COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE

S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis	St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum	Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis	of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris
SECUNDI LIBRI	BOOK TWO
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION I
PARS I.	PART I
ARTICULUS II. Quaestio I.	ARTICLE II Question 1
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 25-28. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 25-28. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
ARTICULUS II. De principii unitate.	ARTICLE II On unity of the principle (of things).
Consequenter quaeritur de principii unitate. Circa quod duo quaeruntur.	Consequently there is the question concerning the unity of the principle (of things). About which two (questions) are asked.
Primo, utrum res productae sint in esse a pluribus principiis.	First, whether things have been produced into ‘being’ by several [pluribus] principles.
Secundo, dato quod ab uno principio, quaeritur, utrum illud produxerit omnia a se ipso, an mediante alio.	Second, granted that (they are) from one principle, it is asked, whether that (principle) produced all (things) by itself, or by means of another.
QUAESTIO I. Utrum res productae sint in esse a pluribus principiis.	QUESTION 1 Whether things have been produced into ‘being’ by several principles?
QUOD AUTEM a pluribus principiis sint productae res, dicunt Manichaei, qui ponunt, aliud esse principium spiritualium et incorporalium sive invisibilium, aliud corporalium et corruptibilium sive visibilium; et primum vocant Deum lucis, secundum vocant Deum tenebrarum.¹ Et quod positio eorum sit vera et catholica, videtur:	MOREOVER THE MANICHEES say that things have been produced by several principles, they who posit, there is one principle of (things) spiritual and incorporeal or invisible, another of (things) corporal and corruptible or visible; and the first they call “the God of light”, the second they call “the God of darkness.”¹ And their position is true and catholic, seems:
1. Per sacram Scripturam. Ioannis decimo octavo:² Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo, dicit ipse Rex gloriae et Deus lucis: ergo mundus iste visibilis ad Deum lucis non spectat: non ergo est conditus ab eo.	1. Through Sacred Scripture. In the eighteenth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John,² the very King of Glory and God of light says: My Kingdom is not of this world: therefore this visible world of ours does not pertain to the God of light: therefore it was not founded by Him.
2. Item, Ioannis decimo quarto:³ Venit princeps mundi huius. Rursus, Ioannes duodecimo vocat diabolum principem huius mundi; et ille est Deus tenebrarum: ergo videtur etc.	2. Likewise, in the fourteenth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John³ (He says): He comes, the prince of this world. Again, in the twelfth (chapter St.) John calls the Devil the “prince of this world”; and he is the God of darkness: therefore it seems that etc..
3. Item, Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios quarto⁴ et ad Ephesios secundo vocat diabolum Deum huius saeculi; sed non meretur aliquis dici Deus alicuius, nisi eius quod condidit: ergo etc. Alias plurimas adducunt auctoritates de Scriptura; sed his solutis, solvuntur et aliae.	3. Likewise, the Apostle in the fourth (chapter) of the Second (Letter) to the Corinthians⁴ and in the second (chapter of his Letter) to the Ephesians calls the Devil the “God of this age [Deum huius saeculi] ”; but no one merits to be called the “God” of anything, unless of that which he founded: ergo etc.. They adduce other, very many authorities from Scripture; but with these solved, the others are also solved.
4. Item, rationibus probant id ipsum hoc modo: « oppositorum oppositae sunt causae »;⁵ sed spiritualia et corporalia habent repugnantiam. Unde ad Romanos septimo:⁶ Video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae, et ad Galatas quinto: Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum etc. Item, novum et vetus Testamentum adversantur, sicut patet Matthaei quinto, quia ibi praecipiuntur directe contraria, sicut iurare et non iurare, occidere et non occidere. Ergo necesse est ponere duo principia prima, unum spiritualium, aliud corporalium, unum veteris Testamenti,⁷ aliud novi.	4. Likewise, they prove this very (thing) by reasons in this manner: « of opposites there are opposite causes »;⁵ but (things) spiritual and corporal have a repugnance. Wherefore in the seventh (chapter of St. Paul’s Letter) to the Romans⁶ (there is written): I see another law in my members repugnant to the law of my mind, and in the fifth (chapter of his Letter) to the Galatians: The flesh lusts against the spirit etc.. Likewise, the New and Old Testament are opposed [adversantur], just as is clear in the fifth (chapter of the Gospel of St. ) Matthew, because in that (chapter) there are precepted (things) directly contrary, such as to swear and not to swear, to kill and not to kill. Therefore, it is necessary to posit two first principles, one of (things) spiritual, another of (things) corporal, the one of the Old Testament,⁷ another of the New.
