Dist. 14, Part 2, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 14
DUB. I.
Quoad tres. In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Congregentur aquae in locum unum, et appareat arida. Primo enim videtur inconvenienter dicere: Congregentur aquae in locum, quia motus ad locum est entis completi1; sed aquae nondum erant productae: ergo male dixit, in locum unum congregari. — Item, nihil potest apparere nisi color; et nullum elementum simplex est coloratum: ergo terra non potest apparere. Male ergo dicit: appareat arida. — Item, cum sint alia duo elementa, videlicet ignis et aer, videtur, quod insufficiens sit Scriptura, quae nihil de eorum distinctione explicat. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quare elementum aquae nominet pluraliter, et elementum terrae singulariter. Si tu dicas, quod hoc est propter aquarum dispersionem; tunc videtur, quod male dicat: Congregentur aquae in locum unum. — Item, quaeritur, quare elementum terrae primo vocat aridam et postea vocat terram, cum ante sit dictum2: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. — Item, cum elementum aquae sit insipidum per naturam, et maria sint salsa, non videtur, quod congregationes aquarum debeant appellari maria.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Scriptura distinctionem elementorum in his verbis valde eleganter explicat, si quis attendat. Quia enim motus ad situm non est nisi rei completae et habentis formam, nihil aliud fuit aquas congregari in unum, quam ipsi elemento aquae, dando speciem unam et inclinationem ad locum speciei debitum, simul secundum exigentiam formae et inclinationis ad situm dare locum congruum. — Et quia locus aquae est immediate esse circa terram, dum aqua congregatur, ab elementis superioribus, scilicet aere et igne, separatur. Ergo in congregatione aquarum tangitur per consequens distinctio aliorum duorum elementorum. Rursus, quia aquae sunt natae circumdare terram, et si ex omni parte circuirent terram, ad habitandum nobis et animalibus apta non esset; ideo sic distinxit, ut in superiori superficie arida appareret. Rursus, si terra esset omnino ab aqua separata, ad germinandum non esset apta; et ideo sic Deus arefecit terrae superficiem, ut tamen ipsius radicem aqua impleret et per decursum fluviorum etiam irrigaret3. — Et propter haec tria tria dicit Scriptura: Notandum. primo propter elementorum distinctionem: Congregentur aquae in locum unum; secundo vero propter superficiei terrae denudationem: et appareat arida; tertio propter irrigationem, quam ab aquis suscipit, ut germinare possit, dicit: vocavit aridam terram, congregationesque aquarum appellavit maria. — Et ex his patent obiecta.
Quod enim primo obiicitur de verbo congregandi, non valet, quia non fecit Deus aquas congregari sicut prius existentes, sed sicut dans eis formam et naturam, per quam sint aptae natae in unum locum concurrere. — Similiter patet illud quod obiicitur de apparitione terrae, quia terra, quae apparet, non est elementum purum4, sed elementum commixtum. — Similiter patet illud quod obiicit de distinctione elementorum aliorum; quia in his duobus, quae sunt maxime sensibilia et tractabilia, clauditur illorum distinctio, quae sunt sensibus nostris occulta. — Ad 3 quaest. Similiter patet, quare aquam vocat pluraliter, et terram singulariter, propter scilicet earum dispersionem. Humidum enim proprio termino est male terminabile; quia tamen siccum de sui natura terminabile est, ideo terram vocat singulariter. — Et prius vocat eam aridam et postea terram, quia primum nomen dicit proprietatem elementi, videlicet siccitatem, secundum vero nomen dicit eius usum sive utilitatem, quam habet per commixtionem aquae, ut possit coli et fructificare; ideo dicitur terra quasi trita5. — Similiter patet illud quod obiicit de aquis. Appellantur enim maria, non quia amaritudo sit prima qualitas aquae, sed quia consequitur aquam in sua congregatione propter grossitiem partium, quae remanent subtilioribus elevatis sursum, vel penetrantibus in terrae profundum, ex qua subtiliatione dulcescunt6.
DUB. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Eodem die protulit terra herbam virentem. Videtur enim hoc factum esse inordinate; si enim firmamentum prius factum est quam terra, prius debuit ornari quam terra. — Item, cum mineralia corpora sint ex terra ita bene, sicut ligna, videtur, quod insufficienter determinet Scriptura ea quae virtute divina producuntur ex terra. — Item, quaeritur, utrum tunc terra germinaverit tribulos et spinas. Si enim tunc non produxit, videtur, quod post peccatum terra fuit fecundior, et novam recepisse potentiam ad producenda talia. Si vero tunc produxit, videtur Scriptura insufficiens, quia non exprimit; videtur etiam sibi contraria, dum in tertio Genesis7 dicit, illa in poenam hominis germinari: maledicta terra etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum est, quod Scriptura ordinate exprimit, et Deus ordinatissime fecit, dum eodem die, quo terra producta est, ex ea herbas et ligna prodire fecit: tum propter erroris remotionem, ut dicit Basilius8: « ne crederetur, quod sol esset causa principalis terrae nascentium », sicut dicit Philosophus, « quod terra est mater plantarum, et sol pater »; tum etiam, quia plantae et herbae sunt quasi connaturales terrae, dum ei sunt radicitus affixae, trahendo ex ipsa fomentum et originem. Non sic autem est in ornatibus aliorum trium; et per hoc patet primum obiectum.
Quod vero obiicitur de corporibus mineralibus, dicendum, quod quia parum recedunt a natura terrae, et quia latent sub terra, non curavit Scriptura specialiter exprimere.
Ad illud quod quaeritur de spinis et tribulis, dicendum, quod tunc productae sunt, pro eo quia perfecta fecunditas data est terrae, et nulla herba est, quantumcumque vilis, quae non sit alicuius utilitatis et virtutis; et ideo cum aliis virentibus herbis et lignis fructiferis intelligendum est ista produci; et Scriptura ea9 sub illorum generalitate comprehendit.
Et quod obiicitur, quod generata sunt in poenam peccati; dicendum, quod spinam et tribulum generari, ubi seminatur frumentum, hoc est in poenam peccati et ex maledictione terrae, quae cum colitur, ut det fructum, unde homo sustentetur, potius producit, unde homo crucietur. Quod autem in multis locis generatur spina et tribulus, hoc non est poena, sed natura10.
