Dist. 15, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 15
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista incidunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Producant aquae reptile animae viventis. Reptilia et natatilia diversarum sunt specierum: ergo cum producta ex aquis sint natatilia, non debent dici reptilia. — Item, cum reptilia spectent ad ornatum terrae, non videtur, Quaest. incid. quod spectent ad ornatum aquae. — Item, videtur hic esse nugatio, cum dicit reptile animae viventis; omnis enim anima, eo ipso quod est anima, vivit2.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in animalibus differt motus rependi a motu gradiendi. Motus enim Tres species motus in animalibus. rependi attenditur secundum tractionem; animal enim, quod repit, anterius aliquam partem protendens et cum illa aliquid apprehendens, trahit totum corpus suum post se, sicut patet in vermibus; motus vero gradiendi est per impulsionem3. Quoniam igitur ea quae natant, se contrahunt et protendunt anterius, et extendendo se ad anterius, quasi tenendo se ad soliditatem vel ad grossitiem aquae trahunt totum corpus suum, sicut patet in natantibus; hinc est, quod omnia natantia dicuntur reptilia, etsi contingat ea aliquando gradi, sicut est in crocodilis et aliquibus, quae versantur in aquis et in terra. Denominantur tamen a motu, qui est eis magis naturalis, scilicet qui competit eis secundum habitationem in aquis. — Volatilia autem non dicuntur reptilia, quamvis videantur se ferre in aere, sicut pisces in aquis. Est enim diversus modus movendi, quia magis moventur impulsu quam tractu. Notandum. Dum enim avis volat, clauditur aer in concavitate alarum; et dum alae applicantur ad corpus, violenter aer propellitur ex parte alarum posteriori, et ex illo pulsu corpus avis procedit anterius. Et ideo volatilia sub reptilium nomine non comprehenduntur, nec etiam sub genere gressibilium, quia non moventur virtute pedum, sed virtute alarum. — Unde potest sic sumi divisio animalium quantum ad motum, quia animal aut movet se anterius trahendo, et sic est reptile, sive sit in aquis sive in terra; aut impellendo, et hoc dupliciter: aut pedibus, et sic est gressibile; aut alis, et sic est volatile. — Et sic patet, pro quanto pisces dicantur reptilia, et quod falsum est illud quod primo proponitur, quod reptile distinguitur contra aquatile, immo est in plus4.
Ad illud quod obiicit, quod reptilia spectent ad ornatum terrae; dicendum, quod reptile dicitur quadrupliciter: uno modo, quod se trahit vi oris, Quadruplices modi quibus reptilia. sicut vermes; alio modo, quod se trahit vi costarum, ut serpentes; tertio modo, quod se trahit vi pennularum, ut pisces; quarto modo dicitur reptile large, quod in movendo se magnam partem corporis applicat terrae, quamvis habeat pedes, sicut lacertae et stelliones. Et sic secundum diversas acceptiones reptile potest pertinere ad ornandum diversa elementa.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare dicit animae viventis; Ad quaest. incidentem. dicendum, quod vita manifestatur maxime per sensum et motum5; ideo anima vivens appellatur, quae vivit vita manifesta; et haec est illa, quae dat corpori motum et sensum. Talis autem non est in plantis, sed in animalibus; et ideo ad differentiam plantarum dicit: Producant aquae reptile animae viventis, quasi in plantis sit anima virens, et in animalibus sit anima vivens; quia haec moventur et sentiunt, illa vero minime6.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Producat terra iumenta et bestias et reptilia. Videtur enim ibi esse superfluitas, quia omne animal brutum bestia est. Si tu dicas, quod bestia vocatur animal brutum, quod nocet; tunc superfluit dicere reptilia. Item, in Psalmis7 non solummodo enumerantur iumenta et bestiae et reptilia, sed etiam pecora: ergo videtur hic esse diminutio.