5. Item, « idem similiter se habens semper natum est facere idem »,⁸ ergo cum Deus bonus uniformiter se habeat, et similiter semper facit idem. Ergo, cum sit causa conditiva, nullius est destructiva, et cum sit causa productionis, non erit causa destructionis nec corruptionis: ergo corruptibilia sunt ab alio principio.	5. Likewise, « the same, holding itself similarly, is always bound to do the same »,⁸ therefore since the good God holds Himself uniformly, He also similarly always does the same. Therefore, since He is the founding Cause [causa conditiva], He is the destructive (cause) of nothing, and since He is the Cause of the production (of all things), He will not be the cause of the destruction nor of the corruption (of anything): therefore (things) corruptible are from another principle.
6. Tertio ratio est: omne quod bonus Deus facit, est bonum; omne quod est bonum, est diligendum, et nihil omnino quod fecit est odiendum; sed iste mundus est odiendus et spernendus; similiter et vita carnalis, primae Ioannis secundo:⁹ Nolite diligere mundum; et iterum Ioannis duodecimo: Qui amat animam suam, perdet eam: ergo etc.	6. The third reason is: everything which the good God makes, is good; everything which is good, is to be loved, and nothing entirely which He made is to be hated; but this world (of ours) is to be hated and spurned; similarly also the life of the flesh [vita carnalis], according to the second (chapter) of the First (Letter of St.) John:⁹ Do not love the world; and again in the twelfth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John: He who loves his own life [animam suam], shall lose it: ergo etc..
¹ Cfr. August., de Moribus Manichaeorum; de Genesi contra Manichaeos; de Natura boni; liber contra Faustum etc. — Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 paulo superius omittunt sive invisibilium. ² Vers. 36. ³ Vers. 30. — Sequens textus est loc. cit. v. 31: Nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras. ⁴ Vers. 4: Deus huius saeculi excaecavit mentes infidelium. — Ad Eph. v. 2: Ambulastis . . . secundum principem potestatis aëris huius. ⁵ Codd. P Q in marg. bene addunt Aristoteles, II. de Generatione, text. 56. (c. 10.) Cfr. IV. Meteor. text. 41. (c. 7.). ⁶ Vers. 23. — Sequens textus est Gal. 5, 17. — Alius textus est Matth. 5, 21. ⁷ Fide codd. K M (bb a secunda manu) cc et ed. 1 adiecimus Testamenti. ⁸ Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 56. (c. 10). — De seq. prop. cfr. Liber de Causis, prop. 20. et 24, ubi docetur, causam primam, stando in sua unitate, regere omnia et existere in omnibus secundum unam dispositionem. — Edd. 3, 4 Secunda ratio pro Item. Circa finem argumenti Vat. nec corruptibilitatis pro nec corruptionis. ⁹ Vers. 15. — Sequens textus est Ioan. 12, 25, ex quo non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 aliam partem allegant, scil. qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo etc.; sensus in idem recidit. — Aliquanto superius ex codd. F P Q substituimus fecit pro fecerit.	¹ Cf. (St.) Augustine, On the Customs of the Manichees; On Genesis against the Manichees; On the Nature of the Good, and (his) book Against Faustus, etc.. — Very many codices, together with edition 1, a little above this, omit or invisible [sive invisibilium]. ² Verse 36. ³ Verse 30. — The following text is loc. cit., v. 31: Now the prince of this world shall be cast out [Nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras]. ⁴ Verse 4: The god of this age has blinded the minds of the unfaithful [Deus huius saeculi excacavit mentes infidelium]. — Eph. 2:2: You have walked . . according to the prince of power of this air [Ambulasti . . . secundum principem potestatis aëris huius]. ⁵ Codices P and Q in the margin add well Aristotle, On Generation, Bk. II [Aristoteles, II. de Generatione], text 56 (ch. 19). Cf. (his) Meteorology, Bk. IV, text 41 (ch. 7). ⁶ Verse 23. — The following text is Gal. 5:17. — The other text is Mt. 5:21. ⁷ Trusting codices K M (bb by a second hand) and cc and edition 1, we have adjoined Testament [Testamenti]. ⁸ Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, text 56 (ch. 10). — On the following proposition, cf. the Book of Causes, propositions 20 and 24, where there is taught, that the First Cause, standing still in Its Unity, rules all (things) and exists in all (things) according to one disposition. — Editions 3 and 4 have The second reason (is) [Secunda ratio] for Likewise [Item]. Near the end of the argument the Vatican edition has nor of the corruptibility [nec corruptibilitatis] for nor of the corruption [nec corruptionis]. ⁹ Verse 15. — The following text is Jn. 12:25, from which not a few codices, together with edition 1, cite the other part, namely, he who hates his own life in this world etc. [qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo etc.]; though the same sense is obtained. — Somewhat above this, from codices F P and Q we have substituted the indicative He made [fecit] for the subjunctive He made [fecerit].