DUB. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli, et quaeritur, quae sint ista luminaria. Si tu dicas, quod sol et luna, quia Scriptura11 explicat: Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna etc.; videtur esse instantia; primo, quia ista Obiectiones 3. non sunt in firmamento, sed sub firmamento: secundo vero, quia luna non est luminare magnum, cum iudicio sapientum multae stellae sint maiores; tertio vero, quia luna non videtur esse luminare, sed potius corpus opacum, dum sui interpositione solem facit eclipsari. Si tu dicas, quod luna dicitur
luminare, non quia ex se luceat, sed quia lumen a sole recipit; obiicitur contra hoc, quia, cum luna sit de natura quintae essentiae, sicut et sol, videtur, quod ita debeat lucere, sicut sol. — Quaestio 1. Item quaeritur, si lumen recipit, aut sicut corpus transparens, aut sicut terminatum, aut sicut speculum, quod partim habet naturam terminati et partim transparentis. Si recipit sicut transparens, tunc videtur, quod non obiiciat se visui per se, et quod etiam non possit occultare solem. Si sicut terminatum; tunc duplex oritur inconveniens: primum, quod cum corpus terminatum non est nisi mixtum12, non potest luna esse corpus terminatum: secundum vero, quia tunc non illuminabitur nisi in superficie: ergo videtur, quod parum de lumine suscipiat et parum refundat: ergo non debet dici luminare13. Si vero recipit sicut speculum; tum similiter duplex est inconveniens: primum, quod in luna debemus videre imaginem sive speciem solis, sicut videtur in speculo: aliud, quia tunc non deberet luna illuminare in omnem partem, sicut nec speculum imaginem offert secundum omnem partem.
Propter hoc igitur est quaestio, quare luna Quaestio 2. dicatur esse luminare, et quare magis lucet de nocte quam de die, et etiam quare magis lucet, dum a sole elongatur, quam cum ei appropinquat; contrarium enim debet esse, si ab ipso accipit lumen.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa luminaria caeli quidam singularem tenent opinionem, dicentes, Opinio 1. quod corpora caelestia sunt ex quatuor elementis, praedominante in eis natura ignis sive caelestis corporis, quod dicunt esse naturae igneae; praedominante, inquam, non solum secundum qualitatem, sed etiam secundum quantitatem; et secundum quod in eis magis praedominatur illa natura, secundum hoc habent loca magis et magis suprema. Et quoniam in luna, quae nobis proximior est, minime dominatur natura ignea inter cetera luminaria, et plus reperitur in ipsa de natura luminis susceptiva; hinc est, quod luna per se parum lucet et ex praesentia solis multum suscipit lumen, adeo ut mereatur dici luminare, et magnum luminare propter magnum effectum luminis, quem habet in terris. In suae autem positionis testimonium14 adducunt hoc, quod luna videtur esse corpus terminatum et coloratum; et ideo inter nos et solem posita radios solis nobis occultat, et soli opposita, dum ex ea parte,
qua nobis opponitur, lumen suscipit, inferiora illuminat.
Sed haec positio est contra communem viam Improbatur. philosophorum et contra communem viam Sanctorum. Ratio 1. Contra philosophos namque est, quia philosophi dicunt, quod mixta ex quatuor elementis sunt corruptibilia15; et ad hoc, quod sit conveniens mixtio, oportet, quod plus sit ibi de natura gravium secundum quantitatem; et ita luminaria caeli secundum hanc positionem et essent corruptibilia et essent gravia. Quodsi tu respondeas, quod illa sublimata sunt a natura corruptibilitatis et gravitatis, sicut corpora hominum gloriosa; hoc non solvit, quia non quaeritur hic, quid faciat Deus per gratiam et gloriam, sed qualia sint luminaria condita per naturam. — Contra communem viam Sanctorum est16 Ratio 2. quia, si corpora illa sunt mixta, nobili valde mixtione mixta sunt; et si hoc, ergo sunt nata perfici ab anima, et sic sunt animalia; et hoc est contra Damascenum17, qui dicit, caelos esse inanimatos et insensibiles. Hoc est etiam contra Hieronymum, adeo ut dicere, astra esse animata, dicat haereticum. Unde hoc enumerat inter haereses Origenis. Augustinus. Augustinum autem Retractationes retractat, quia dixerat in libro de Immortalitate animae; non tamen omnino tanquam falsum condemnat. Ait enim sic in libro Retractationum18: « Animal esse mundum, sicut Plato sensit, aliique plurimi, nec ratione certa indagare potui, nec divinarum Scripturarum auctoritate persuaderi posse cognovi. Unde tale aliquid a me dictum, quomodo accipi possit, quod animal sit mundus, temere dictum reprehendo, non quia hoc esse falsum confirmo, sed quia nec verum esse comprehendo ». Quod si dicas, illa esse complexionata, non tamen animata; quomodo verum esse poterit, cum nobis complexio sit ad suscipiendum animam proxima dispositio? Propter haec et his similia hic modus dicendi non videtur approbandus.
Secundo modo potest dici secundum philosophos19, Opinio 2. quod luminaria producta sunt ex aggregatione lucis suorum orbium. Sicut enim, si calor dispersus in unum colligeretur, fieret intensior et fortior; sic, dum natura lucis in orbibus reperta virtute sui opificis in unum colligitur, luminare constituitur, et secundum hoc luminare est maius vel minus, secundum quod maior est in eo lucis aggregatio. Et quoniam luna inter corpora caelestia magis est nobis propinqua et eius orbis: hinc est, quod tam ipsa quam eius orbis minus participat de perfectione lucis. Quia tamen multum est naturae lucis conformis, obiecta soli multum illuminatur; et quia habet densitatem20 in partibus, ideo radiis solis pervia non est, et propterea radios, quos suscipit, refundit ex ea parte, ex qua soli se obiicit; et cum sit nobis propinqua, multum nos illuminat. Et propterea sacra Scriptura vocat solem et lunam duo luminaria Non omnino sufficit. magna. — Et haec positio satis est probabilis, non tamen videtur omnino sufficiens. Si enim luna est ex aggregatione et densatione partium sui orbis luminosa21, licet non perveniat ad luminositatem solis; videtur, quod de se deberet lucere, non tantum ex luminis solaris susceptione, quod ad oculum patet esse falsum.