Quaeritur igitur horum trium differentia et Quaestio 1. sufficientia. — Quaeritur etiam, cum omnia animantia, quae sunt in mari, contineantur sub una differentia animalis, quae est reptile, et similiter omnia animantia aëris8, quae est volatile; quare non similiter omnia animantia terrae sub una differentia continentur? Quaest. 2.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quia terra inter Quaest. 2. cetera elementa minus est decora, ideo magis indiguit decorari. Et iterum, quia ipsa maxime praestat pabulum animalibus inter cetera elementa, hinc est, quod plures animalium differentiae reperiuntur Quaest. 1. in illa. — Omnes autem illae differentiae reducuntur ad has tres differentias, quarum numerus et sufficientia potest accipi dupliciter: vel ex parte motus ipsorum animalium, vel ex parte finis. Ex parte Differentia 1. motus ipsorum animalium sic: omne enim animal, quod movetur, aut movetur tractu, et sic est reptile; aut impulsu, et sic est gressibile. Et hoc est dupliciter: aut est animal natum saevire, aut mansuescere. Primo modo dicitur bestia, secundo modo dicitur iumentum, et sub iumentis comprehenduntur pecora. — Ex parte finis sic: animalia enim Differentia 2. nata sunt propter hominem; aut igitur sunt ordinata ad hominis iuvamentum, sic sunt iumenta, quasi iuvamenta; aut sunt ordinata ad hominis exercitium, et hoc potest esse dupliciter: quia aut exercent nocendo manifeste, et sic sunt bestiae, quasi vastiae; aut occulte, et sic sunt reptilia, quae occulte nocent et insidiantur calcaneo10. Hos autem fines etsi non haberent, si homo non peccasset, in actu, haberent tamen in aptitudine; et ex ipsa aptitudine melius erudiretur tunc homo in statu innocentiae, quam erudiatur nunc ex actu in statu culpae. — Et sic patet horum trium differentia et sufficientia, et patet responsio ad obiecta.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In rerum distinctione catholici tractatores dissentire inveniuntur. Cum enim non sit Deus dissensionis, sed pacis11, et Scripturae sint in eodem spiritu expositae, quo fuerunt conditae, sicut dicit Gregorius, videtur, quod nullatenus possint dissentire. — Item, verum vero non opponitur: ergo si catholici tractatores dissentiunt, unus dicit verum, et alter dicit falsum; sed intellectus Scripturae non potest esse nisi verus: ergo, cum dissentiunt, necesse est, alterum eorum depravare Scripturam, et ita non erit catholicus tractator, sed potius haereticus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod vis facienda est in hoc quod dicit Magister: dissentire videntur. Notandum. Videtur enim aliquando, quod est, et videtur aliquando, quod non est; et secundum hunc duplicem modum potest intelligi verbum Magistri, ut catholici tractatores in aliquo videantur dissentire et dissentiant, in aliquo videantur dissentire, non tamen dissentiant. Aliquid enim dicunt assertive, et aliquid dicunt opinando. Quantum ad illud quod assertive dicunt, in hoc non discordant, quia quod asserunt per revelationem12 sancti Spiritus dicunt, qui non est sibi
contrarius. In eo vero, in quo opinantur, dissentire possunt et aliquando dissentiunt, quia opinio venit aliquando ex probabili coniectura rationis, in qua homo frequenter decipitur, deceptione potius, quae est poena quam culpa, a qua vix aliquis tractator catholicus immunis fuit. Et ideo talis dissensio reprehensibilis non est. Quamvis enim discordent aliquo modo iudicia, concordant tamen desideria: omnes enim catholici tractatores veritatem dicere volunt. Et sic patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur.