p. 26

1. Ioannis primo¹ dicitur de Verbo: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt; sed Verbum est bonus Deus: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod omnia non distribuit pro visibilibus; contra. statim post sequitur: mundus per eum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. Constat, quod de hoc mundo loquitur etc.	1. In the first (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John¹ there is said of the Word: All were made through Him; but the Word is the good God: ergo etc.. If you say, that “all” does not distribute for (things) visible; on the contrary: immediately after (this) there follows: the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. It is established, that it is speaking of this world etc..
2. Item, Matthaei ultimo:² Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra, dicit Deus bonus: aut ergo iuste data, aut iniuste. Si iuste; ergo caelum et terra sua sunt, et ipse fecit. Si iniuste: ergo videtur, quod ipse Deus bonus iniuste usurpaverit sibi alienum, et ita quod fuerit iniustus.	2. Likewise, in the last (chapter of the Gospel of St.) Matthew the good God says:² All power in Heaven and on Earth has been given to Me: therefore (it has been) given justly, or unjustly. If justly; therefore Heaven and Earth are His, and He Himself made (them). If unjustly: therefore it seems, that the good God Himself has unjustly usurped for himself (the property) of another [alienum], and thus that He was unjust.
3. Item, ille fuit conditor rerum visibilium, qui dedit vetus Testamentum. Probatio: Actuum decimo tertio³ dicit Paulus: Viri fratres, Deus plebis nostrae elegit patres nostros. Et post: Qui habitant Ierusalem principes hunc ignorantes et iudicantes impleverunt. Sed iste fuit Deus lucis: ergo etc.	3. Likewise, that One was the Founder of things visible, who gave the Old Testament. Proof: In the thirteenth (chapter)³ of Acts (St.) Paul says: Men, brothers, the God of our people chose our fathers. And after (this): The princes who dwell in Jerusalem, not knowing Him and judging (Him) fulfilled etc.. But He was the God of light: ergo etc..
4. Item, rationibus ostenditur: Omne bonum et pulcrum est a Deo bono; sed omnia visibilia bona sunt, et pulcra: ergo etc. Probatio:⁴ aut bona sunt, aut mala. Si bona, habeo propositum; si mala: ergo eorum corruptio bona: ergo corruptio est a Deo bono, quoniam omne bonum ab ipso: ergo etc.	4. Likewise, it is shown by reasons: Every good and beautiful (thing) is from the good God; but all visibles are good, and beautiful: ergo etc.. Proof:⁴ either they are good, or evil. If good, I have (proven) the proposed; if evil: therefore their corruption is good: therefore corruption is from the good God, since everything good (is) from Him: ergo etc..
5. Item, quaecumque ad invicem coniunguntur, necesse est coniugi per aliquid, in quo communicant;⁵ sed in nullo communicant quae differunt in principiis primis: si ergo anima et corpus coniunguntur, necesse est, quod ab eodem Deo producantur; sed anima est a Deo lucis: ergo etc.	5. Likewise, whatsoever are conjoined to one another, it is necessary, that they be conjoined through something, in which they communicate;⁵ but in nothing do those, which differ in first principles, communicate: if, therefore, soul and body are conjoined, it is necessary, that they be produced by the same God; but the soul is from the God of light: ergo etc..
6. Item, quaero de istis duobus principiis, qualiter se habeant ad invicem: aut enim habent pacem, aut bellum⁶ — aliter enim non video, quomodo possit esse — sed Deus lucis non potest bellare, cum in eo sit summa pax et quies; Deus tenebrarum, cum in eo sit omnimoda malitia, non potest quiescere: ergo videtur, quod nec bellant nec quiescunt.	6. Likewise, I ask of these two principles, “In what manner do they hold themselves regarding one another?”: for they either have peace, or war⁶ — for otherwise I do not see, in what manner it could be — but the God of light cannot be at war [bellare], since in Him there is Most High Peace and Rest; the God of darkness, since there is in him an omnimodal malice, cannot be at rest [quiescere]: therefore it seems, that they (both) neither are at war nor are at rest.
CONCLUSIO. Error Manichaeorum, quod duo sint rerum principia prima, et a fide et a ratione reprobatur.	CONCLUSION The error of the Manichees, that there are two first principles of things, is reproved both by the Faith and by reason.