Et ideo est adhuc tertius modus dicendi secundum Sanctos, scilicet Damascenum et Basilium, dicendo, Opinio 3. quod luminare non tantum dicit lucem, sed Luminare dicit duo. lucis vehiculum et lucis vasculum, propter quod Ecclesiasticus, quadragesimo tertio22 de sole dicit: Vas admirabile, opus Excelsi. Unde sicut lucerna, quae dicit vehiculum lucis, habet in se duplicem naturam, scilicet lucis, quae vehitur, et corporis, quod vehit; sic voluerunt dicere de luminaribus caeli. Ait enim Basilius23 sic: « Hoc solare corpus effectum est vehiculum illi primogenito lumini; sicut enim aliud est ignis, aliud lucerna, sic illi luci vehicula luminaria parata sunt ». Item, Damascenus24: « Luminaribus illis primum clarum lumen Conditor imposuit, non ut impotens dare eis aliud lumen, sed ut non vacans illud remaneret. Luminare enim est non ipsum lumen, sed luminis receptaculum ». Secundum ergo Basilium et Damascenum luminaria constituta sunt ex illa prima luce, quae faciebat diem et noctem, et ex25 sui orbis natura, quadam aggregatione divina manu ad modum vasis et receptaculi lucis coadunata. — Hunc igitur modum sustinendo propter Sanctorum reverentiam — et securius Approbatur. est verbis eorum inniti in hac materia, in qua plus proceditur ex coniectura quam ex ratione certa — dicendum, quod luminaria, in quantum constituuntur ex orbibus suis, per aggregationem plus habent idoneitatem26 ad suscipiendum quam ad diffundendum; quod vero lucent, hoc habent ex luce primo creatae perfectione. Et ideo illud luminare, cui Deus multum dedit de illa luce, maxime lucet, sicut sol; illud cui minus dedit, minus; et illud cui minime, minime lucet ex se, sed si lucet, hoc est ex susce-
ptione solaris influentiae. — Et ideo voluerunt aliqui Opinio 4. dicere, non tantum lunam, sed omnes stellas a sole lumen recipere. Quidquid autem sit de aliis stellis, tamen de luna satis plane apparet, quod per se non lucet.
Et ratio huius est, quia ad sui completionem Luna non lucet per se. modicum suscepit de illa luce primo creata; quia vero est aggregatum ex natura, quae multum est apta ad suscipiendum lumen, cum sit corpus magnum et densum et nobis propinquum; hinc est, quod multum de lumine suscipit et multum refundit, quando ex ea parte illuminatur, qua se nobis opponit. Hoc autem est, quando est in perfecta distantia a sole, ita quod sol est in uno hemisphaerio, et luna in alio. — Et haec est ratio, quare Scriptura Quoad 2. appellat luminare magnum, et quare sol praepositus est diei, et luna praeposita est nocti.
Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Quod Ad obiecta. enim dicitur luna esse luminare magnum; hoc non dicitur, quia luceat ex se, vel quia sit maius quam stellae, sed quia magis nos illuminat. — Quare magis illuminat de nocte quam de die, ratio iam dicta est.
Ad illud vero quod quaeritur, qualiter recipiat Ad illud. lumen, utrum sicut transparens, vel terminatum, vel speculum; dicendum, quod luna nec habet naturam perfecte opaci, nec perfecte transparentis, nec perfecte habet naturam speculi; participat tamen aliquid de quolibet horum. Naturam enim transparentis quodam modo participat, dum ex natura quinti corporis constat. Naturam vero opaci, in eo quod partes illae ita densantur, ut nec radiis solaribus nec visualibus27 praebeant transitum. Naturam vero speculi habet in hoc, quod sic recipit, ut etiam reddat; non tamen omnino reddit sicut speculum, quia non est corpus tersum et politum, sicut patet aspicienti ipsum corpus lunare, cum est illuminatum; speculum autem reddit imaginem, quia est corpus politum, quod non est radiis pervium. — Haec autem magis Coniecturae. coniecturando dicta sunt quam asserendo, ut aliquis intellectus sanus haberi possit de eo quod dicit Scriptura: Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna etc.
Quod vero obiicitur, quod non sunt posita in firmamento; dicendum, quod firmamentum aliquando Ad 3 obiectiones. in Scriptura accipitur large, aliquando stricte: aliquando enim vocatur octava sphaera, in qua positae sunt stellae; et sic proprie accipitur, ut ibi28: Et posuit stellas in firmamento caeli. Aliquando accipitur large pro natura quinti corporis, quae divisit aquas ab aquis; et sic accipitur ibi: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et post hoc: Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli.
DUB. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod sequitur et Magister quaerit in littera, de hoc scilicet: Et sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos. Si enim sunt in signa, non videntur peccare, qui per illa prognosticant futura; si in tempora, tunc videtur, quod ante solem et lunam tempora non fuerunt; vel si in tempora, quaeritur, quare pluraliter dicit tempora, cum non sit nisi unum tempus? — Item, quaeritur de sufficientia istorum quatuor, quae enumerat: in signa et tempora et dies et annos, quia similiter sunt in menses et septimanas. Si tu dicas, quod clauduntur in his duobus, scilicet dies et annos; tunc similiter dies et anni claudi possunt in hoc quod dicit signa et tempora.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud verbum dupliciter Duplex expositio. habet exponi, secundum quod duplex est usus signi. Signum enim et est ad significandum, et est ad distinguendum.
Si primo modo accipiatur signum, tunc est Expositio 1. sensus, quod illa luminaria facta sunt in signa, id est in significationem futurorum et variationem temporum et dierum et annorum, ut variatio temporum attendatur in mutatione aeris quantum ad calorem et frigus, variatio dierum quantum ad lumen et tenebras, variatio annorum quantum ad renovationem horum duorum. Et sic dicuntur corpora caelestia esse in signa non quorumlibet futurorum, sed eorum quorum ipsa sunt quodam modo causa, sicut imbrium et ventorum — et sic exponit Damascenus29 — vel etiam eorum quae per ea praesignat divina providentia, sicut eorum quae advenient in iudicio, secundum illud Lucae vigesimo primo30: Erunt signa in sole et luna, et stellis. Aliorum vero, quae sunt a libero arbitrio, non sunt signa ex institutione divina, sed potius ad illa signanda traxit fictio humana et fallacia diabolica.
