← Back to Distinction 4

Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 1

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 4

Textus Latinus
p. 138

ARTICULUS III. De cognitione matutina et vespertina Angelorum.

Consequenter tertio loco quaeritur, utrum creati sint Angeli illuminati cognitione matutina. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primum est, utrum cognitionem matutinam habuerint in ipsa creatione. Secundum est, utrum vespertinam post glorificationem.

QUAESTIO I. Utrum Angeli in ipsa creatione habuerint matutinam cognitionem.

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod in ipsa creatione habuerunt cognitionem matutinam.

1. Primo per Augustinum. Augustinus enim super Genesim quasi per totum1 sic prosequitur illos septem dies, ut per hoc intelligat septemplicem conversionem Angelorum super res; et dicit, «quod simul tempore omnia facta sunt et ab Angelis cognita». p. 139Si ergo quilibet dies habet mane et vesperam, et isti dies fuerunt a principio conditionis angelicae, quilibet Angelus habuit cognitionem matutinam et vespertinam a suae creationis primordio.

2. Item, idem Augustinus quarto super Genesim ad litteram2: «Mens angelica, pura caritate inhaerens Verbo Dei, posteaquam illo ordine creata est, ut praecederet omnia, prius vidit in Verbo Dei facienda quae facta sunt». Si ergo omnia simul condita sunt, necesse est, quod hanc cognitionem habuit Angelus ab instanti creationis; sed cognitio in Verbo est cognitio matutina: ergo etc.

3. Item, Dionysius3 dicit, quod «Angeli sunt lumina», ergo quod Angelus videt in se videt in lumine: ergo si cognitio matutina eo ipso dicitur matutina, quia est in lumine, cum Angeli hoc habuerint a sua creatione, patet etc.

4. Item, Angeli ante lapsum in principio suae conditionis4 nullam habebant impuritatem peccati nec obscuritatem mentis: ergo videtur, quod cognitio eorum esset cognitio clara: ergo videtur, quod matutina; et ita ab instanti creationis cognitione matutina perfecti sunt.

Contra: 1. Cognitio matutina est cognitio, qua quis cognoscit in ipso Verbo; sed in Verbo non potest aliquis aliquid videre, nisi videat Verbum, Verbum autem nullus potest videre nisi Beatus: si ergo Angeli in principio suae conditionis non fuerunt beati, sicut supra5 probatum est, ergo etc.

2. Item, lux faciebat vespere et mane; sed «lux dicit angelicam naturam formatam», sicut dicit Augustinus et super Genesim et de Civitate6; sed formata fuit per gratiam et gloriam. Cum ergo Angeli nec gratiam nec gloriam habuerint in principio conditionis, quia non essent lapsi: ergo etc.

3. Item, si in principio conditionis habuerunt cognitionem matutinam, cum daemones habeant7 sibi data integra et splendidissima, maxime quae spectant ad cognitionem, ergo adhuc haberent cognitionem matutinam: sed cognitio matutina est in Verbo et in rationibus aeternis: ergo daemones adhuc haberent istam cognitionem; quod est contra Augustinum de Civitate8, qui dicit de Christo, quod «innotuit daemonibus non per id quod est vita et lumen incommutabile, sed per quaedam lucis effecta».

4. Item, sicut patet ex textu, vespere praecedit mane; unde dicitur: Factum est vespere9 etc., ergo cognitio vespertina [praecedit] matutinam; sed cognitio vespertina sequitur existentiam rerum, sicut dicitur super Genesim ad litteram libro quarto, ubi dicit Augustinus: «Nisi prius sit quod cognoscatur, cognosci non potest»: ergo cognitio matutina sequitur vespertinam: ergo oportet, quod sit post existentiam rerum: ergo non fuit concreata Angelis a principio.

Est igitur quaestio, si omnia simul creata sunt, qualiter Angelus potuit cognoscere res fiendas de primo creatis? — Rursus, si matutina cognitio est gloriosa, quomodo potuit esse in Angelis a suo primordio, cum omnes aequales fuerint, sicut Augustinus videtur velle ad Orosium10, et Magister dicit in littera?

Conclusio. Angeli a sua creatione non habuerunt cognitionem matutinam, nisi haec intelligatur in sensu largiore.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc diversae sunt positiones, quae consurgunt ex diversificatione verborum Augustini in hac materia.