Alia solutio. Aliter posset dici, sicut supra13 tactum fuit, quod, etsi dissentire videantur, non tamen dissentiunt; quia non dicunt, quid fuerit in re, sed quid congruum esse potuerit; nec dicunt, quid legislator, scilicet Moyses, in illo verbo intellexerit, sed magis, quid Spiritus sanctus intenderit, qui eum illustravit. Et quoniam diversi modi producendi, sive simul sive successive, congruere possunt divinae potentiae, et Spiritus sanctus in eadem Scriptura multa simul intelligit et facit expositores intelligere; ideo, etsi discordia videatur inter doctores sanctos secundum exteriorem faciem litterae, non tamen est discordia secundum veritatem. Et ideo signanter dicit: dissentire videntur, non dissentiunt. Unde Augustinus in libris suis14 in multis locis tenuit viam aliorum Sanctorum, ex quo patet, quod non erat eis contrarius.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Novam creaturam facere cessavit. Contrarium enim dicitur Ieremiae trigesimo primo15: Novum faciet Dominus super terram. — Item, ad Galatas sexto: In Christo enim Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet neque praeputium, sed nova creatura.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod novum dicitur dupliciter. Distinctio. Uno modo dicitur novum contra antiquitatem cursus naturae et consuetudinem rationalis creaturae; et sic Deus non cessavit in sex diebus facere novam creaturam, immo multa facit miraculose et mirabiliter contra solitum cursum naturae et consuetudinis humanae, et ista nova dici possunt. Alio modo dicitur novum, cuius nulla similitudo praecessit, nec etiam aliquod principium creatum, quod esset ipsius seminarium; et sic dicit Magister in proposito, quod novam creaturam facere cessavit; et dicitur etiam Ecclesiastis primo16: Nihil sub sole novum. Nihil enim produxit Deus, cuius non fecerit aliquo modo simile, vel cuius non produxerit principium seminale in operibus sex dierum. Et sic patet, quod non est contradictio aliqua. — Aliter. Aliter etiam posset dici, quod requievit facere novam creaturam, quae quidem sit de necessitate perfectionis universi; productio autem Christi excedit universi complementum, et ideo purae gratiae est, et dicitur Deus fecisse novum, cum mulier circumdedit virum17.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Illum diem benedixisse et sanctificasse dicitur etc. Cum enim tempus, quantum est de se, sit indifferens, et dies dicat tempus, non magis debet benedici dies septimus quam secundus. — Item, cum sanctificatio respiciat creaturam rationalem, quid est, quod dicitur, quod sanctificavit diem? — Item, cum aequalis vel maioris dignitatis sit bene operari quam requiescere, videtur, quod magis debuit benedicere diei sexto, in quo operatus est, quam diem septimum, in quo requievit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut dies dicitur esse malus, non ratione sui, sed quia mensura est Notandum. actionis malae, sicut dicit Apostolus ad Ephesios quinto18: Redimentes tempus, quoniam dies mali sunt; sic dies dicitur benedictus et sanctus, quia est mensura alicuius operationis, in qua est benedictio et sanctificatio. Et nihil aliud est diem aliquem benedicere et sanctificare, quam diem tali actioni ut mensuram deputari. — Quoniam igitur Deus omnia fecit propter hominis instructionem, ut hominem non solum verbo, sed etiam opere erudiret; sicut sex dies operatus fuerat19, sic sex diebus dedit homini licentiam operandi et intendendi rebus inferioribus; et sicut septimo die ab opere cessavit, sic voluit, quod septimo die homo ab omni opere cessaret et ei per contemplationem inhaereret et inhaerendo quiesceret. Et quia in hac inhaesione homo obtinet a Deo ampliationem benedictionis et sanctitatis; ideo dies septimus dicitur a Domino benedictus et sanctificatus, non ratione sui, sed ratione illius quod Dominus deputavit in illo fieri. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta; patet etiam, quantum Deo placet, quod homo sibi soli intendat et in eo requiescat, dum talem vacationem sive requietionem benedixit et sanctificavit; propterea in Lege20 frequentissime iterat inter omnia mandata de observantia sabbati.