Si autem secundo modo accipiatur, videlicet Expositio 2. ab actu distinguendi; tunc est sensus sint in signa et tempora etc.: sint in signa, id est in distinctiones temporum et dierum et annorum. — Haec autem Magis probatur. expositio divinae Scripturae videtur esse magis consona, quod patet per antecedentem litteram31, ubi dicitur: Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli, et dividant diem et noctem. Duplex enim est motus Duplex motus. luminarium: unus, qui est ad motum ultimae sphaerae super polos principales ab oriente in oriens per occidens, quo motu revolvuntur semel quolibet naturali die; et secundum hunc modum dividunt diem et noctem, sicut dicitur in Psalmo32: Fecit solem in potestatem diei, lunam et stellas in potestatem noctis. Alius est motus proprius, quem habent naturaliter in circulo obliquo, scilicet in zodiaco, in quo duodecim signa describuntur; et secundum motum planetarum in illis signis, et maxime solis, fit signatio et distinctio temporum et dierum et annorum33. — Distinctio temporum fit, quia quatuor sunt Triplex signatio solis. tempora anni: ver, aestas, autumnus et hiems, quae distinguuntur per motum solis in zodiaco, prout ad nos accedit et a nobis elongatur. — Distinctio vero dierum fit similiter per eundem motum, quia modo dies crescunt, modo decrescunt; aliquando dies sunt maiores noctibus, aliquando minores, secundum quod per illum motum accipitur duplex solstitium, scilicet aestivale et hiemale, et duplex aequinoctium, scilicet vernale et autumnale. — Sunt etiam in distinctionem annorum secundum consummationem34 illius motus solis in obliquo circulo. — Similiter luna suo Item lunae. modo est in signationem temporum et dierum et annorum, apud Iudaeos maxime quantum ad solemnitates, sicut apud Christianos est sol, sicut dicitur Ecclesiastici quadragesimo tertio35: Luna signum diei festi.
Si autem quaeratur, quare Ecclesia magis accipit Quaestio incidens. festa sua secundum solem quam secundum lunam, exceptis duobus; prolixa est huius quaestionis determinatio, et plane inveniri potest in libro Augustini ad Ianuarium36. Hoc quantum ad praesens sufficiat, quod quia synagoga in tenebris noctis ambulabat et minuenda erat, ideo a luminari, quod nocti praeest et quod minuitur in consummatione, accipiebat suarum solemnitatum distinctionem. Quia vero Ecclesia iam ambulat in lumine, sicut de ipsa dicitur Apocalypsis duodecimo37: Mulier amicta sole et luna sub pedibus eius; ideo menses computat et dies solemnes magis secundum motum solis quam lunae, excepto solo Paschate, et per consequens Pentecoste. Paschalis enim solemnitas non solum Notandum. celebratur in rememorationem resurrectionis praeteritae, sed etiam in praesignationem resurrectionis futurae. Et in hoc Ecclesia quodam modo conformis est synagogae, unde festivitatem illam observat a luna, non iudaizando, sed potius illam futuram solemnitatem, quam exspectat, secundum quod sibi com-
petit, praesignando. — Haec autem dicta sunt propter id quod dicit Scriptura: Et sint in signa etc. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.
Quod enim dicitur esse in signa; hoc est vel Ad obiecta. in significationem imbrium et ventorum, vel in distinctionem temporum; et ideo dicit tempora pluraliter propter variationem in quatuor temporibus anni secundum quatuor qualitates elementorum. Et subiungit: dies et annos, ut, sicut per tempora notabatur variatio, sic etiam per dies et annos possit notari motus illius terminatio, ita quod dies dicit terminationem motus, quo movetur sol motu firmamenti, et annus terminationem motus, quo movetur in obliquo circulo. Et in hoc patet, quod non debet poni mensis et septimana, quia non tangitur ibi nova variatio nec nova terminatio. Et per hoc patent omnia, quae sunt quaesita38.
---
Doubt I.
Concerning three [points]. In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first there is asked concerning what he says: Let the waters be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. For first, it seems unfitting to say Let the waters be gathered into a place, since motion toward a place belongs to something complete1; but the waters had not yet been produced: therefore he wrongly said to be gathered into one place. — Likewise, nothing can appear except color; and no simple element is colored: therefore the earth cannot appear. Therefore he wrongly says let the dry land appear. — Likewise, since there are two other elements, namely fire and air, it seems that Scripture is insufficient, which explains nothing about their distinction. — Next to this it is asked, why he names the element of water in the plural, and the element of earth in the singular. If you say that this is on account of the dispersion of the waters; then it seems he wrongly says Let the waters be gathered into one place. — Likewise, it is asked why he first calls the element of earth the dry land and afterward calls it earth, since it had earlier been said2: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. — Likewise, since the element of water is by nature tasteless, and the seas are salty, it does not seem that the gatherings of the waters ought to be called seas.
I respond: It must be said that Scripture explains the distinction of the elements in these words very elegantly, if one attends [to them]. For since motion toward a position belongs only to a thing that is complete and has form, for the waters to be gathered into one was nothing other than, for the element of water itself, by giving it one species and an inclination toward the place owed to that species, at the same time, according to the requirement of the form and of the inclination toward position, to give it a fitting place. — And since the place of water is immediately to be around the earth, when the water is gathered, it is separated from the higher elements, namely air and fire. Therefore in the gathering of the waters the distinction of the other two elements is touched on as a consequence. Again, since the waters are by nature [meant] to surround the earth, and if they had encircled the earth on every side, it would not be fit for habitation by us and the animals; therefore he so distinguished it that on its upper surface the dry land would appear. Again, if the earth had been wholly separated from water, it would not be apt for germinating; and therefore God so dried the surface of the earth that nonetheless the water filled its root and even irrigated it by the flowing of rivers3. — And on account of these three [things] Scripture says three: Note. first, on account of the distinction of the elements: Let the waters be gathered into one place; secondly, on account of the uncovering of the surface of the earth: and let the dry land appear; thirdly, on account of the irrigation which it receives from the waters, that it may be able to germinate, he says: he called the dry land earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called seas. — And from these the objections are clear.