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod quaestio de pluralitate principiorum tripliciter potest intelligi, et secundum hoc in diversis locis tractanda est. Potest enim quaeri, utrum plura sint principia, quorum utrumque bonum; et illud habet determinari in primo libro, ubi quaeritur de unitate divinae essentiae.⁷ Potest nihilominus quaeri, utrum plura sint principia, ita quod unum sit summe bonum, alterum vero summe malum, ita quod ab uno sit omne bonum, ab alio omne malum; et illud habet determinari in tractatu de malo;⁸ non enim potest haec quaestio sciri, nisi sciatur primo, quid sit malum. Potest etiam quaeri, utrum plura sint principia, quorum unum sit principium incorruptibilium et spiritualium, aliud sit principium corruptibilium et visibilium: et hoc habet determinari nunc, ubi quaeritur de exitu rerum in esse.	I RESPOND: It must be said, that the question concerning the plurality of the principles (of things) can be understood in a threefold manner, and according to this it is to be in diverse passages. For it can be asked, whether there are several principles, each of which (is) good; and that has (its) being-determined in the First Book, where there is the question concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence.⁷ Nevertheless, it can be asked, whether there are several principles, such that one is most highly good, but the other most highly evil, such that from one is every good (thing), form the other every evil one; and that has (its) being-determined in the Tract on Evil;⁸ for this question cannot be known, unless there is first known, what is evil. There can also be asked, whether there are several principles, one of which is the principle of (things) incorruptible and spiritual, the other (of which) is the principle of (things) corruptible and visible: and this has (its) being-determined now, where there is the Question concerning the going forth of things into ‘being’.
Ad hanc autem quaestionem dicendum, quod error iste de positione duorum principiorum non solum est contra fidem, immo adeo contra rationem, ut vix credam, hominem, qui aliquid de philosophia scivit, hunc errorem aut posuisse, aut defendisse. — Tamen iste error est pessimus, quia praetendit aliquam speciem pietatis. Videtur enim Deo bono attribuere bona et pulcra et nobilia et alii principio alia. Ideo⁹ magis subintravit et Ecclesiam Dei magis foedavit, et quia etiam a simplicibus magis potest capi et falsa imaginatione cogitari. — Et ad istum errorem pessimum de multitudine¹⁰ principiorum innumerabiles errores consequuntur et vanissimi, sicut illis est notum, qui sectam Manichaeorum novere, sicut de iuramento, matrimonio, homicidio et aliis pluribus, quae omnia suas habent improbationes per Scripturam.	Regarding this Question, moreover, it must be said, that this error of their concerning the positing of two principles is not only contrary to the Faith, nay (it is) so contrary to reason, that I would scarcely believe, that a man, who knew [scivit] anything of philosophy, either posited, or defended, this error. — Yet this error of theirs is the worst, because it pretends some appearance of piety. For it seems to attribute to the good God good and beautiful and noble (things), and other (things) to another principle. For that reason⁹ the more it snuck in, the more it defiled the Church of God, both because it can be grasped more even by the simple and thought of with a false imagination. — And to this error of theirs concerning a multitude¹⁰ of principles there follows innumerable and the most vain errors, just as is known to those, who know of the sect of the Manichees, such as concerning swearing oaths, matrimony, homicide and very many others, which all have their reproofs through Scripture.
Caput autem et principium erroris damnat omnis philosophia, quod duo sint rerum principio prima:¹¹ tum quia ordo universi destruitur, hoc posito, tum etiam quia divina potentia limitatur ex hoc, ut non possit corporalia producere, tum etiam quia ex hoc divina essentia circumscriptibilis ponitur, ut tantum sit in regione lucis; et si haec vera sunt, nec Deus est Deus, nec aliquid est bonum.	Moreover the head and principle of the error, that there are two first principles of things, every philosophy condemns:¹¹ both because the order of the universe is destroyed, with this posited, and also because the Divine Power is limited from this, so that It cannot produce corporal (things), and also because from this the Divine Essence is posited as circumscribable, such that It is only in the region of light; and if these are true, (then) neither is God God, nor is anything good.
1. 2. 3. Ad auctoritates, quas adducant, dicendum, quod mundus dupliciter accipitur in Scriptura, videlicet pro mundana conversatione, quae vana est et immunda, et pro mundana creatura. Primo modo damnatur in Scripturis, et non dici- / -tur esse a Deo tanquam malum, . . .	1. 2. 3. To the authorities, which they adduce, it must be said, that “world” [mundus] is accepted in Scripture in a twofold manner, namely for worldly society [mundane conversatione], which is vain and unclean, and for the created world [mundana creatura]. In the first manner it is damned in the Scriptures, and it is not / said . . .
