem importat dispositionem et aeternam, in qua simul disponuntur aeternaliter, quae successive producuntur ex tempore.

De tertio modo notandi. Sic igitur primo et secundo modo potest hic accipi dicere, sed secundo modo magis proprie. Tertio autem modo non videtur hic accipi, quia non connotatur ibi aliquis effectus, nec actu nec habitu. Nec videtur etiam illo tertio modo proprie accipi actus dicendi. Nam, sicut dictum fuit in primo libro distinctione vigesima septima24, dicere proprie non est sine verbo, sicut nec proprie ibi dicitur esse locutio, ubi nullus est sermo. Notandum. Nihilominus tamen tertius modus accipiendi dicere non videtur esse omnino improbandus, pro eo quod satis rationabiliter videtur posse concedi, quod quaelibet persona loquatur se alteri. Si enim iste actus, qui est dicere, convenit cuilibet personae creatae, potest convenire cuilibet personae increatae vel vere, vel modo transumtivo25. Iste tamen modus accipiendi non competit proposito. Et per hoc patent quae obiecta sunt.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In principio, id est in Filio, creavit Deus caelum et terram. Si enim creatio mutatio est26, et in Filio nihil mutatur: ergo in Filio nihil creatur. — Item quaeritur, quare ista accipitur: Pater est in Filio et creat in Filio, ita quod haec praepositio in refertur et ad verbum essendi et ad verbum operandi; haec autem non recipitur: Pater est per Filium, quamvis ista recipiatur: Pater operatur per Filium27. — Quaeritur etiam, quam habitudinem importat haec praepositio per, cum dicitur: Deus Pater creat per Filium.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haec praepositio in potest importare causalitatem et potest importare identitatem; causalitatem, ut cum dicitur:

p. 333

Omnia sunt in Deo; identitatem, ut cum dicitur: Pater est in Filio. Haec autem praepositio per, quantum est de se, importat causalitatem. — Dico igitur, quod convenienter dicitur Deus operari in Filio, et ratione identitatis, quia Pater operans est in Filio; et ratione causalitatis, quia Filius est causa effectus producti a Patre. Et ideo haec praepositio in cum suo casuali accipitur in divinis cum verbis absolutis et cum transitivis ratione duplicis habitudinis, scilicet causalitatis et identitatis. Haec autem praepositio per, quoniam28 importat habitudinem causae et principii, non recipitur nisi in illis verbis, quae important aliquem effectum, respectu cuius Filius habet causalitatem. Et ideo recipitur, quod Pater operatur per Filium, sed tamen non recipitur, quod Pater sit per Filium. Sed haec planius dicta sunt in primo libro, distinctione trigesima secunda29, et ideo ad praesens sufficiant haec30.

---

English Translation
p. 330

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning what he says, that in the mystery it was brought about that the day is reckoned from evening to evening. For against this it seems that for the observance of a fast it is fitting to fast the preceding day with the following night. — Likewise, it seems that the mystery of redemption is not fittingly signified by reckoning the day from evening to evening; rather [it should be] in the first reckoning of days, because Christ brought us forth from darkness to light1.

I respond: A twofold mode of reckoning the day according to Scripture. It must be said that we receive a twofold mode of reckoning the day in Scripture. The first, in which the preceding day is coupled to the following night, and this indeed was [used] in the first enumeration of days, in which, as the Master2 says, was prefigured the fall of man to come, from the light of grace into the darkness of fault. Another mode of reckoning days is observed in the keeping of solemnities, in which the preceding night is numbered with the following day: and this is what is meant by from evening to evening, so that the night precede and the day follow, because we were once darkness, but now light in the Lord3. — As for the objection about the observance of fasts, it must be said that the time of fasting befits the time of misery; and therefore the reckoning of the day in the observance of a fast ought to be made in conformity to the distinction of the first time, in which was the prefiguration of the human fall. — And as for the objection that [the day] ought not to be terminated from evening to evening, it must be said that the first vespera is placed there insofar as it is the beginning of the night, and the second insofar as it is the end of the day; and so it stands for night and for day.