For what is first objected concerning the verb to gather is not valid, because God did not cause the waters to be gathered as though previously existing, but as giving them a form and a nature by which they would be naturally fit to come together into one place. — Likewise, what is objected concerning the appearance of the earth is clear, because the earth which appears is not pure element4, but mixed element. — Likewise what he objects concerning the distinction of the other elements is clear; because in these two, which are most perceptible and tractable, is enclosed the distinction of those which are hidden from our senses. — To the 3rd question. Likewise it is clear why he calls water in the plural, and earth in the singular, namely on account of their dispersion. For what is moist, by its proper terminus, is ill terminable; but because what is dry by its nature is terminable, therefore he calls earth in the singular. — And he first calls it the dry land and afterward earth, because the first name expresses the property of the element, namely dryness, while the second name expresses its use or utility, which it has through the mixture of water, that it may be cultivated and bear fruit; therefore it is called terra as it were trita (worn)5. — Likewise what he objects concerning the waters is clear. For they are called seas, not because bitterness is the first quality of water, but because it follows water in its gathering on account of the grossness of the parts, which remain when the finer parts are raised upward or penetrate into the depths of the earth, by which subtilization they become sweet6.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: On the same day the earth brought forth the green herb. For it seems this was done out of order; for if the firmament was made before the earth, it ought to have been adorned before the earth. — Likewise, since mineral bodies are from the earth just as well as wood, it seems that Scripture insufficiently determines those things which by divine power are produced from the earth. — Likewise, it is asked whether the earth then germinated thorns and thistles. For if it did not then produce them, it seems that after sin the earth was more fruitful, and received a new power to produce such things. But if it then produced them, Scripture seems insufficient, because it does not express [it]; it seems also contrary to itself, since in the third [chapter] of Genesis7 it says that those things germinate as a punishment of man: cursed is the earth etc.
I respond: It must be said that Scripture expresses [things] in an ordered way, and God did them most ordered, when on the same day on which the earth was produced he caused herbs and trees to come forth from it: both to remove error, as Basil says8: « lest it be believed that the sun is the principal cause of what is born of the earth », as the Philosopher says, « that the earth is the mother of plants, and the sun the father »; and also, because plants and herbs are as it were connatural to the earth, since they are fixed in it by their roots, drawing from it their nourishment and origin. It is not so, however, in the adornments of the other three [elements]; and through this the first objection is clear.
What is objected concerning mineral bodies, it must be said that, because they recede little from the nature of earth, and because they lie hidden under the earth, Scripture did not take care to express [them] specially.
To that which is asked concerning thorns and thistles, it must be said that they were then produced, because perfect fertility was given to the earth, and there is no herb, however vile, which is not of some utility and virtue; and therefore those things must be understood to be produced along with the other greening herbs and fruit-bearing trees; and Scripture comprehended them9 under the generality of those.
And what is objected, that they were generated as a punishment of sin; it must be said that for a thorn and a thistle to be generated where wheat is sown — this is for the punishment of sin and from the curse of the earth, which, when it is cultivated that it may give fruit by which man may be sustained, rather produces that by which man may be tormented. But that in many places a thorn and a thistle is generated — this is not punishment but nature10.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, and it is asked what these lights are. If you say, that the sun and the moon — because Scripture11 explains: God made two great lights etc.; — there seem to be objections; first, because these Three objections. are not in the firmament, but under the firmament: secondly, because the moon is not a great light, since in the judgment of the wise many stars are larger; thirdly, because the moon does not seem to be a light, but rather an opaque body, since by its interposition it causes the sun to be eclipsed. If you say that the moon is called
a light, not because it shines of itself, but because it receives light from the sun; it is objected against this, that, since the moon is of the nature of the quintessence, just as also the sun, it seems that it ought so to shine, as the sun. — Question 1. Likewise it is asked, if it receives light, whether as a transparent body, or as terminated, or as a mirror, which partly has the nature of the terminated and partly of the transparent. If it receives [it] as transparent, then it seems that it does not oppose itself to the sight by itself, and that also it cannot hide the sun. If as terminated; then a twofold inconvenience arises: first, that since a terminated body is only mixed12, the moon cannot be a terminated body: secondly, because then it will not be illumined except on the surface: therefore it seems that it receives little of the light and refunds little: therefore it ought not to be called a light13. But if it receives [it] as a mirror; then likewise there is a twofold inconvenience: first, that in the moon we ought to see the image or species of the sun, as is seen in a mirror: the other, that then the moon ought not to illuminate in every part, just as neither does a mirror offer an image in every part.
Therefore on account of this there is the question, why the moon Question 2. is said to be a light, and why it shines more by night than by day, and also why it shines more when it is far from the sun than when it approaches it; for the contrary ought to be, if it receives light from it.
I respond: It must be said that concerning the lights of heaven, certain [men] hold a singular opinion, saying Opinion 1. that the heavenly bodies are from the four elements, with the nature of fire — or of a heavenly body, which they say is of a fiery nature — predominating in them; predominating, I say, not only according to quality, but also according to quantity; and according as that nature predominates more in them, accordingly they have higher and higher places. And since in the moon, which is nearest to us, the fiery nature dominates least among the other lights, and more is found in it of a nature receptive of light; hence it is that the moon shines little of itself and from the presence of the sun receives much light, so much that it deserves to be called a light, and a great light on account of the great effect of light which it has on earth. In testimony of their position14 they adduce this, that the moon seems to be a terminated and colored body; and therefore, placed between us and the sun, it hides the sun's rays from us, and, placed opposite the sun, while from that part
by which it is opposed to us it receives light, it illuminates the lower things.
But this position is against the common way It is rejected. of the philosophers and against the common way of the Saints. Reason 1. For it is against the philosophers, because the philosophers say that things mixed of four elements are corruptible15; and for the mixture to be fitting, it is necessary that there be more in it of the nature of heavy things according to quantity; and thus the lights of heaven, according to this position, would both be corruptible and would be heavy. But if you reply that those have been sublimated from the nature of corruptibility and heaviness, just as the glorious bodies of men [are sublimated]; this does not solve [the problem], because it is not asked here what God may do through grace and glory, but what kind of lights have been founded by nature. — It is against the common way of the Saints16 Reason 2. because, if those bodies are mixed, they are mixed by a very noble mixture; and if so, then they are by nature [destined] to be perfected by a soul, and so are animals; and this is against Damascene17, who says that the heavens are inanimate and insensible. This is also against Jerome, to the point of saying that it is heretical to say that the stars are animated. Whence he enumerates this among the heresies of Origen. Augustine. And [as for] Augustine, the Retractations retracts [it], because he had said [it] in his book On the Immortality of the Soul; nevertheless he does not entirely condemn it as false. For he says thus in the book of Retractations18: « That the world is an animal, as Plato held, and many others, I have not been able to investigate by certain reason, nor have I come to know that it can be proved by the authority of the divine Scriptures. Whence such a thing as was said by me, how it can be received, that the world is an animal, I reprove as rashly said — not because I confirm it to be false, but because I do not comprehend it to be true ». But if you say that those are complected but not animated; how can this be true, since for us a complexion is the proximate disposition for receiving a soul? On account of these things and the like, this mode of speaking does not seem to be approved.