¹ Vers. 3, alius locus est v. 10. ² Vers. 18. ³ Vers. 16, ubi Vulgata: Viri Israelitae et qui timetis Deum, audite: Deus plebis Israel elegit patres nostros.* Quae dein allegantur sunt ibid. v. 27: Qui enim habitabant Ierusalem et principes eius hunc ignorantes et voces prophetarum, quae per omne sabbatum leguntur, iudicantes impleverunt. — Sola Vat. minorem transponit: sed iste fuit Deus lucis post verba vetus Testamentum. ⁴ Cod. M Probatio minoris. Circa finem argumenti Vat. cum pluribus mss. post ergo corruptio adiicit eorum. ⁵ Averroes, IV. Phys. text. 71: Universaliter omnia duo, quae non communicant in eadem natura, non habent comparationem ad invicem. ⁶ In cod. F additur et hoc argumentum facit Damascenus primo libro, scil. de Fide orthod. c. 5, et diffusius IV. c. 20. ⁷ Dist. 2. q. 1. ⁸ Infra d. 34. ⁹ Codd. X Z interserunt hic error; non pauci codd. vero indebite omittunt Ideo, pro quo cod. aa ponit Sed, qui deinde post foedavit omittit particulam et. Paulo superius aliqui codd. ut B E F Cum pro Tamen et dein sit pro est. ¹⁰ Plures codd. ut C H I O R S multiplicatione. ¹¹ In cod. A additur: cum omnia sint ordinatissima, ut patet, quia motus inferiorum est a motu superiorum, et motus superiorum a motu intelligentiarum, et unus sine altero esse non possit. Hic ordo ex propriis naturis esse non potest propter diversitatem et oppositionem earum, quae magis facerent distinctionem quam unionem, ut a diversis principiis et contrariis ordinantibus, quia non intenderent unum ordinem ex se ipsis sive finem; ergo oportet, quod reducantur ad unum principium ordinans omnia ad unum finem, aut quod hic ordo sit per accidens; sed per accidens esse non potest, cum non possit abesse, sed habeat semper esse: ergo etc. Item, in quolibet genere multitudo reducitur ad unum illius generis: ergo cum omnia in esse conveniant, oportet esse unum ens principium omnium, a quo dependeant, tum quia ordo universi etc. — De prima ratione, quam S. Doctor adducit, cfr. Aristot., XII. Metaph. text. 52-56. (XI. c. 10.), ubi concludit: At entia nolunt male gubernari; non est bonum pluralitas: unus ergo princeps.	¹ Verse 2, the other passage is v. 10. ² Verse 10. ³ Verse 16, where the Vulgate reads: Men of Israel and (you) who fear God, hear (me): The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers [Viri Israelitae et qui timetis Deum, audite: Deus plebis Israel elegit patres nostros]. What is then alluded to is ibid., v. 27: For (those) who dwell in Jerusalem and her princes, not knowing Him, and judging (Him) have fulfilled the voices of the prophets, which are read throughout every Sabbath [Qui enim habitabant Ierusalem et principes eius hunc ignorantes et voces prophetarum, quae per omne sabbatum leguntur, iudicantes impleverunt]. — The Vatican edition alone transposes the minor: but this One was the God of light [sed iste fuit Deus lucis] after the words the Old Testament [vetus Testamentum]. ⁴ Codex M has The proof of the minor [Probatio minoris]. Near the end of the argument the Vatican edition, together with several manuscripts, after the second therefore [ergo] adds their [eorum]. ⁵ Averroës, Physics, Bk. IV, text 71: Universally every two, which do not communicate in the same nature, do not have a comparison to one another. ⁶ In codex F there is added and (St. John) Damascene makes this argument in the first book [et hoc argumentum facit Damascenus primo libro], that is, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 5, and more at length in Bk. IV, ch. 20. ⁷ Distinction 2, q. 1. ⁸ Below in d. 34. ⁹ Codices X and Z insert this error of theirs [hic error], but not a few codices unduly omit For that reason [Ideo], in place of which codex aa puts But [Sed], which same then after the Church of God [foedavit] omits the particle both [et]. A little above this some codices, such as B E and F, have Since [Cum . . . sit] for Yet [Tamen . . . est]. ¹⁰ Several codices, such as C H I O R and S, have the multiplication [multiplication]. ¹¹ In codex A there is added: since all (things) are most ordinate, as it is clear, because the movement of (things) inferior is from the movement of (things) superior, and the movement of (things) superior from the movement of intelligences, and the one cannot be without the other. This order out of their own natures cannot be on account of their diversity and opposition, which cause rather a distinction than a union, such as from diverse principles and (things) ordered in contrary manners, because the do not intend one order or end out of themselves; therefore it is necessary, that they be reduced to one principle, ordering all to one end, or that here there be an order per accidens; but it cannot be per accidens, since it cannot be absent, but always has ‘being’: ergo etc.. Likewise, in whatever genus the multitude be reduced to one of that genus: therefore since all convene in ‘being’, it is necessary that one being be the principle of all, from which all depend, but because the order of the universe etc. [cum omnia sint ordinatissima, ut patet, quia motus inferiorum est a motu superiuorum, et motus superiorum a motu intelligentiarum, et unus sine altero esse non possit. Hic ordo ex propriis naturis esse non potest propter diversitatem et oppositionem earum, quae magis facerent distinctionem quam unionem, ut a diversis principiis et contrariis ordinantibus, quia non intenderent unum ordinem ex se ipsis sive finem; ergo oportet, quod reducantur ad unum principium ordinans omnia ad unum finem, aut quod hic ordo sit per accidens; sed per accidens esse non potest, cum non possit abesse, sed habeat semper esse: ergo etc. Item, in quolibet genere multitudo reducitur ad unum illius generis: ergo cum omnia in esse conveniant, oportet esse unum ens principium omnium, a quo dependeant, tum quia ordo universi etc.]. — On the first reason, which the Seraphic Doctor adduces, cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. XII, texts 52-56 (Bk. XI, ch. 10), where he concludes: But beings are do not want to be governed in an evil manner; (therefore) a plurality (of first causes) is not a good: therefore one (is) the first head (of all).