Quidam enim, attendentes ad verba Augustini super Genesim ad litteram, dicunt, quod quando quaeritur, utrum Angeli a principio suae creationis cognitionem habuerint matutinam, facienda est vis11: aut enim quaeritur de omnibus, aut de aliquibus. Si de omnibus; sic respondent, quod non omnes habuerunt. Lucifer enim nunquam habuit cognitionem matutinam, quia nunquam divinam lucem vidit in se ipsa, sicut in antecedentibus monstratum est12. Si autem quaeratur de aliquibus; sic dicunt, quod habuerunt, quia simul tempore sunt creati et ad Deum per gloriam conversi, et in eodem instanti sunt formati et a tenebris divisi, et in eodem res omnes cognoverunt secundum suum ordinem et connexionem, et hoc in ipso Verbo. Quae res, etsi in eodem instanti et simul cum Angelis fuerint conditae, tamen Angelorum conditione et ipsorum ad Deum conversione sunt posteriores natura et dignitate; et ideo dicitur, quod Angeli in Verbo cognop. 140verunt res faciendas. Et illud expresse videntur sonare verba Augustini in quarto super Genesim ad litteram, circa finem13.

Sed quoniam Augustinus undecimo de Civitate expresse videtur sentire contrarium — ibi enim dicit, quod fuerit mora inter creationem et lapsum, et quod ante lapsum nec boni praescii fuerunt beatitudinis, nec mali miseriae, nec illi lux, nec illi tenebrae erant — ideo, ne sibi contradicere videatur, distinguunt aliqui cognitionem matutinam dupliciter. Cognitionem enim matutinam vocat Augustinus cognitionem in Verbo. In Verbo autem dupliciter dicuntur cognoscere: uno modo perfecte, scilicet speculando et intuendo ipsum Verbum et in ipso alia, et haec cognitio facit Beatos14; alio modo suscipiendo illuminationem a Verbo et in illa susceptione cognoscendo alia, et haec cognitio fuit Angelis innata, quia indidit eis Deus omnium species, et lumen etiam super mentes Angelorum expandit, quo cognoscerent facta et facienda. Et haec cognitio matutina est, de qua loquitur Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram15; et haec fuit in Angelis. Et per hoc solvunt contrarietatem ad utramque partem. Hanc etiam dicunt in daemonibus remansisse, sed obscuratam propter culpam; ideo non matutinam esse dicendam. — Et sicut distinguunt in cognitione, ita etiam distinguunt et in luce et in tenebris, quod uno modo dicuntur Angeli lux propter irradiationem ab illa superna luce procedentem secundum statum naturae, per quam cognoscunt res in proprio genere cognitione, quae dicitur vespertina; et referunt ad Deum, et sic dicitur matutina. Et tenebra per oppositum dicitur ignorantia, quae ab Angelis est exclusa; unde dicuntur repleti fuisse sapientia16. — Alio modo dicitur lux ipse Angelus propter irradiationem procedentem a summa luce secundum plenitudinem gratiae consummatae sive gloriae, qua dicuntur Angeli «illuminati, ut beate sapienterque viverent17»; et in hoc statu dicitur matutina cognitio proprie, quae nunquam fuit nisi in Angelis beatis. — Et sic diversis modis loquitur Augustinus.

Ex his patent rationes ad utramque partem, quia rationes ad primam partem intelliguntur de cognitione matutina large dicta, scilicet primo modo. Rationes vero ad oppositum intelliguntur de cognitione matutina proprie dicta, quae scilicet est per gloriam. — Et hoc curialius est dicere quam dicere, quod Augustinus dicat contraria, et tanquam instabilis modo dicat hoc, modo contrarium. Nisi enim distinguatur, quod dicitur super Genesim recte videtur contrariari ei quod dicitur undecimo de Civitate Dei. Quidquid tamen sit de opinione Augustini in productione rerum — quia infra18 determinatur, cum aliis Sanctis contradicere videatur — non est tamen credendum, quod tantus homo sibi contradicat, maxime in his quae non retractat. Verum qualitercumque intelligantur verba eius, magis standum est his quae dicuntur in libro de Civitate Dei, ubi loquitur asserendo, quam super Genesim ad litteram, ubi ipsemet protestatur se loqui inquirendo19. Cum igitur ibi dicat, quod vere aliqua mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum Angeli, ac per hoc inter glorificationem et creationem, et cognitio matutina proprie sit gloriosa; tenendum est, quod illam non habuerunt a sui conditione.