Four modes of reckoning the day. But although these two distinctions are most especially expressed in Scripture, nevertheless the day has been wont to be distinguished in four modes according to the reckonings of various peoples. For the Greeks reckon the day from morning to morning, because then the sun first appears; the Hebrews from evening to evening, because then they begin to solemnize; the astronomers from noon to noon, because then the sun is at greater power; the holy Church from midnight to midnight, because then Christ was born. Hence the verses:

The Greek race begins the day at morning; those who follow the stars [begin it] in the middle of light; the Jews at evening; the holy Church begins [it] in the middle of the time of night4.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says about that lux: Either the body of the sun was formed from it, or it is in that part of the heaven in which the sun is. For the first seems to be false, because there is no order from the perfect to the imperfect; but that lux was most perfect, as Damascene5 says, that the works of the first day are most perfect. — Likewise, the text6 seems to be contrary; for it is said there: God saw the light, that it was good; and Augustine explains: «He saw, i.e. it pleased the will of God that what pleased Him to be made should remain according to the mode of its kind»: therefore that lux still remains in itself. — Likewise, if the sun was made from that lux, whence were the other luminaries made? If you say, from that lux; then it seems that one part of that corporeal lux7 passed over into the luminous bodies which are above the sun, and into the luminous bodies which are below the sun: therefore, since no body has to be moved by opposite motions, and since likewise there is no celestial body which by nature has to be moved by rectilinear motion, but [only] by circular,

p. 331

it seems that the first production of luminaries was by violence and against nature8. — Likewise, that [the lux] cannot be in that part in which the sun is seems [true] first because two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time; and secondly because the sun illumines sufficiently: therefore it seems that that lux is there in vain.

I respond: Four solutions. It must be said that when it is asked what was made of that lux, the response is wont to be made in four modes, two of which the Master touches in the letter9.

First. The first is that, when the luminaries of the heaven were made, that lux returned into the underlying matter, because it had been made only for the making of a certain half-full distinction of days, which being perfected, it then returned to whence it had been taken. — Improbatur. But this position is against reason and against the letter10, in that God should destroy the principal works of the six days, or should let them perish.

Second, improbable. The second mode of speaking is that that lux simply remains11 in its form unchanged, nor is it discernible to sense because of its conjunction with the sun, yet is not in vain, because it augments the effect of the sun itself.

Third, not sufficient. But because it is difficult to assign what effect it has with the sun, there is the third mode of speaking, that the sun was made from it, and is preserved in it as in a thing of the same genus.

Fourth. But since Scripture12 does not seem to express that God after the first day produced a new lux but only distinguished the luminaries; there is the fourth opinion, that from that lux were made the luminous bodies, among which the sun holds the principal place; nor was there any violence there, because each creature received that place which the Lord by nature allotted to it13. — And thus the objections are clear, because there was neither corruption of that lux nor violence, but a certain greater and more perfect distinction. — As for what Damascene says, that the work of the first day was most perfect, this is said by comparison to other bodies which have to receive influence from the lux, not by comparison to the luminaries, which were formed from that lux itself.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: God said: Let it be made, etc. not temporally, nor by the sound of a voice, but in the Word coeternal with Himself. For this seems to be false; for as soon as God said, things were made, as is said in the Psalm14: He spoke, and they were made: therefore since the production of things is temporal, the saying was not eternal. — Likewise, in an eternal saying God says only once, as is said in the Psalm15: Once has God spoken; but when He produced the works of the six days, in the production of each work He said: therefore that saying is not eternal, or [is not] the begetting of the Son. If you say that the saying was only one, yet it is repeated on account of the many effects; then it seems that if to make follows on to say, and He said simultaneously, then He made all things simultaneously; but He did not make simultaneously, as Scripture says and as has been proved above16: therefore He did not say simultaneously.

Questions. On this account it is asked whether to say is here taken temporally or eternally; and if eternally, how can the thing said be temporal? and if temporally, how could the temporal saying precede every creature? — Likewise, there is the question whether it is taken notionally or essentially. For if it is taken notionally, how would it posit an effect? or how would the effect of creation, which God produced by saying, befit the whole Trinity? But if [taken] essentially, how can it be said that this is referred to the nature of the Word, through which all things were made17? since the Word is said personally, as was shown in the first book.

I respond: Threefold connotation in the term dicere. It must be said that to say in one mode connotes an effect in act, in another mode connotes an effect in habit, in a third mode neither in habit nor in act. For it speaks in one mode as it were of an act toward the exterior, and thus to say is to effect some effect in which the one saying expresses himself; and in this mode God is said to say either by producing a creature in which He declares Himself, or by inspiring something to the soul in which He shows His will; and thus it is taken many times in Scripture18 and connotes effect actually. — In another mode to say signifies an act as it were interior, but nonetheless related; and in this mode it signifies the com-

p. 332

parison to the Word conceived, through which the one saying speaks himself and all things. In which mode it is taken in the Psalm19: Once has God spoken, Gloss: that is, He begot the Son, in whom He disposed all things; and thus to say connotes an effect in habit, because to say implies a disposition, and to disposition follows the work. — In a third mode to say signifies an act intrinsic and absolute; and in this mode Anselm20 says that «to say is nothing other than to behold by seeing»; and thus each person says Himself and other [persons]; and to this saying no conceived word corresponds, because according to this mode the same can be the one saying and the thing said and that by which it is said. For each person sees Himself and beholds Himself; and thus it does not connote an effect, neither in act nor in habit.