* [Trans. nota: Hic perperam e contra morem editionis criticalis textus citatus ex Vulgata in nota originalis scriptus est intra symbolis « »; correxi ad consuetudinem.]

p. 27

dici- / -tur esse a Deo tanquam malum, quia peccatum non est a Deo, sicut alibi patebit;¹ secundo modo commendatur tanquam bonum et pulcrum, sicut Genesis primo:² Vidit Deus omnia quae fecerat, et erant valde bona, et hoc modo est a Deo. Secundum hanc distinctionem solvuntur obiecta. Nam quod dicitur, regum Christi non est de hoc mundo, intelligitur de mundana conversatione, quia ipse non regnat in malis, sed in bonis, quorum conversatio est in caelis.³ Similiter, quod dicitur diabolus princeps mundi et Deus, intelligitur de mundane et saeculariter conversantibus. — Patet ergo, quod deceptus est stultus et impius Manichaeus, quia nescivit distinguere. Et iterum, peccavit in illatione;⁴ non enim sequitur: est princeps, ergo conditor; si enim sequeretur, cum rex Franciae sit princeps Franciae; ergo fecit eam. Qui sic argueret, stultus iudicaretur; certe multo stultius arguit Manichaeus. Rursus, non sequitur: est Deus, ergo conditor. Nam si sic, cum dicatur ad Philippenses tertio:⁵ Quorum Deus venter est, ergo venter creavit illos. Stulta igitur est haec ratio, quare et Manichaei.	said to be “from God” as (something) evil, because sin is not from God, just as will be clear elsewhere;¹ in the second manner it is commended as (something) good and beautiful, just as (is done) in the first (chapter) of Genesis:² God saw all which He had made, and they were very good, and in this manner it is from God. According to this distinction the objections are solved. For what is said, (that) “the Kingdom” of Christ is not “of this world”, is understood of worldly society, because He does not reign in the wicked, but in the good, whose conversation is in the Heavens.³ Similarly, that the Devil is said (to be) “the prince of the world” and “the God (of this world)”, is understood of (those) comporting themselves [conversantibus] in a worldly and secular manner. — It is clear, therefore, that the foolish and impious Manichee has been deceived, because he does not know how to distinguish. And again, he has sinned in the illation;⁴ for it does not follow: ‘he is the prince, therefore he (is) the founder’; for if it did follow, since the King of France is the prince of France; therefore He made it. Who would argue thus, would be judged a fool; (and) certainly in a much more foolish manner does the Manichee argue. Again, it does not follow: ‘He is God, therefore the Founder’. For if (this is) so, since it is said in the third (chapter of the Letter of St. Paul) to the Philippians:⁵ Whose God is (their) belly, therefore (their) belly created them. Therefore this reckoning is foolish, for which reason the Manichees (are) too.
4. Quod obiicitur, quod contrariorum contrariae sunt causae; illud intelligitur de causis proximis intrinsecis — nam de causa extrinseca⁶ non habet veritatem — et ideo, quia nescivit distinguere, deceptus est pessimus Manichaeus. Et quod ita sit, patet. Si enim contrariorum contrariae sunt causae primae producentes, tot essent principia, quot sunt genera contrarietatum: ergo alius Deus fecisset calidum, et alius frigidum, et sic de aliis contrarietatibus. Si quis ita argueret, ab omnibus deridendus esset; quanto magis stultissimus Manichaeus.	4. What is objected, that of contraries there are contrary causes; that is understood of proximate, intrinsic causes — for concerning an extrinsic cause⁶ it does not have truth — and for that reason, because he did not know how to distinguish, the most wicked Manichee was deceived. And that it is thus, is clear. For if of contraries there are contrary, first producing causes, there would be as many principles, as there are genera of contrarieties: therefore one God would have made heat, and another cold, and thus concerning the other contrarieties. If anyone would argue thus, he would have to be derided by all; how much more the most foolish Manichee!