Dub. VI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Numerando dies usque ad septimum procedimus. Cum enim status esse non debeat nisi in aliqua perfectione, et senarius potius dicat perfectionem21 quam septenarius, vel etiam denarius; videtur, quod aut infra septem deberemus stare, aut ultra procedere. — Quaestio. Quaeritur etiam, quare gentiles, qui sacram Scripturam non recipiunt, in computatione dierum usque ad septem procedunt. Si tu dicas, quod hoc est propter septenarium planetarum; tunc non videtur ordo rectus, quia mars non sequitur immediate lunam22: ergo non debet sequi dies martis post diem lunae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod numerus dierum praefigitur secundum diversitatem mensuratorum, quibus ipsa mensura appropriatur. Quoniam igitur nunc dies non appropriatur ad aliquem specialem effectum, sed solum in primaria rerum conditione, in qua reperitur distinctio secundum septem23; ideo numerus dierum secundum illum numerum semper terminatur, non propter perfectionem numeri vel temporis, quod clauditur in septenario, sed propter perfectionem divini operis et quietis accipitur sic numerus.
Ad quaestionem. Gentiles vero numerum dierum accipiunt penes dominium septem planetarum, secundum quos regi habet et disponi tempus; et quia saturnus est primus inter planetas, dicunt, quod dominatur in prima hora diei24, et sequens planeta in sequenti, et sic usque ad septem horas; postmodum fit regressus ad principium, et sic procedendo; et postmodum ille planeta, qui dominatur in vigesima quinta hora, ille est principium sequentis diei, et ab illo denominatur dies illa, et sic deinceps procedendo denominant septem dies a septem planetis25. Et hoc patet consideranti ordinem planetarum, quo ordine servato in enumerando, quando saturnus dominatur in prima hora diei, sol dominatur in prima hora sequentis et luna in prima hora tertii, et sic procedendo ulterius. Hunc autem modum denominandi dies nec omnino tenemus, ne videamur elementis mundi servire26, nec omnino relinquimus propter consuetudinem; unde dominicam diem nominamus a nobis, sabbatum a Iudaeis; in aliis diebus servamus consuetum morem gentilitatis. Ecclesia27 tamen loco illorum nominum ponit: secunda feria, tertia feria, et sic deinceps. Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.
---
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this section doubts arise concerning the letter, and first it is asked about that which he says: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life. Reptiles and swimming things are of different species: therefore, since what is produced from the waters are swimming things, they ought not to be called reptiles. — Likewise, since reptiles pertain to the adornment of the earth, it does not seem that they should pertain to the adornment of the water. — Incidental question. Likewise, there seems to be a redundancy here when he says creeping creature having life; for every soul, by the very fact that it is a soul, is alive2.
I respond: It must be said that in animals the motion of creeping differs from the motion of walking. Three species of motion in animals. For the motion of creeping is reckoned according to traction; for an animal that creeps, by stretching some part forward and grasping something with it, draws its whole body after itself, as is evident in worms; but the motion of walking is by impulsion3. Since therefore those things that swim contract themselves and stretch forward, and by extending themselves forward, as it were holding themselves to the solidity or to the thickness of the water, they draw their whole body, as is evident in swimming creatures; hence it is that all swimming creatures are called reptiles, even though it sometimes happens that they walk, as is the case in crocodiles and certain others, which live in waters and on land. They are nevertheless named from the motion which is more natural to them, namely that which belongs to them according to their habitation in the waters. — Flying creatures, however, are not called reptiles, although they seem to bear themselves through the air, as fish through the waters. For the manner of moving is different, because they move more by impulse than by traction. Notandum. For when a bird flies, the air is enclosed in the hollow of its wings; and when the wings are applied to the body, the air is violently driven out from behind the wings, and from that thrust the bird's body advances forward. And therefore flying creatures are not comprehended under the name of reptiles, nor even under the genus of walking creatures, because they are not moved by the power of feet, but by the power of wings. — Hence the division of animals with respect to motion can be taken thus: that an animal either moves itself forward by drawing, and so is a reptile, whether it be in the waters or on the land; or by impelling, and this in two ways: either by feet, and so it is a walking creature; or by wings, and so it is a flying creature. — And thus it is evident in what sense fish are called reptiles, and that what was first proposed is false — namely, that reptile is distinguished against aquatile — rather it is broader in extent4.
To that which is objected, that reptiles pertain to the adornment of the earth: it must be said that reptile is said in four ways. Four ways in which reptiles are spoken of. In one way, that which drags itself by the force of its mouth, as worms; in another way, that which drags itself by the force of its ribs, as serpents; in a third way, that which drags itself by the force of its little fins, as fish; in a fourth way, reptile is said broadly of that which in its motion applies a great part of its body to the earth, although it has feet, as lizards and stellions. And thus according to the diverse acceptations, reptile can pertain to the adornment of diverse elements.
To that which is asked, why he says of the living soul: To the incidental question. it must be said that life is manifested most of all through sense and motion5; therefore that is called living soul which lives with manifest life; and this is that which gives motion and sense to the body. Such, however, is not found in plants, but in animals; and therefore, to distinguish from plants, he says: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having a living soul, as if in plants there were a growing soul (anima virens), and in animals a living soul (anima vivens); because these are moved and have sense, but those not at all6.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Let the earth bring forth jumenta and beasts and reptiles. For there seems to be a superfluity here, because every brute animal is a beast. If you say that beast is the name of a brute animal that does harm, then it is superfluous to say reptiles. Likewise, in the Psalms7 there are enumerated not only jumenta and beasts and reptiles, but also cattle: therefore there seems to be a diminution here.
It is asked therefore about the Question 1. difference and sufficiency of these three. — It is also asked, since all the animate creatures which are in the sea are contained under one difference of animal, which is reptile, and likewise all the animate creatures of the air8, which is flying creature, why are not all the animate creatures of the earth similarly contained under one difference? Question 2.
I respond: It must be said that, because the earth among the other elements is less adorned, Question 2. therefore it needed more to be adorned. Likewise, because it most of all furnishes pasturage to the animals among the other elements, hence it is that more differences of animals are found Question 1. in it. — Now all those differences are reduced to these three differences, the number and sufficiency of which can be taken in two ways: either from the side of the motion of the animals themselves, or from the side of their end. From the side of Difference 1. the motion of the animals themselves thus: for every animal which is moved either is moved by traction, and so is a reptile; or by impulse, and so is a walking creature. And this in two ways: either an animal is born to rage, or to be tamed. In the first way it is called beast, in the second way it is called jumentum, and under jumenta are comprehended cattle. — From the side of the end thus: for the animals Difference 2. are born for the sake of man; either therefore they are ordered to the help of man, and so they are jumenta, as it were helps (iuvamenta); or they are ordered to man's exercise, and this can be in two ways: because either they exercise by harming manifestly, and so they are beasts (bestiae), as if destroyers (vastiae); or secretly, and so they are reptiles, which secretly harm and lie in wait at the heel10. Even if they did not have these ends in act, if man had not sinned, they would nevertheless have them in aptitude; and from that very aptitude man in the state of innocence would then have been better instructed than he is now instructed from the act in the state of fault. — And thus the difference and sufficiency of these three is evident, and the response to the objections is evident.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: In the distinction of things the catholic doctors are found to dissent. For since God is not the God of dissension, but of peace11, and the Scriptures are expounded in the same Spirit in which they were composed, as Gregory says, it seems that they cannot dissent in any way. — Likewise, true is not opposed to true: therefore if catholic doctors dissent, one says what is true, and the other says what is false; but the understanding of Scripture cannot but be true: therefore, when they dissent, it must be that one of them corrupts Scripture, and so he will not be a catholic doctor but rather a heretic.
I respond: It must be said that force must be put upon that which the Master says: they seem to dissent. Notandum. For sometimes that is seems, and sometimes that is not seems; and according to this twofold mode the word of the Master can be understood, namely that the catholic doctors in something seem to dissent and do dissent, and in something seem to dissent but yet do not dissent. For they say some things assertively, and some things by way of opining. As to that which they say assertively, in this they do not disagree, because what they assert they say by the revelation12 of the Holy Spirit, who is not contrary to himself.
But in that wherein they opine, they can dissent and sometimes do dissent, because opinion sometimes comes from probable conjecture of reason, in which man is frequently deceived, with a deception which is rather a punishment than a fault, from which scarcely any catholic doctor has been immune. And therefore such dissension is not reprehensible. For although their judgments disagree in some manner, their desires nevertheless agree: for all catholic doctors wish to speak the truth. And thus the response to that which is objected is evident.
Another solution. It could be said otherwise, as was touched on above13, that, even if they seem to dissent, they do not nevertheless dissent; because they do not say what was in the thing, but what could have been congruous; nor do they say what the legislator, namely Moses, understood in that word, but rather what the Holy Spirit intended, who illumined him. And since diverse modes of producing, whether simultaneously or successively, can be congruous to the divine power, and the Holy Spirit understands many things at the same time in the same Scripture and makes the expositors understand them; therefore, even if discord seems to appear among the holy doctors according to the outward face of the letter, there is nevertheless no discord according to truth. And therefore he says pointedly: they seem to dissent, they do not dissent. Hence Augustine in his books14 in many places held to the path of other Saints, from which it is evident that he was not contrary to them.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: He ceased to make a new creature. For the contrary is said in Jeremiah 3115: The Lord will make a new thing upon the earth. — Likewise, to the Galatians 6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
I respond: It must be said that new is said in two ways. Distinction. In one way new is said against the antiquity of the course of nature and the custom of the rational creature; and thus God did not cease in the six days to make a new creature; nay rather, he does many things miraculously and wonderfully against the accustomed course of nature and of human custom, and these can be called new. In another way new is said of that of which no likeness preceded, nor even any created principle that should be its seminary; and so the Master says in the present passage that he ceased to make a new creature; and it is also said in Ecclesiastes 116: There is nothing new under the sun. For God produced nothing of which he did not in some manner make a like, or of which he did not produce the seminal principle in the works of the six days. And so it is evident that there is no contradiction. — Otherwise. It could also be said otherwise that he rested from making a new creature which should be of the necessity of the perfection of the universe; the production of Christ, however, exceeds the completion of the universe, and therefore is of pure grace, and God is said to have made a new thing, when a woman compassed a man17.
Doubt V.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: That day he is said to have blessed and sanctified etc. For since time, so far as it is in itself, is indifferent, and day signifies time, the seventh day ought not to be blessed more than the second. — Likewise, since sanctification respects the rational creature, what is it that is said, that he sanctified the day? — Likewise, since to work well is of equal or greater dignity than to rest, it seems that he ought rather to have blessed the sixth day, on which he worked, than the seventh day, on which he rested.
I respond: It must be said that just as a day is said to be evil, not by reason of itself, but because it is the measure Notandum. of an evil action, as the Apostle says to the Ephesians 518: Redeeming the time, because the days are evil; so a day is said to be blessed and holy, because it is the measure of some operation in which there is blessing and sanctification. And to bless and sanctify a day is nothing other than to allot the day to such an action as its measure. — Since therefore God made all things for the instruction of man, that he might instruct man not only by word but also by work; just as he had wrought for six days19, so for six days he gave man permission to work and to attend to lower things; and just as on the seventh day he ceased from work, so he willed that on the seventh day man should cease from every work and cleave to him by contemplation and, by cleaving, rest. And because in this cleaving man obtains from God an enlargement of blessing and sanctity; therefore the seventh day is called by the Lord blessed and sanctified, not by reason of itself, but by reason of that which the Lord allotted to be done in it. — And thus the response to the objections is evident; it is also evident how much it pleases God that man should attend to him alone and rest in him, since he blessed and sanctified such a vacation or repose; for which reason in the Law20 he most frequently repeats, among all the commandments, that of the observance of the sabbath.
Doubt VI.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: In numbering the days we proceed up to the seventh. For since there ought not to be a stopping-point except in some perfection, and the number six rather signifies perfection21 than seven, or even ten; it seems that we ought either to stop within seven, or to proceed beyond. — Question. It is also asked why the gentiles, who do not receive sacred Scripture, in the reckoning of days proceed up to seven. If you say that this is on account of the sevenfold number of the planets, then the order does not seem right, because Mars does not immediately follow the Moon22: therefore the day of Mars (Tuesday) ought not to follow the day of the Moon (Monday).