Ad auctoritates igitur in contrarium aut solvendum est, quod ipse locutus fuerit inquirendo et opinando; aut certe respondendum est per distinctionem, ut praedictum est20.

Scholion

I. Augustinus primus distinxit cognitionem Angelorum in matutinam, qua res noscuntur in Verbo immediate viso ut medio eas cognoscendi, et in vespertinam, qua res in proprio genere per species Angelis concreatas attinguntur. Hac distinctione, quae est verissima, idem usus est, ut suam hypothesim explicaret, quod sex dies (Gen. I.) formationis mundi non sint dies successionem temporis exprimentes, sed intelligibiles, quibus exprimitur ordo, quo res creatae intellectui angelico repraesentatae sint. Cum autem S. August. in solvenda quaestione, utrum omnes Angeli habuerint a primordio cognitionem matutinam, in diversis locis sibi non constare videatur; hic de vera sententia S. Augustini inquiritur, ut eius testimonia in concordiam redigantur. Suppositis principiis supra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. stabilitis, hic distinguitur duplex cognitio rerum matutina, quarum prima est in sensu proprio accepta et supra definita; secunda vero, in sensu largo dicta, est ea naturalis rerum cognitio, quae coniuncta est cum actu voluntatis, qui ipsam cognitionem refert in laudem Conditoris. Nec primam nec secundam cognitionem matutinam mali Angeli unquam habuerunt. — Etiam alii Scholastici eodem fere modo sententiam p. 141S. Augustini exponunt et plerumque simul hanc et seq. quaestionem tractant, exceptis Alexandro, S. Thoma in Summa, Petro et Richardo.

II. De utraque quaestione et annexis aliis diffuse disputat Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 23. per totam. — Breviter Scotus, II. Sent. d. 3. q. 9. n. 9. 10. — S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 12. q. unica, a. 3; S. I. q. 38. a. 6. 7; de Verit. q. 8. a. 16. 17. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 14. m. 3. a. 2. partic. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 13. q. 1. a. 3. dub. later. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Biel, II. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. in fine.

English Translation
p. 138

ARTICLE III. On the morning and evening knowledge of the Angels.

Next, in the third place, it is asked whether the Angels were created illumined with morning knowledge. And concerning this two [things] are asked. The first is, whether they had morning knowledge in their very creation. The second is, whether [they had] the evening [knowledge] after glorification.

QUESTION I. Whether the Angels had morning knowledge in their very creation.

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is shown that in their very creation they had morning knowledge.

1. First, through Augustine. For Augustine, throughout almost the whole [of his work] on Genesis1, so pursues those seven days that by this he understands a sevenfold conversion of the Angels upon things; and he says «that all things were made at the same time in time and known by the Angels». p. 139If therefore every day has a morning and an evening, and those days were from the beginning of the angelic condition, every Angel had morning and evening knowledge from the first beginning of his creation.

2. Likewise, the same Augustine, fourth [book] On the Literal Meaning of Genesis2: «The angelic mind, cleaving with pure charity to the Word of God, after it was created in that order, so as to precede all things, first saw in the Word of God the things to be made which were made». If therefore all things were created at the same time, it is necessary that the Angel had this knowledge from the instant of creation; but knowledge in the Word is morning knowledge: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Dionysius3 says that «the Angels are lights», therefore [it follows] that what an Angel sees in himself he sees in the light: therefore if morning knowledge is for that very reason called morning, because it is in the light, since the Angels had this from their creation, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, the Angels before the fall, in the beginning of their condition4, had no impurity of sin nor obscurity of mind: therefore it seems that their knowledge was clear knowledge: therefore it seems [that it was] morning [knowledge]; and so from the instant of creation they were perfected with morning knowledge.

On the contrary: 1. Morning knowledge is the knowledge by which one knows in the Word itself; but in the Word no one can see anything unless he sees the Word, and the Word no one can see except the Blessed: if therefore the Angels in the beginning of their condition were not blessed, as was proved above5, therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the light made evening and morning; but «light denotes the formed angelic nature», as Augustine says both On Genesis and On the City of God6; but it was formed through grace and glory. Since therefore the Angels had neither grace nor glory in the beginning of [their] condition — for [otherwise] they would not have fallen: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if in the beginning of [their] condition they had morning knowledge, since the demons have7 given to them intact and most splendid [endowments], especially those that pertain to knowledge, then they would still have morning knowledge: but morning knowledge is in the Word and in the eternal reasons: therefore the demons would still have that knowledge; which is against Augustine On the City of God8, who says of Christ that «he became known to the demons not through that which is life and unchangeable light, but through certain effects of light».

4. Likewise, as is evident from the text, evening precedes morning; whence it is said: It was evening9 etc., therefore evening knowledge [precedes] morning [knowledge]; but evening knowledge follows the existence of things, as is said On the Literal Meaning of Genesis book four, where Augustine says: «Unless that which is known first exists, it cannot be known»: therefore morning knowledge follows the evening [knowledge]: therefore it must be after the existence of things: therefore it was not con-created with the Angels from the beginning.

There is, then, a question: if all things were created at the same time, how could the Angel know the things to be made [as distinct] from the things first created? — Again, if morning knowledge is glorious, how could it be in the Angels from their first beginning, since they were all equal, as Augustine seems to wish [in his work] to Orosius10, and the Master says in the text?

Conclusion. The Angels from their creation did not have morning knowledge, unless this be understood in the broader sense.

I respond: It must be said that concerning this there are diverse positions, which arise from the diversification of Augustine's words in this matter.

For some, attending to the words of Augustine On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, say that when it is asked whether the Angels from the beginning of their creation had morning knowledge, a force [of distinction] must be applied11: for either it is asked of all, or of some. If of all; thus they answer that not all had [it]. For lucifer never had morning knowledge, because he never saw the divine light in itself, as was shown in what precedes12. But if it is asked of some; thus they say that they had [it], because they were at the same time created in time and converted to God through glory, and in the same instant were formed and divided from the darkness, and in the same [instant] knew all things according to their order and connection, and this in the Word itself. Which things, although in the same instant and at the same time with the Angels they were created, yet by the condition of the Angels and their conversion to God are posterior in nature and dignity; and therefore it is said that the Angels in the Word knew p. 140the things to be made. And the words of Augustine in the fourth [book] On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, near the end13, seem expressly to sound this.

But since Augustine in the eleventh [book] On the City of God expressly seems to feel the contrary — for there he says that there was a delay between the creation and the fall, and that before the fall neither were the good [Angels] foreknowing of blessedness, nor the evil [ones] of misery, nor was there light for those, nor darkness for these — therefore, lest he seem to contradict himself, some distinguish morning knowledge in two ways. For Augustine calls morning knowledge the knowledge in the Word. But in the Word [Angels] are said to know in two ways: in one way perfectly, namely by speculating and gazing upon the Word itself and in it the other things, and this knowledge makes [them] Blessed14; in another way by receiving illumination from the Word and in that reception knowing other things, and this knowledge was innate to the Angels, because God implanted in them the species of all things, and also spread a light over the minds of the Angels, by which they would know things done and to be done. And this is the morning knowledge of which Augustine speaks On the Literal Meaning of Genesis15; and this was in the Angels. And by this they resolve the contrariety on both sides. This also they say remained in the demons, but obscured on account of fault; therefore it is not to be called morning. — And just as they distinguish in knowledge, so also they distinguish in light and in darkness: that in one way the Angels are called light on account of the irradiation proceeding from that supernal light according to the state of nature, by which they know things in their proper kind by the knowledge which is called evening; and they refer [them] to God, and so it is called morning. And darkness by the opposite is called the ignorance which is excluded from the Angels; whence they are said to have been filled with wisdom16. — In another way the Angel himself is called light on account of the irradiation proceeding from the highest light according to the fullness of consummated grace or glory, by which the Angels are said to be «illumined, that they might live blessedly and wisely17»; and in this state morning knowledge is properly so called, which was never except in the blessed Angels. — And so Augustine speaks in diverse ways.