Quod tamen dicitur, quod caro contrariatur spiritui; dicendum, quod nomen carnis aliquando accipitur pro natura, sicut ad Ephesios quinto:⁷ Nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit; et sic non contrariatur, immo miro amore nectuuntur. Accipitur etiam pro vitio et corruptione, quae est in carne; et ratione huius contrariatur, nec tamen habet causam contrariam, quia non habet causam efficientem, sed deficientem.	What, however, is objected, that the flesh is contrary [contrariatur] to the spirit; it must be said, that the name of “the flesh” is sometimes accepted on behalf of the nature, just as (is said) in the fifth (chapter of St. Paul’s Letter) to the Ephesians:⁷ No one ever holds his own flesh in hatred; and in this manner it is not contrary, nay they are bound by a wonderful love. It is also accepted on behalf of the vice and corruption, which is in the flesh; and by reason of this it is contrary, yet it does not have a contrary cause, because (vice) does not have an efficient cause, but a deficient one.
5. Quod obiicitur, quod idem similiter se habens etc.; dicendum, quod aliquod est agens, quod agit se ipso; et illud impossibile est quod producendo diversa diversificetur; immo uno et eodem⁸ producit multa. Aliud est agens, quod agit per aliud a se, et illud variatur in agendo diversa. Deus autem est agens primo modo, et non secundo. Et quia hoc non intellexit Manichaeus, posuit diversa principia et diversos legislatores, cum videat in legibus diversitatem et in rebus. — Et quod stulte motus fuerit, sensibiliter patet. Videmus enim, quod idem artifex per eandem artem domificandi facit aulam et cloacam; nunquid duos artifices oportuit ad haec facienda invenire? Rursus, idem medicus secundum eandem artem medicinae diversa eidem aegroto secundum diversos status apponit medicamenta, et diversa dat praecepta et contraria secundum diversitates⁹ infirmorum; immo stultus esset medicus, qui eadem semper daret medicamenta et mandata. Si ergo diversus fuit status hominum incipientium, ut Iudaeorum, et virorum evangelicorum, quod prohibet, unum et eundem diversa et contraria praecepisse? Attamen contraria non sunt, spiritualiter intellecta.	5. What is objected, that the same holds itself similarly etc.; it must be said, that there is some agent, which acts by its very self, and it is impossible that it be diversified by producing diverse (things); nay by one and the same (act)⁸ it products many (things). The other is the agent, which acts through an other than itself, and that one is varied in acting (upon) diverse (things). But God is an agent in the first manner, not in the second. And because the Manichee did not understand this, he posited diverse principles and diverse lawgivers [legislatores], since he sees a diversity in laws and in things. — And that he was moved in a foolish manner, is clear in a sensible one. For we see, that the same crafts man through the same art of building [domificandi] makes a fore-court [aula] and a sewer-drain [cloacam]; was it necessary to find two craftsman to make these? Again, the same doctor according to the same art of medicine apportions medicaments to the same sick man, according to his diverse states (of sickness), and gives diverse and contrary precepts according to the diversities⁹ of the infirm; nay the doctor, who always gave the same medicaments and commands [mandata], would be a fool. If, therefore, the state of men at the beginning [hominum incipientium], such as the Jews, and (that) of the men of the Gospel, was diverse, what prohibits, that the one and same (God) precepted diverse and contrary (things)? Nevertheless, they are not contrary (mandates), (when) spiritually understood.
6. Quod ultimo obiicitur, iam solutum est, quia vitiositas mundanorum est contemnenda, sed creatura amanda, et Deus in ea laudandus; et omnes creaturae laudant Deum et bonae sunt. Et haec sufficiant.	6. What is objected last, has already been solved, because the viciousness of worldly (men) is to be condemned, but the creature to be loved, and God in this (is) to be praised; and all creatures praise God and are good. And these (truths) are sufficient (to solve the objection).
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Quaestio haec militat contra immanem errorem Manichaeorum et contra omnes, qui plura principia absolute prima statuerunt. De Manichaeorum erroribus agitur hic dub. 2; de vana eorundem opinione circa originem animarum infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 2; item de origine mali d. 34. a. 1. q. 1; de carnis repugnantia adversus spiritum d. 31. a. 1. q. 1, et III. Sent. d. 2. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.	I. This Question militates against the monstrous error of the Manichees and against all, who set up in an absolute manner several, first principles. The errors of the Manicheans are dealt with here in Doubt 2; on the vain opinion of the same about the origin of souls (see) below d. 18, a. 2. q. 2; likewise concerning the origin of evil, d. 34, a. 1. q. 1; on the repugnance of the flesh for the spirit, d. 31, a. 1, q. 1; and Sent., Bk .III, d. 2, a. 2, q. 1, in reply to n. 1.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 1. m. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. — Scot., . . .	II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 1, m. 2, aa. 1, 2 and 3. — (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, . . .