I respond: It must be said that the number of days is appointed according to the diversity of the things measured to which the measure itself is appropriated. Since therefore the day is not now appropriated to any special effect, but only in the primary establishment of things, in which a distinction according to seven23 is found; therefore the number of days is always terminated according to that number, not on account of the perfection of the number or of the time which is enclosed in the septenary, but on account of the perfection of the divine work and rest is the number so taken.
To the question. The gentiles, however, take the number of days from the dominion of the seven planets, according to which time must be ruled and disposed; and because Saturn is the first among the planets, they say that he dominates in the first hour of the day24, and the next planet in the next, and so on up to seven hours; afterwards there is a return to the beginning, and so proceeding; and afterwards that planet which dominates in the twenty-fifth hour, that is the beginning of the next day, and from it that day is named, and thus successively proceeding they name the seven days from the seven planets25. And this is evident to one considering the order of the planets, which order being preserved in enumeration, when Saturn dominates in the first hour of the day, the Sun dominates in the first hour of the next, and the Moon in the first hour of the third, and so on. This manner of naming the days we neither wholly retain — lest we should seem to serve the elements of the world26 — nor do we wholly relinquish, on account of custom; whence we call the Lord's day from ourselves, the sabbath from the Jews; on the other days we keep the customary practice of the gentility. The Church27, however, in place of those names places: second feria, third feria, and so on. And thus the response to the objections is evident.
---
- Vers. 10. — Ultima solutionis verba in die septimo desiderantur in Vat.Verse 10. — The last words of the solution on the seventh day are lacking in the Vatican edition.
- Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 37. (c. 4.); V. Metaph. text. 23. et IX. text. 16. (IV. c. 18. et VIII. c. 8.). Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 87. m. 1. a. 2. § 2. textus tam philosophorum quam Patrum hac de re allegat.Cf. Aristotle, De Anima II, text 37 (c. 4); Metaphysics V, text 23 and IX, text 16 (IV c. 18 and VIII c. 8). Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 87, m. 1, a. 2, § 2, adduces texts both of the philosophers and of the Fathers concerning this matter.
- Vide Aristot., I. de Historia animal. c. 1; II. de Partib. animal. c. 1. et de Animalium incessu, per totum; de volatu avium agit in specie ibid. c. 8. seqq. — Sive maioris extensionis, ut genus respectu speciei. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 348, nota 5.See Aristotle, History of Animals I, c. 1; Parts of Animals II, c. 1, and On the Gait of Animals throughout; he treats of the flight of birds in particular in the same book, c. 8 ff. — Or of greater extension, as a genus with respect to a species. Cf. tome I, p. 348, note 5.
- Ut dicit Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 19. (c. 2.); II. text. 130. (III. c. 3.); III. text. 40. (c. 9.). Libr. I. de Plantis, c. 1. ait: Vita et in animalibus et in plantis esse deprehensa est; in animalibus quidem patens et manifesta, in plantis vero occultior nec adeo evidens.As Aristotle says, De Anima I, text 19 (c. 2); II, text 130 (III c. 3); III, text 40 (c. 9). De Plantis I, c. 1, says: Life has been apprehended both in animals and in plants; in animals indeed patent and manifest, but in plants more hidden and not so evident.
- Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 53. m. 1. § 1. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 60; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. ad 3; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit. et Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 3. seq.Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 53, m. 1, § 1 seq.; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; Summa p. II, tr. II, q. 60; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, ad 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the letter, and Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the letter 3 seq.
- Psalm 8, 8; 49, 10; 148, 10.Psalm 8:8; 49:10; 148:10.
- Supple cum Vat. sub una differentia animalis.Supply with the Vatican edition under one difference of animal.
- Cfr. de his Isidor., XII. Etymolog. c. 1. seqq. Lyranus in Genes. 1, 3: Bestia namque dicitur quasi vastia a vastando.Cf. on these matters Isidore, Etymologies XII, c. 1 ff. Lyranus on Genesis 1:3: For "bestia" (beast) is said as it were "vastia" (destroyer), from "vastando" (destroying).