From these the reasons on both sides are clear, because the reasons for the first part are understood of morning knowledge broadly spoken, namely in the first way. But the reasons to the opposite are understood of morning knowledge properly spoken, which namely is through glory. — And this is more courteous to say than to say that Augustine says contrary [things], and, as though unstable, now says this, now the contrary. For unless a distinction be made, what is said On Genesis rightly seems to contradict what is said in the eleventh [book] On the City of God. Yet whatever may be [the case] concerning Augustine's opinion on the production of things — since below18 it is determined, as he seems to contradict the other Saints — it is nevertheless not to be believed that so great a man contradicts himself, especially in those [matters] which he does not retract. But however his words be understood, one must rather stand by those [things] which are said in the book On the City of God, where he speaks by asserting, than [by] On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, where he himself protests that he speaks by inquiring19. Since therefore there he says that there was truly some delay between the creation and the fall of the Angel, and through this between the glorification and the creation, and morning knowledge properly [taken] is glorious; it must be held that they did not have it from their condition.

To the authorities, then, to the contrary, either it must be resolved that he spoke by inquiring and opining; or certainly the answer must be given by a distinction, as was said before20.

Scholion

I. Augustine first distinguished the knowledge of the Angels into morning, by which things are known in the Word, immediately seen as the medium of knowing them, and into evening, by which things are attained in their proper kind through the species con-created with the Angels. He used this distinction, which is most true, in order to explain his hypothesis, that the six days (Gen. 1) of the formation of the world are not days expressing a succession of time, but intelligible [days], by which is expressed the order in which created things were represented to the angelic intellect. But since St. Augustine, in resolving the question whether all the Angels had morning knowledge from the first beginning, seems in diverse places not to be consistent with himself; here the true opinion of St. Augustine is inquired into, so that his testimonies may be brought into concord. With the principles established above, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, being supposed, here a twofold morning knowledge of things is distinguished, of which the first is taken in the proper sense and defined above; the second, however, spoken of in the broad sense, is that natural knowledge of things which is conjoined with an act of the will, which refers the knowledge itself to the praise of the Creator. Neither the first nor the second morning knowledge did the evil Angels ever have. — Other Scholastics too in almost the same way expound p. 141the opinion of St. Augustine and for the most part treat this and the following question together, with the exceptions of Alexander, St. Thomas in the Summa, Peter, and Richard.

II. On both questions and on other annexed [matters] Alex. Hal. disputes at length, S. p. II, q. 23, throughout. — Briefly Scotus, II Sent. d. 3, q. 9, n. 9, 10. — St. Thomas, II Sent. d. 12, q. unica, a. 3; S. I, q. 38, a. 6, 7; de Verit. q. 8, a. 16, 17. — B. Albert, S. p. II, tr. 4, q. 14, m. 3, a. 2, partic. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 3, 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1, 2. — Aegidius Romanus, II Sent. d. 13, q. 1, a. 3, dub. later. 3. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 4. — Biel, II Sent. d. 3, q. 2, at the end.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Praecipue II. c. 8. n. 16. seqq.; III. c. 20. n. 31. seq.; IV. c. 22. n. 39. seqq., V. c. 3. n. 5. seqq.
    Especially [book] II, c. 8, n. 16 ff.; III, c. 20, n. 31 f.; IV, c. 22, n. 39 ff.; V, c. 3, n. 5 ff.
  2. Cap. 32. n. 49, ubi textus originalis ultimam verborum partem ita exhibet: ut praecederet cetera, prius ea vidit in Verbo Dei facienda, quam facta sunt. — Plurimi codd. perperam postea vidit pro prius vidit.
    C. 32, n. 49, where the original text presents the last part of the words thus: that it might precede the rest, it first saw them in the Word of God to be made, before they were made. — Very many codices wrongly [read] postea vidit for prius vidit.
  3. Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 1.
    Cf. above, p. 83, note 1.
  4. Plures codd. creationis.
    Several codices [read] creationis.
  5. Art. I. q. 1.
    Art. I, q. 1.
  6. Libr. I. c. 3, 5; c. 9. et c. 17. — XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 9. 11. 19. 20.
    Book I, c. 3, 5; c. 9 and c. 17. — XI On the City of God, c. 9, 11, 19, 20.
  7. Plures codd. ut A H I M O addunt naturalia. Cfr. supra pag. 122, nota 8. Paulo superius codd. M X voci conditionis praefigunt suae.
    Several codices, as A H I M O, add naturalia. Cf. above, p. 122, note 8. A little above, codices M X prefix suae to the word conditionis.
  8. Libr. IX. c. 21, ubi textus originalis: sed per quaedam temporalia suae virtutis effecta pro sed per quaedam lucis effecta.
    Book IX, c. 21, where the original text [reads]: but through certain temporal effects of his power for but through certain effects of light.
  9. Gen. I, 5. — Textus Augustini, qui mox allegatur, est loc. cit. c. 32. n. 49. — Aliquanto inferius plures codd. non fuit data pro non fuit concreata, et dein post Est igitur quaestio contra codd. B D E I cc et ed. 1 tam in aliis mss. quam in Vat. additur quomodo.
    Gen. 1:5. — The text of Augustine, which is presently adduced, is loc. cit. c. 32, n. 49. — Somewhat below, several codices [read] non fuit data for non fuit concreata, and then after Est igitur quaestio, against codices B D E I cc and ed. 1, both in other mss. and in the Vatican edition, quomodo is added.
  10. Quaest. 17. — Sententia Magistri elicitur ex praesente distinctione, in qua dicit Angelos aequales conditos quantum ad statum; dist. III. c. 3. autem, sub alio respectu, Angelos inaequales conditos esse docet.
    Quaest. 17. — The Master's opinion is elicited from the present distinction, in which he says the Angels were created equal with respect to state; but dist. III, c. 3, under another respect, teaches that the Angels were created unequal.
  11. Supple cum codd. I Q bb in verbo, scil. distinguendo.
    Supply, with codices I Q bb, in verbo (in the word), namely by distinguishing.
  12. Art. 1. q. 1. Cfr. etiam d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. — Paulo inferius post secundum et in eodem Vat. supplet instanti.
    Art. 1, q. 1. Cf. also d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2. — A little below, after secundum and in eodem, the Vatican edition supplies instanti.
  13. Cap. 22. usque ad finem libri. — Sententia Augustini de hac re invenitur XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 11, c. 13-15, c. 19. seq.; eadem supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. et hic a. 1. et 2. exposita est.
    C. 22 to the end of the book. — Augustine's opinion on this matter is found XI On the City of God, c. 11, c. 13-15, c. 19 f.; the same was expounded above, d. 3, p. II, a. 1, and here, a. 1 and 2.
  14. Haec insinuatur in Dialogo Orosii, q. 26. — Paulo inferius multi codd. cum tribus primis edd. incongrue cognoscere, aliqui codd. cognoscente pro cognoscendo.
    This is insinuated in the Dialogue of Orosius, q. 26. — A little below, many codices with the first three editions [read], incongruously, cognoscere, some codices cognoscente for cognoscendo.
  15. Praesertim libro IV. c. 22. seqq. — Mox Vat. falso solvit pro solvunt.
    Especially book IV, c. 22 ff. — Presently the Vatican edition falsely [reads] solvit for solvunt.
  16. Cfr. Augustin., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 22-32; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. et 9.
    Cf. Augustine, IV On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, c. 22-32; XI On the City of God, c. 7 and 9.
  17. August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 11. Cfr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 10. et II. c. 5. n. 17.
    Augustine, XI On the City of God, c. 11. Cf. I On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, c. 5, n. 10, and II, c. 5, n. 17.
  18. Dist. 12. a. 1. q. 2; d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. Plurimi codd. contra cod. L ita; Vat., interpunctione variata: in productione rerum ita determinatur. Quia licet aliis etc. Paulo inferius cod. cc et ed. 1 Verumtamen pro Verum.
    Dist. 12, a. 1, q. 2; d. 13, a. 1, q. 1. Very many codices, against codex L, [read] thus; the Vatican edition, with the punctuation varied: in the production of things it is so determined. For although to others etc. A little below, codex cc and ed. 1 [read] Verumtamen for Verum.
  19. Libr. IV. c. 28. n. 45. Cfr. II. Retract. c. 24. Plura de hoc infra d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. circa finem. — Mox plurimi codd. cum tribus primis edd. incongrue quod Angeli mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum pro quod vere aliqua mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum Angeli, quae est lectio codd. F V. Vat. quod in Angelo mora etc.
    Book IV, c. 28, n. 45. Cf. II Retractations c. 24. More on this below, d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body, near the end. — Presently very many codices with the first three editions [read], incongruously, quod Angeli mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum for quod vere aliqua mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum Angeli, which is the reading of codices F V. The Vatican edition [reads] quod in Angelo mora etc.
  20. In corp. quaest.
    In the body of the question.
← Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 2→