In a second mode it can be said according to the philosophers19, Opinion 2. that the lights were produced by an aggregation of the light of their orbs. For just as, if heat dispersed were gathered into one, it would become more intense and stronger; so, when the nature of light found in the orbs is gathered into one by the power of its maker, a light is constituted, and accordingly a light is greater or smaller according as the aggregation of light in it is greater. And since the moon is nearer to us than the other heavenly bodies, and so is its orb: hence it is that it and its orb participate less in the perfection of light. But because it is much conformed to the nature of light, exposed to the sun it is much illumined; and because it has a density20 in its parts, it is not pervious to the rays of the sun, and therefore it refunds the rays which it receives from that part with which it opposes itself to the sun; and since it is near to us, it illumines us much. And therefore sacred Scripture calls the sun and moon two great lights. Not wholly sufficient. — And this position is sufficiently probable, yet does not seem wholly sufficient. For if the moon is luminous from the aggregation and condensation of the parts of its orb21, though it does not reach the luminosity of the sun, it seems that of itself it ought to shine, not only from the reception of solar light — which is clear to the eye to be false.
And therefore there is yet a third mode of speaking, according to the Saints, namely Damascene and Basil, by saying Opinion 3. that light (luminare) signifies not only light, but Light signifies two. the vehicle of light and the vessel of light, on account of which Ecclesiasticus, in the forty-third [chapter]22, says of the sun: A wonderful vessel, the work of the Most High. Whence just as a lamp, which signifies a vehicle of light, has in itself a twofold nature, namely of the light which is carried and of the body which carries [it]; so they wished to say of the lights of heaven. For Basil says23 thus: « This solar body has been made a vehicle for that first-born light; for just as fire is one thing and a lamp another, so for that light vehicles, the lights, have been prepared ». Likewise, Damascene24: « On those lights the Creator placed the first clear light, not as unable to give them another light, but lest that [light] should remain idle. For a light (luminare) is not the light itself, but the receptacle of light ». Therefore according to Basil and Damascene the lights have been constituted from that first light, which made day and night, and from25 the nature of their orb, joined together by a certain aggregation by the divine hand in the manner of a vessel and receptacle of light. — Therefore, sustaining this mode on account of reverence to the Saints — and it is safer It is approved. to lean on their words in this matter, in which one proceeds more from conjecture than from certain reason — it must be said that the lights, insofar as they are constituted from their orbs, by aggregation have rather an aptitude26 for receiving than for diffusing; but that they shine, this they have from the perfection of the light first created. And therefore that light to which God gave much of that light shines the most, as the sun; that to which he gave less, less; and that to which he gave least, shines least of itself, but if it shines, this is from the recep-
tion of the solar influence. — And therefore some wished Opinion 4. to say that not only the moon, but also all the stars receive their light from the sun. But whatever may be the case with the other stars, of the moon at any rate it appears clearly enough that of itself it does not shine.
And the reason for this is that, for its completion, The moon does not shine of itself. it received [only] a little of that light first created; but because it is an aggregate from a nature which is much apt to receive light, since it is a great and dense body and near to us, hence it is that it receives much of the light and refunds much, when it is illuminated from that part with which it opposes itself to us. But this is, when it is at perfect distance from the sun, so that the sun is in one hemisphere and the moon in another. — And this is the reason why Scripture On the 2nd [point]. calls [it] a great light, and why the sun has been set over the day, and the moon set over the night.
And through this the response to the objections is clear. For what To the objections. is said, that the moon is a great light — this is not said because it shines of itself, or because it is greater than the stars, but because it illumines us more. — Why it illumines more by night than by day, the reason has already been said.
To that which is asked, in what way it receives To that. the light, whether as transparent, or as terminated, or as a mirror; it must be said that the moon has neither the nature of the perfectly opaque, nor of the perfectly transparent, nor does it perfectly have the nature of a mirror; it participates, however, in something of each of these. For it participates in the nature of the transparent in some way, since it is constituted of the nature of the fifth body. The nature of the opaque, in that those parts are so condensed that they do not afford passage either to the solar rays or to the visual rays27. The nature of the mirror it has in this, that it so receives that it also returns; yet it does not return entirely as a mirror, because it is not a polished and burnished body, as is clear to one looking at the lunar body itself when it is illuminated; but a mirror returns an image because it is a polished body, which is not pervious to the rays. — But these things have been said more by Conjectures. conjecturing than by asserting, that some sound understanding may be had of what Scripture says: God made two great lights etc.
What is objected, that they are not placed in the firmament; it must be said that firmament is sometimes To the 3 objections. taken in Scripture broadly, sometimes strictly: sometimes namely the eighth sphere is so called, in which the stars are placed; and so it is properly taken, as there28: And he placed the stars in the firmament of heaven. Sometimes it is taken broadly for the nature of the fifth body, which divided the waters from the waters; and so it is taken there: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and after this: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked concerning what follows, and what the Master asks in the letter, namely concerning this: And let them be for signs and seasons and days and years. For if they are for signs, those who prognosticate future things by them do not seem to sin; if for seasons, then it seems that before the sun and moon there were no seasons; or if for seasons, it is asked why he says seasons in the plural, since there is but one season? — Likewise, it is asked concerning the sufficiency of these four things which he enumerates: for signs and seasons and days and years, because likewise they are for months and weeks. If you say, that these are included in these two, namely days and years; then likewise days and years can be included in what he says, signs and seasons.
I respond: It must be said that that word can be expounded in two ways, A twofold exposition. according as there is a twofold use of a sign. For a sign both is for signifying, and is for distinguishing.