Resp. 1. If, then, it is asked how to say is taken in the production of things, it must be said that it can be taken in the first mode, namely insofar as it connotes an effect in act; and then to say is the same as to produce, nor is there any otiose [repetition] there when it is said21: God said: Let it be made, because [the verb] does not import only the action itself, but also as it is unto its manifestation; and Scripture puts the verb of saying before the verb of making, that in this it may show that God produces individual things with maximum ease — not because some created voice precedes the production of things. And thus to say on different days can be pluralized not by reason of the principal signified but of the connoted; just as is clear, because of many things produced there are many passive productions, and by reason of the connoted the active [productions] to say22 can be pluralized.

Resp. 2. It can nonetheless be taken in the second mode, and thus the sense is: He said, i.e. He begot the Son, in whom He disposed all things and through whom He produced all things; and so blessed Augustine23 expounds when he says that the voice of God is referred to the nature of the Word through which all things were made. And to that saying follows the becoming of the creature, just as to disposition follows the work — not immediately, so that it should be then when one first disposes, but according to place and time, namely as the disposition of the one saying ordered; and so it is in the matter at hand. For God produced not then when He begot the Son, in whom He disposed; but as by begetting the Son from eternity He disposed Himself to produce in time, so He produced in time. For in the eternal disposition of God Himself there was not only that things should be produced, but also when they should be produced. And in this mode to say, [predicated] on different days, implies the same eternal disposition, in which the things which are successively produced from time are simultaneously disposed eternally.

On the third mode, of note. Thus, therefore, to say can be taken here in the first and second mode, but more properly in the second. But in the third mode it does not seem to be taken here, because no effect is connoted there, neither in act nor in habit. Nor does the act of saying seem to be properly taken in that third mode either. For, as was said in the first book, distinction twenty-seventh24, to say is properly not without a word, just as speech is not properly said to be there where there is no discourse. Notandum. Nevertheless, the third mode of taking to say does not seem altogether to be rejected, because it seems sufficiently reasonably able to be conceded that each person speaks to another. For if this act, which is to say, befits each created person, it can befit each uncreated person either truly, or in a transumed mode25. Yet this mode of taking does not pertain to the matter at hand. And by this what was objected is clear.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: In the beginning, i.e. in the Son, God created heaven and earth. For if creation is a change26, and in the Son nothing is changed: therefore in the Son nothing is created. — Likewise it is asked, why is this received: The Father is in the Son and creates in the Son, so that this preposition in is referred both to the verb to be and to the verb to operate; but this is not received: The Father is through the Son, although this is received: The Father operates through the Son27. — It is also asked what relation this preposition per imports, when it is said: God the Father creates through the Son.

I respond: It must be said that this preposition in can import causality and can import identity; causality, as when it is said:

p. 333

All things are in God; identity, as when it is said: The Father is in the Son. But this preposition per, as of itself, imports causality. — I say therefore that God is fittingly said to operate in the Son, both by reason of identity, because the Father operating is in the Son; and by reason of causality, because the Son is the cause of the effect produced by the Father. And therefore this preposition in with its [oblique] case is taken in divine matters with absolute verbs and with transitive [verbs] by reason of a twofold relation, namely of causality and of identity. But this preposition per, since28 it imports the relation of cause and principle, is not received except in those verbs which import some effect with respect to which the Son has causality. And therefore it is received that the Father operates through the Son, but yet it is not received that the Father is through the Son. But these things are spoken of more plainly in the first book, distinction thirty-second29, and therefore for the present let these things suffice30.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Iob. 12, 22: Qui revelat profunda de tenebris et producit in lucem umbram mortis. Cfr. I. Petr. 2, 9.
    Job 12, 22: Who reveals deep things from darkness and brings forth into light the shadow of death. Cf. 1 Peter 2, 9.
  2. Hic in lit. c. 5. — Dein ex codd. W Y aa bb cc supplevimus hominis.
    [Lombard,] here in the letter, c. 5. — Then from codd. W, Y, aa, bb, cc we supplied hominis.
  3. Epist. ad Eph. 5, 8: Eratis enim aliquando etc.
    Letter to the Ephesians 5, 8: For you were once etc.
  4. Cfr. Isidor., de Natura rerum, c. 1. n. 2, et V. Etymol. c. 30. n. 4. — Idem dubium solvit B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. II. tract. 11. q. 51. m. 3. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 6.
    Cf. Isidore, On the Nature of Things, c. 1, n. 2, and Etymologies V, c. 30, n. 4. — The same doubt is solved by B. Albert, here a. 3; Summa p. II, tract. 11, q. 51, m. 3, a. 2; Aegidius R., here dub. lit. 6.
  5. Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7: In principio igitur, hoc est die primo, creavit Deus lucem, quae visibilium omnium creaturarum decus et ornamentum est. Etenim si lucem sustuleris, omnia in tenebris iacebunt ignota etc. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 58. (c. 7.), IX. Metaph. text. 15. (VIII. c. 8.) et II. de Partib. animal. c. 1, ubi docet, in generatione prius esse imperfectum perfecto.
    [Damascene,] On the Orthodox Faith II, c. 7: In the beginning, therefore, that is on the first day, God created the light, which is the grace and ornament of all visible creatures. For if you take away light, all things will lie in darkness, unknown, etc. — On the major [premise] cf. Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 58 (c. 7); Metaphysics IX, text 15 (VIII, c. 8); and On the Parts of Animals II, c. 1, where he teaches that in generation the imperfect is prior to the perfect.
  6. Gen. 1, 4. — Verba Augustini, quae sunt ex I. Gen. ad lit. c. 8. n. 14, vide supra pag. 311, nota 5.
    Genesis 1, 4. — The words of Augustine, which are from Gen. ad lit. I, c. 8, n. 14, see above p. 311, note 5.
  7. Nonnulli codd. omittunt corporalis, pro quo plures alii cum edd. 1, 3 substituunt corporis.
    Some codices omit corporalis, for which several others with editions 1, 3 substitute corporis.
  8. Cfr. Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 5. seqq. (c. 2.). — Vat. prosequitur Secundum etiam videtur falsum: quia non potest esse in ea parte, in qua est sol primo etc. — De eo, quod duo corpora non possunt esse simul, vide supra pag. 324, nota 9.
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World I, text 5 and following (c. 2). — The Vatican [edition] continues Secundum etiam videtur falsum: quia non potest esse in ea parte, in qua est sol primo etc. — On the [point] that two bodies cannot be [in the same place] at the same time, see above p. 324, note 9.
  9. Hic c. 5. — Augustinus hos modos proponit I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 22 seqq.
    [Lombard,] here c. 5. — Augustine proposes these modes in I Gen. ad lit. c. 10, n. 22 and following.
  10. Intellige s. Scripturam, Gen. 1, 4. seqq.
    Understand sacred Scripture, Gen. 1, 4 and following.
  11. Multi codd. addunt et, cod. bb etiam.
    Many codices add et; cod. bb [reads] etiam.
  12. Gen. 1, 14. seqq.
    Genesis 1, 14 and following.
  13. August., XXVI. contra Faustum, c. 3: Deus autem, creator et conditor omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit; id enim erit cuique rei naturale, quod ille fecerit, a quo est omnis modus, numerus, ordo naturae.
    Augustine, XXVI Against Faustus, c. 3: But God, the creator and founder of all natures, does nothing against nature; for that will be natural to each thing which He made, from whom is every measure, number, [and] order of nature.
  14. Hoc dubium solvitur ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 46. m. 5. a. 3; B. Albert., S. p. II. tract. 11. q. 51. m. 2. q. 2. incid.; S. Thom., hic a. 4. ad 4.
    This doubt is solved by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 46, m. 5, a. 3; B. Albert, Summa p. II, tract. 11, q. 51, m. 2, q. 2, incid.; S. Thomas, here a. 4, ad 4.
  15. Psalm. 148, 3.
    Psalm 148, 3.
  16. Psalm. 61, 12. Paulo superius post item non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt in.
    Psalm 61, 12. A little above, after item, not a few codices with edition 1 omit in.
  17. Dist. 12. a. 1. q. 2, ubi etiam idem ex Scriptura, Gen. 1, 2. seqq., deducitur.
    [II Sent.] d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, where also the same is deduced from Scripture, Gen. 1, 2 and following.
  18. Ioan. 1, 3: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. — Libr. I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 1, probatur, Verbum dici personaliter, ubi etiam ea tanguntur, quae mox in responsione dicuntur.
    John 1, 3: All things were made through Him. — I Sent. d. 27, p. II, q. 1, it is proved that the Word is said personally, where also those things are touched on which are soon said in the response.
  19. Psalm. 148, 5: Dixit, et facta sunt. — Paulo inferius Vat. quasi exterius pro quasi interius.
    Psalm 148, 5: He spoke, and they were made. — A little later the Vatican [edition reads] quasi exterius for quasi interius.
  20. Psalm. 61, 12. — Glossa mox allegata sumta est ex Augustini Enarratione in hunc Psalmum, n. 18. Cfr. etiam tom. I. pag. 482, nota 4, et pag. 484, nota 5. — Paulo superius post per quod in cod. Y additur Pater. Aliquanto inferius post ad dispositionem plures codd. subnectunt aliquando.
    Psalm 61, 12. — The Gloss just adduced is taken from Augustine's Enarratio on this Psalm, n. 18. Cf. also volume I, p. 482, note 4, and p. 484, note 5. — A little above, after per quod, in cod. Y is added Pater. Somewhat lower, after ad dispositionem, many codices append aliquando.
  21. Monol. c. 63, ubi textus originalis quam quasi cogitando intueri; codd. T V quam in dicendo intueri. Vide tom. I. pag. 482, nota 1. — Mox Vat. et aliam pro et alia, et dein omittit et quo dicitur. Paulo post aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 se ipsa videt pro se ipsam videt.
    [Anselm,] Monologion c. 63, where the original text [reads] quam quasi cogitando intueri; codd. T, V [read] quam in dicendo intueri. See volume I, p. 482, note 1. — Then the Vatican [edition reads] et aliam for et alia, and then omits et quo dicitur. A little after, some codices with edition 1 [read] se ipsa videt for se ipsam videt.
  22. Gen. 1, 3: Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux.
    Genesis 1, 3: And God said: Let there be light. And there was light.
  23. Scil. productio active sumta.
    Namely, production taken actively.
  24. Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 2. n. 6: An id quod intelligitur in sono vocis, cum dicitur: Fiat lux, non autem ipse corporeus sonos hic bene accipitur esse vox Dei? Et utrum hoc ipsum ad naturam pertineat Verbi eius, de quo dicitur: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Cum enim de illo dicitur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, satis ostenditur et lux per ipsum facta, cum dixit Deus: Fiat lux. Quod si ita est, aeternum est quod dixit Deus: Fiat lux; quia Verbum Dei Deus apud Deum, Filius unicus Dei, Patri coaeternus est; quamvis, Deo hoc in aeterno Verbo dicente, creatura temporalis facta sit. Cum enim verba sint temporis, cum dicimus quando et aliquando, aeternum tamen est in Verbo Dei, quando fieri aliquid debeat; et tunc fit, quando fieri debuisse in illo Verbo est etc.
    [Augustine,] I On Genesis according to the Letter, c. 2, n. 6: Whether that which is understood in the sound of the voice, when it is said: Let there be light, is here well taken to be the voice of God — not the bodily sound itself? And whether this itself pertains to the nature of His Word, of which it is said: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. For when it is said of Him: All things were made through Him, it is sufficiently shown that the light too was made through Him when God said: Let there be light. And if it is so, eternal is what God said: Let there be light; because the Word of God [is] God with God, the only Son of God, coeternal with the Father — although, while God says this in the eternal Word, a temporal creature is made. For although [the] words when and sometime, which we speak, are of time, yet in the Word of God it is eternal when something ought to come to be; and then it comes to be, when it had to come to be is in that Word, etc.
  25. Parte II. q. 1.
    [I Sent. d. 27,] part II, q. 1.
  26. Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 transsumto. — De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 62. m. 1. art. 3. seq.; B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 27. a. 5. seqq., in qua dist. etiam S. Thomas et Richard. a Med. hoc dubium tangunt; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1.
    Very many codices with edition 1 [read] transsumto. — On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 62, m. 1, art. 3 and following; B. Albert, I Sent. d. 27, a. 5 and following, in which distinction S. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla also touch on this doubt; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1.
  27. De quo vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.
    On which see above d. 1, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.
  28. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 32. a. 2. q. 2.
    Cf. I Sent. d. 32, a. 2, q. 2.
  29. Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. quando.
    The Vatican [edition] with one or another codex [reads] quando.
  30. Art. 2. q. 2. — Cfr. etiam supra d. 1. p. I. dub. 4. et I Sent. d. 10. dub. 3; d. 12. dub. 1, et 19. p. I. q. 5; S. Thom., hic a. 5; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1.
    [Lombard,] a. 2, q. 2. — Cf. also above d. 1, p. I, dub. 4 and I Sent. d. 10, dub. 3; d. 12, dub. 1, and 19, p. I, q. 5; S. Thomas, here a. 5; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2; Aegidius R., here q. 3, a. 1.
← Dist. 13, Art. 3, Q. 2