- Epist. I. Cor. 14, 33. — De verbo Gregorii cfr. XXVII. Moral. c. 8. n. 12. seqq., ubi docet, quod doctrina sacra per Patriarchas, Prophetas, Apostolos et sanctos Patres successive sit tradita. De sanctis Patribus autem dicit: «Nam quod illi [Apostoli] sub brevitate locuti sunt, hoc exponendo isti multipliciter auxerunt». Cap. 9. n. 13: Si ex sanctis Apostolis vis intelligentiae non inciperet, nequaquam per doctorum ora largior manaret. — Idem dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 54. m. 1. ad 3. et 4; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. p. II. tr. II. q. 61; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.Epistle I Corinthians 14:33. — On the saying of Gregory cf. Moralia XXVII, c. 8, n. 12 ff., where he teaches that sacred doctrine was successively delivered through the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and holy Fathers. But concerning the holy Fathers he says: «For what they [the Apostles] said in brief, these in expounding have manifoldly amplified». Cap. 9, n. 13: If the power of understanding did not begin from the holy Apostles, it would by no means flow more abundantly through the mouths of the doctors. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 54, m. 1, ad 3 and 4; Blessed Albert, here a. 7; Summa p. II, tr. II, q. 61; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the letter; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the letter 5.
- In sensu largiore acceptam. — De seqq. cfr. August., XII. Confess. c. 30. n. 41.Taken in the broader sense. — On what follows, cf. Augustine, Confessions XII, c. 30, n. 41.
- Dist. 12. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. circa finem.Distinction 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body, near the end.
- Praecipue in I. de Gen. contra Manich. per totum; XII. et XIII. Confess.Especially in De Genesi contra Manichaeos I throughout; Confessions XII and XIII.
- Vers. 22: Creavit Dominus novum super terram. — Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 15.Verse 22: The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth. — The following text is in the place cited, v. 15.
- Vers. 10.Verse 10.
- Ier. 31, 22: Femina circumdabit virum. — De hac secunda solutione vide I. Sent. d. 44. dub. 3.Jeremiah 31:22: A woman shall compass a man. — On this second solution see I Sentences d. 44, doubt 3.
- Vers. 16.Verse 16.
- In nonnullis codd. et Vat. desideratur sex dies operatus fuerat, sic. Non pauci codd. sex diebus pro sex dies.In some codices and in the Vatican edition, he had wrought for six days, thus is lacking. Not a few codices read for six days (sex diebus) instead of six days (sex dies).
- Exod. 20, 8. seqq. 31, 13. seqq.; Deut. 5, 12. seqq. — Idem dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 56. m. 2; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. II. q. 67. q. inc. 4; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3.Exodus 20:8 ff.; 31:13 ff.; Deuteronomy 5:12 ff. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 56, m. 2; Blessed Albert, Summa p. II, tr. II, q. 67, incidental q. 4; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 2; Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 3.
- Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Paulo inferius plures codd. cum ed. 1 infra septenarium pro infra septem.Cf. above d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — A little below, several codices with edition 1 read infra septenarium instead of infra septem.
- Planetae in systemate Ptolomaei sic ordinantur: luna, mercurius, venus, sol, mars, iupiter, saturnus. — Subinde nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1 post sequi adiungunt immediate.The planets in the Ptolemaic system are ordered thus: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. — Then some codices with edition 1, after to follow, add immediately.
- Cod. cc cum ed. 1 septenarium, et aliquanto inferius post accipitur subiungit hic.Codex cc with edition 1 reads septenarium, and somewhat further below, after is taken, adds here.
- In Vat. additur sabbati, quae etiam cum pluribus mss. et aliis edd. substituit procedendum pro procedendo.In the Vatican edition is added of the sabbath, which also, with several manuscripts and other editions, substitutes procedendum for procedendo.
- Vat. septem dies quasi septem planetas.The Vatican edition reads seven days as if seven planets.
- Gal. 4, 3: Ita et nos, cum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus servientes.Galatians 4:3: So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.
- Ex constitutione Silvestri Papae I.From the constitution of Pope Sylvester I.