If a sign be taken in the first mode, then the sense is, Exposition 1. that those lights were made for signs, that is, for the signification of future things and the variation of seasons and days and years, so that the variation of seasons may be attended in the changing of the air with respect to heat and cold, the variation of days with respect to light and darkness, the variation of years with respect to the renewal of these two. And thus the heavenly bodies are said to be for signs not of just any future things, but of those of which they themselves are in some way the cause, such as showers and winds — and so Damascene expounds29 — or also of those things which by them divine providence presignifies, such as those things which will come at the judgment, according to that of Luke chapter twenty-one30: There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars. But of others, which are from free will, they are not signs by divine institution, but rather human imagination and diabolical deception have drawn them to signify those things.
But if it be taken in the second mode, namely Exposition 2. from the act of distinguishing; then the sense is let them be for signs and seasons etc.: let them be for signs, that is, for the distinctions of seasons and days and years. — But this It is more approved. exposition seems to be more consonant with the divine Scripture, as is clear from the preceding letter31, where it is said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, and let them divide day and night. For there is a twofold motion Twofold motion. of the lights: one, which is according to the motion of the last sphere upon the principal poles, from east into east through west, by which motion they are revolved once each natural day; and according to this mode they divide day and night, as is said in the Psalm32: He made the sun for power over the day, the moon and stars for power over the night. The other is the proper motion, which they naturally have in the oblique circle, namely in the zodiac, in which the twelve signs are described; and according to the motion of the planets in those signs, and especially of the sun, there is made the signing and distinction of seasons and days and years33. — The distinction of seasons arises, because there are four Threefold signing of the sun. seasons of the year: spring, summer, autumn and winter, which are distinguished by the motion of the sun in the zodiac, as it approaches us and goes far from us. — The distinction of days arises likewise by the same motion, because now days grow, now they decrease; sometimes days are longer than nights, sometimes shorter, according as by that motion is taken a twofold solstice, namely summer and winter, and a twofold equinox, namely vernal and autumnal. — They are also for the distinction of years, according to the consummation34 of that motion of the sun in the oblique circle. — Likewise the moon in its own way Likewise the moon. is for the signing of seasons and days and years, especially among the Jews with respect to solemnities, just as among Christians [it is] the sun, as is said in Ecclesiasticus chapter forty-three35: The moon is a sign of the feast day.
But if it be asked why the Church takes its feasts An incidental question. more according to the sun than according to the moon, except for two; the determination of this question is lengthy, and can plainly be found in the book of Augustine to Ianuarius36. Let this suffice for the present: that because the synagogue walked in the darkness of night and was to be diminished, therefore it took the distinction of its solemnities from the light which presides over the night and which is diminished in its consummation. But because the Church already walks in light, as is said of her in Apocalypse chapter twelve37: A woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet; therefore she computes months and solemn days more according to the motion of the sun than of the moon, with the exception only of Easter, and as a consequence of Pentecost. For the Paschal solemnity is celebrated not only Note. in commemoration of the past resurrection, but also in presignification of the future resurrection. And in this the Church is in some manner conformed to the synagogue, whence she observes that festivity from the moon — not Judaizing, but rather presignifying that future solemnity, which she awaits, according as suits her.
— But these things have been said on account of what Scripture says: And let them be for signs etc. And through this the response to the objections is clear.
For what is said to be for signs; this is either To the objections. for the signification of showers and winds, or for the distinction of seasons; and therefore he says seasons in the plural on account of the variation in the four seasons of the year, according to the four qualities of the elements. And he subjoins: days and years, so that, as by seasons variation was noted, so also by days and years the termination of that motion may be noted — so that day expresses the termination of the motion by which the sun is moved by the motion of the firmament, and year the termination of the motion by which it is moved in the oblique circle. And in this it is clear that month and week are not to be added, because no new variation nor new termination is touched on there. And through this all the things asked are clear38.
---
- Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 57. (c. 7.).Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 57 (c. 7).
- Gen. 1, 1.Gen. 1:1.
- Gen. 2, 6.Gen. 2:6.
- In Vat. desideratur non est elementum parum, sed. Eadem Vat. aliquanto inferius substituit dispositionem pro dispersionem.In the Vatican [edition] non est elementum parum, sed is lacking. The same Vatican [edition] a little further down substitutes dispositionem for dispersionem.
- Isidor., XIV. Etymol. c. 1. n. 1: Terra dicta a superiori parte, qua teritur; humus ab inferiore... Proprie autem terra ad distinctionem aquae arida nuncupatur... naturalis enim proprietas siccitas est terrae.Isidore, Etymologies XIV, c. 1, n. 1: Earth is so called from its upper part, by which it is worn (qua teritur); soil from its lower part... Properly, however, earth in distinction from water is called dry (arida)... for the natural property of earth is dryness.
- Ut etiam Aristot., II. Meteor. c. 2. seq., explicat. — De hoc dubio cfr. August., de Gen. ad lit. (imperfect. liber) c. 10. n. 32. seq.; c. 14. n. 45. seq.; II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 11. n. 24; Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 51. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 11. seq.; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 56. m. 1 seq.; S. Thom., hic a. 5, ubi et de seq. dubio; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Cod. aa dulcescant pro dulcescunt.As Aristotle also explains, Meteorology II, c. 2 ff. — On this doubt cf. Augustine, de Genesi ad litteram (the imperfect book), c. 10, n. 32 ff.; c. 14, n. 45 ff.; de Genesi ad litteram II, c. 11, n. 24; Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 51, m. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 11 ff.; Summa part II, tr. II, q. 56, m. 1 ff.; St. Thomas, here a. 5, where he also treats the next doubt; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 1. — Codex aa reads dulcescant for dulcescunt.
- Vers. 17.[Genesis 3,] v. 17.
- Hexaem. homil. 6. n. 2. — Verbum Philosophi habetur I. de Plantis, c. 1. (c. 6.), ubi hoc dictum attribuitur Anaxagorae. Cfr. I. de Generat. animal. c. 2.Hexaemeron, homily 6, n. 2. — The saying of the Philosopher is found in I de Plantis, c. 1 (c. 6), where this saying is attributed to Anaxagoras. Cf. I de Generatione animalium, c. 2.
- Vat. prout, omisso dein et quia.The Vatican [edition reads] prout, with et quia afterward omitted.
- Ex cod. cc et ed. 1 supplevimus ea. — De seqq. cfr. Gen. 3, 17. seqq. et August., III. de Gen. ad litt. c. 18. n. 27. 28.From codex cc and the first edition we have supplied ea. — On what follows cf. Gen. 3:17 ff. and Augustine, de Genesi ad litteram III, c. 18, nn. 27–28.
- Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 51. m. 2. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 9. seq.; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 56. m. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2.See Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 51, m. 2 ff.; Bl. Albert, here a. 9 ff.; Summa part II, tr. II, q. 56, m. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 2.
- Gen. 1, 16. — Paulo inferius Vat. omittit sed sub firmamento.Gen. 1:16. — A little further down the Vatican [edition] omits sed sub firmamento.
- Supple cum cod. V sed luna non est corpus mixtum; ergo.Supply with codex V sed luna non est corpus mixtum; ergo.
- In Vat. hic et paulo inferius, ubi idem verbum luminare occurrit, additur magnum. Subinde eadem Vat. substituit illuminari secundum omnem partem pro illuminare in omnem partem, et deinde cum paucis codd. aliud, quod tunc non debet pro aliud, quia tunc non deberet.In the Vatican [edition] here and a little further down, where the same word luminare occurs, magnum is added. Further on the same Vatican [edition] substitutes illuminari secundum omnem partem for illuminare in omnem partem, and then with a few codices aliud, quod tunc non debet for aliud, quia tunc non deberet.
- Vat. fulcimentum.The Vatican [edition reads] fulcimentum.
- In cod. cc et ed. 1 additur et essent gravia. — Cfr. de his Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 17–33. (c. 3.).In codex cc and the first edition is added et essent gravia. — Cf. on these things Aristotle, de Caelo et mundo I, text 17–33 (c. 3).
- Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 6. — Hieronym., Epist. 124. ad Avitum, n. 4. — Vide supra p. 1. huius d. a. 3. q. 2.Book II de Fide orthodoxa, c. 6. — Jerome, Letter 124 to Avitus, n. 4. — See above, part 1 of this distinction, a. 3, q. 2.
- Libr. I. c. 11. n. 4, ubi textus originalis post aliique adiungit philosophi, et dein substituit quo id accipi possit, etiam in libro de Immortalitate animae temere dictum notavi pro quomodo accipi possit, quod animal sit mundus, temere dictum reprehendo. Cfr. supra pag. 348, nota 7.Book I, c. 11, n. 4, where the original text after aliique adjoins philosophi, and then substitutes quo id accipi possit, etiam in libro de Immortalitate animae temere dictum notavi for quomodo accipi possit, quod animal sit mundus, temere dictum reprehendo. Cf. above p. 348, note 7.
- Inter quos erat Avicenna, cuius verba vide supra pag. 358, nota 2.Among whom was Avicenna, whose words see above on p. 358, note 2.
- Plures codd. cum ed. 1 diversitatem.Many codices, with the first edition, [read] diversitatem.
- Codd. cum edd. 1, 2 quod est luminosum, codd. bb qui est luminosus pro luminosa.The codices with editions 1 and 2 [read] quod est luminosum, the codices bb [read] qui est luminosus for luminosa.
- Vers. 2.Verse 2.
- Hexaem. homil. 6. n. 2, ubi textus originalis post lucerna sic prosequitur: illi quidem vis inest illuminandi, haec vero ad lumen egentibus praebendum fabricata est; sic illi luci purissimae sinceraeque et materiae experti vehicula luminaria nunc parata sunt.Hexaemeron, homily 6, n. 2, where the original text after lucerna continues thus: for in that [fire] there is the power of illuminating, but this [lamp] has been fashioned to provide light for those needing it; so for that purest and most sincere light, exempt from matter, vehicles — the lights — have now been prepared.
- Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7.Book II de Fide orthodoxa, c. 7.
- Retinuimus cum Vat. particulam ex, quae desideratur in codd. et primis edd.We have kept, with the Vatican [edition], the particle ex, which is lacking in the codices and the first editions.
- Vat. idoneitatis.The Vatican [edition reads] idoneitatis.
- Multi codd. cum ed. 1 visibilibus.Many codices, with the first edition, [read] visibilibus.
- Gen. 1, 17. — Duo seqq. textus sunt ibid. v. 6. et 14. — De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 1. et 2. a. 1. et 3; B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 15. a. 1. seq.; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 57. m. 2. et q. 59; Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. et dub. 4. lit.Gen. 1:17. — The two following texts are ibid. vv. 6 and 14. — On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 52, m. 1 and 2, a. 1 and 3; Bl. Albert, II Sent. d. 15, a. 1 ff.; Summa part II, tr. II, q. 57, m. 2 and q. 59; Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 1 and dub. 4, lit.
- Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 7.Book II de Fide orthodoxa, c. 7.
- Vers. 25. — Cfr. de his supra a. 2. q. 2. et 3.Verse 25. — Cf. on these things above, a. 2, qq. 2 and 3.
- Gen. 1, 14. — Vide August., de Gen. ad lit. (imperfect. liber), c. 13. n. 38; II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 14. n. 29; I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 14. n. 21.Gen. 1:14. — See Augustine, de Genesi ad litteram (the imperfect book), c. 13, n. 38; de Genesi ad litteram II, c. 14, n. 29; de Genesi contra Manichaeos I, c. 14, n. 21.
- Psalm. 135, 8. seq.Psalm 135:8 f.
- Cfr. Aristot., de Mundo, c. 2. et II. Meteor. c. 4. seq.Cf. Aristotle, de Mundo, c. 2, and Meteorology II, c. 4 ff.
- Ita plures codd., ut A U cc et ed. 1; alii conservationem, Vat. servationem, quae etiam post Sunt etiam subiungit motus.So many codices, namely A U cc and the first edition; others [read] conservationem, the Vatican [edition reads] servationem, which also after Sunt etiam subjoins motus.
- Vers. 7.Verse 7.
- Libr. II. sive Epist. 55 (alias 119.) c. 7. n. 12. seqq.Book II, or Letter 55 (otherwise 119), c. 7, n. 12 ff.
- Vers. 1.Verse 1.
- Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 52. m. 2. a. 2; B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 15. a. 4; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 58; Aegid. R., dub. lit. 5. seqq.Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 52, m. 2, a. 2; Bl. Albert, II Sent. d. 15, a. 4; Summa part II, tr. II, q. 58; Aegidius Romanus, dub. lit. 5 ff. ---