¹ Infra d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. ² Vers. 31: Viditque Deus cuncta, quae fecerat etc. ³ Alluditur ad illud Philipp. 3, 20: Nostra autem conversatio in caelis est. — Aliquanto inferius plures codd. ut B D E F H I N Q post saeculariter adnectunt viventibus et. ⁴ Cod. O aa in illa ratione. Dein Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. post est princeps subdit mundi. Paulo post Vat. Sic enim sequeretur pro si enim sequeretur. ⁵ Vers. 19. — Post ergo nonnulli codd. cum Vat. repetunt Deus. ⁶ Vat. cum plurimis mss. extra; secuti sumus codd. T X cc et ed. 1. ⁷ Vers. 29. — Mox Vat. cum plurimis codd. non contrariantur pro non contrariatur, quod tamen exstat in codd. aa cc et ed. 1. Idem cod. cc cum ed. 1 ponit hoc modo pro sic, quod a plurimis mss. abest. Paulo inferius Vat. modo plurali contrariantur pro contrariatur, sed contra mss. et primas edd. Eadem Vat. dein cum plurimis codd. bis habent, pro habet, contradicentibus contextu et cod. cc cum ed. 1; cod. H legit habuit. ⁸ Codd. T aa supplent modo, forsan melius, si quid supplendum, suppleretur actu, qui identificatur cum divina essentia. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. in fine et I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3. ⁹ Cod. aa diversos status. Paulo inferius pro et mandata aliqui codd. ut F H I Z ponunt et praecepta.	¹ Below in d. 37, a. 1. q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1. ² Verse 31: And God saw all, which He had made etc. [Viditque Deus cuncta, quae fecerat etc]. ³ An allusion to that verse of Philippians 3:20: But our conversation is in the Heavens [Nostra autem conversation in caelis est]. — Somewhat below this several codices, such as B D E F H I N and Q, after of (those) [saeculariter] adjoin living and [viventibus et]. ⁴ Codex O and aa have in that reckoning [in illa ratione]. Then the Vatican edition, together with one or the other codex, after he is the prince [est princeps] subjoin of the world [mundi]. A little before this the Vatican edition reads For if it followed [Sic enim sequeretur] in place of for if it did follow [si enim sequeretur]. ⁵ Verse 19. — After therefore [ergo] not a few codices, together the Vatican edition, repeat God [Deus]. ⁶ The Vatican edition, together with very many manuscripts, has a cause outside [causa extra] for an extrinsic cause [causa extrinseca]; we have followed codices T X and cc and edition 1. ⁷ Verse 29. — Next the Vatican edition, together with very many codices, has they are not contrary [non contrariantur] for it is not contrary [non contriariatur], which, however, is extant in codices aa and cc and edition 1. The same codex cc, together with edition 1, has in this manner [hoc modo] for in this manner [sic], which is absent from very many manuscripts. A little below this the Vatican edition has in the plural they are contrary [contrariantur] for it is contrary [contrariatur], but contrary to the manuscripts and the first editions. The same Vatican edition, with very many codices, then has twice they do not have [non habent] for it does not have [non habet], contradicting the context and codices cc, together with edition 1; codex H reads it did not have [habuit] instead. ⁸ Codices T and aa read in one and the same manner [uno et eodem modo], but it would, perhaps, be better, if something is to be supplied, that that act [actu] be supplied, which is identified with the Divine Essence. Cf. above a. 1, q. 2 at the end, and Sent, Bk. I, d. 8, p. I, q. 2, q. 1, in reply to n. 3. ⁹ Codex aa reads the diverse states [diversos status] for the diversities [diversitates]. A little below this for and commands [et mandata] some codices, such as F H I and Z, have and precepts [et praecepta].

p. 28

de Rerum princip. q. 1. a. 1-4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 44. a. 1. 2; de Potent. q. 3. a. 5; S. c. Gent. II. c. 15. 16, III. c. 15. — B. Albert., hic q. 2; S. p. I. tr. 6. q. 29. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

de Rerum princip., q. 1, aa. 1-4. — St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 1; Summa., I, q. 44, aa. 1 and 2; de Potentia, q. 3, q. 5; Summa contra Gentiles., Bk. II, chs. 15 and 16, Bk. III; ch. 15. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in q. 2; Summa., p. I, tr. 6, q. 29, m. 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here in a. 4, q. 1. — Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, a. 3. — (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 3.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM I.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION I