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 IV.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV

ARTICULUS III.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE III

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 138-141.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 138-141.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

ARTICULUS III.

 

De cognitione matutina et vespertina Angelorum.

ARTICLE III

 

On the morning and evening cognition of the Angels.

Consequenter tertio loco quaeritur, utrum creati sint Angeli illuminati cognitione matutina.  Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Consequently in the third place there is asked, whether the Angels were created illuminated by a morning cognition.  And about this two (things) are asked.

Primum est, utrum cognitionem matutinam habuerint in ipsa creatione.

The first is, whether they had a morning cognition in (their) very creation.

Secundum est, utrum vespertinam post glorificationem.

The second is, whether (they had) an evening (cognition) after (their) glorification.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum Angeli in ipsa creatione habuerint matutinam cognitionem.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether the Angels in (their) very creation had a morning cognition?

CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod in ipsa creatione habuerunt cognitionem matutinam.

ABOUT THE FIRST one proceeds and shows in this manner, that in (their) very creation they had a morning cognition.

1. Primo per Augustinum.  Augustinus enim super Genesim quasi per totum6 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 ». / Si ergo . . .

1. First through (St.) Augustine.  For (St.) Augustine On Genesis, almost throughout,6 prosecutes thus those seven Days, that through this he understands the sevenfold conversion of the Angels over things; and he says, « that together in time all (things) were made and cognized by the Angels ». / If, therefore, . . .

6  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.

6  Chiefly in Book II, ch. 8, n. 16 ff.; Bk. III, ch. 20, n. 31, f.; Bk. IV, ch. 22, n. 39 ff.; Bk. V, ch. 3, n. 5 ff..

p. 139

Si 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.

If, therefore, every Day has a morning and an evening, and those Days were from the beginning of the foundation of the Angels, every Angel had a morning and evening cognition from the first rise of his creation.

2. Item, idem Augustinus quarto super Genesim ad litteram:1  « 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.

2. Likewise, the same (St.) Augustine in the fourth (book) On a Literal Exposition of Genesis (says):1  « The angelic mind, cleaving to the Word of God by pure charity, after it was created according to that order, so that it would precede all (things), saw first in the Word of God that (the things), which were made, (were) to be made ».  If, therefore, all (things) were founded together, it is necessary, that the Angel had this cognition from the instant of creation; but (his) cognition in the Word is a morning cognition:  ergo etc.

3. Item, Dionysius2 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.

3. Likewise, (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite)2 says, that « the Angels are lights », therefore what an Angel sees in himself he sees in a light:  therefore if (his) morning cognition is said (to be) “morning” by this very (thing), that it is in a light, since the Angels had this from their creation, it is clear that etc..

4. Item, Angeli ante lapsum in principio suae conditionis3 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.

4. Likewise, the Angels before (their) fall had at the beginning of their foundation3 no impurity of sin nor obscurity of mind:  therefore it seems, that their cognition was a clear cognition:  therefore it seems, that (it was) a morning (cognition); and thus from the instant of creation they were perfected by a morning cognition.

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 supra4 probatum est, ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. A morning cognition is a cognition, by which someone cognizes in the Word Himself; but in the Word no one can see anything, unless he sees the Word; but no one can see the Word except a Blessed:  if, therefore, the Angels at the beginning of their foundation were not blessed, just as has been proven above,4 ergo etc..

2. Item, lux faciebat vespere et mane; sed « lux dicit angelicam naturam formatam », sicut dicit Augustinus et super Genesim5 et de Civitate, sed formata fuit per gratiam et gloriam.  Cum ergo Angeli nec gratiam nec gloriam habuerint in principio conditionis, quia non essent lapsi:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, light made the evening and morning; but « “light” means the formed angelic nature », just as (St.) Augustine says both On Genesis5 and On the City (of God), but (the nature of an Angel) was formed through (sanctifying) grace and (the light of) glory.  Therefore since the Angels had neither (sanctifying) grace nor (the light of) glory at the beginning of (their) foundation, because they had not yet fallen:  ergo etc..

3. Item, si in principio conditionis habuerunt cognitionem matutinam, cum daemones habeant6 sibi data integra et splendissima, 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 Civitate,7 qui dicit de Christo, quod « innotuit daemonibus non per id quod est vita et lumen incommutabile, sed per quaedam lucis effecta ».

3. Likewise, if at the beginning of (their) foundation (the Angels) had a morning cognition, since the demons have their own6 whole and most splendid gifts [data], most of all those which pertain to cognition, therefore they had a morning cognition; but a morning cognition is in the Word and in eternal reasons:  therefore the demons still had that cognition; which is contrary to (St.) Augustine On the City (of God),7 who says of Christ, that « He was made known to the demons not through that which is Life and incommutable Light, but through certain effects of the light ».

4. Item, sicut patet ex textu, vespere praecedit mane; unde dicitur:  Factum est vespere8 etc., ergo cognitio vespertina 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.

4. Likewise, just as is patent from the text, evening preceded morning; wherefore there is said:  Evening was made8 etc., therefore an evening cognition (preceded) the morning (cognition); but an evening cognition follows the existence of things, just as is said On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, in the fourth book, where (St.) Augustine says:  « Unless what is cognized is prior, it cannot be cognized »:  therefore a morning cognition follows the evening (cognition):  therefore it is necessary [oporet], that it be after the existence of things:  therefore it was not created with the Angels from the beginning.

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 Orosium,9 et Magister dicit in littera?

Therefore there is the question, “If all were created together, in what kind of manner could an Angel cognize the things to be made [res fiendas] from the (things) first created?”  —  Again, if a morning cognition is glorious, in what manner could it be in the Angels from their first rise, since all were equal, just as (St.) Augustine seems to want (in his letter) To Orosius,9 and (as) Master (Peter) says in the text?

CONCLUSIO.

 

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

CONCLUSION

 

The Angels by their creation did not have a morning cognition, unless this be understood in the broader sense.

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

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that about this there were diverse positions, which rise up together from the diversification of (St.) Augustine’s words on this matter.

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 vis:10  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 est.11  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 cogno- / -verunt . . .

For certain (authors), attending to the words of (St.) Augustine On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, say, that when there is asked, “Whether the Angels from the beginning of their creation had a morning cognition?”, the force (of this question) is to be found [facienda] (in the word “Angels”):10 for either it is asked concerning all (the Angels), or concerning some.  If concerning all, thus they respond, that not all had (this).  For Lucifer never had a morning cognition, because he never saw the Divine Light in Itself, just as has been demonstrated in the preceding (Questions).11  But if it be asked of some; thus they say, that they had (this), because they were, together in time, created and converted to God through (the light of) glory, and in the same instant they were formed and divided from the shadows, and in the same (instant) they cognized all things according to their order and connection, and this (they did) in the Word Himself.  Which things, even if they had been founded in the same instant and together with the Angels, yet according to the foundation of the Angels and their conversion to God (other things) are posterior in nature and dignity; and for that reason it is said, that the Angels cognized in the Word the /  things to be made [res faciendas].

1  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.

2  Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 1.

3  Plures codd. creationis.

4  Art. 1. q. 1.

5  Libr. I. c. 3-5; c. 9. et c. 17.  —  XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 9. 11. 19. 20.

6  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.

7  Libr. XI. c. 21, ubi textus originalis:  sed per quaedam temporalia suae virtutis effecta pro sed per quaedam lucis effecta.

8  Gen. 1, 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.

9  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.

10  Supple cum codd. I Q bb in verbo, scil. distinguendo.

11  Art. 1. q. 1.  Cfr. etiam d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.  —  Paulo inferius post secundum et in eodem Vat. supplet instanti.

1  Chapter 32, n. 49, where the original text exhibits the last part of the words thus:  so that it would precede all other (things), first saw in the Word of God how there were made (the things which were) to be made [ut praecederet cetera, prius ea vidit in Verbo Dei facienda, quam facta sunt].  —  Very many codices have faultily afterwards [postea] for first [prius].

2  Cf. above d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 4, p. 83, footnote 1.

3  Several codices have creation [creationis].

4  In article 1, q. 1.

5  Book I, chs. 3-5, ch. 9 and ch. 17.  —  On the City of God, Bk. XI, chs. 9, 11, 19, 20.

6  Several codices, such as A H I M O add natural [naturalia].  Cf. above d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, p. 122, footnote 8.  A little above this codices M and X prefix to the word foundation [conditionis] (the word) their [suae].

7  Book XI, ch. 21, where the original text has:  but through certain temporal effects of their virtue [sed per quaedam temporalia suae virtutis effecta] for but through certain effects of the light [sed per quaedam lucis effecta].

8  Genesis 1:5.  —  The text of (St.) Augustine, which is next alleged, is loc. cit., ch. 32, n. 49.  —  Somewhat below this several codices have given to [data] for created with [concreata], and then after Therefore there is the question [Est igitur quaestio], contrary to codices B C E I cc and edition 1, there is added both in the other manuscripts and in the Vatican edition In what manner [quomodo].

9  Question 17.  —  The sentence of Master (Peter) is taken from the present Distinction, in which he says that the Angels (have) been founded equal as much as regards (their) state; but in d. III, ch. 3, under another respect, he teaches that the Angels were founded unequal.

10  Supply, together with codices I Q and bb, in the word [in verbo], namely by distinguishing.

11  Article 1, q. 1.  Cf. also d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.  —  A little below this after the second and the same [et in eodem] the Vatican edition supplies instant [instanti].

p. 140

cogno- / -verunt res faciendas.  Et illud expresse videntur sonare verba Augustini in quarto super Genesim ad litteram, circa finem.1

cognized in the Word the /  things to be made [res faciendas].  And this the words of (St.) Augustine in the fourth (book) On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, near the end seem to mean [sonare].1

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 Beatos;2 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 litteram;3 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 sapientia.4  —  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 viverent »;5 et in hoc statu dicitur matutina cognitio proprie, quae nunquam fuit nisi in Angelis beatis.  —  Et sic diversis modis loquitur Augustinus.

But since (St.) Augustine in the eleventh (book) On the City (of God) expressly seems to think the contrary — for there he says, that there was a delay between (their) creation and the fall, and that before (their) fall neither were the good (Angels) prescient of (their future) beatitude, nor the evil (Angels) of (their future) misery, nor were the former light, nor the latter shadows — for that reason, lest he seem to contradict himself, some distinguish the “morning cognition” in a twofold manner.  For (St.) Augustine calls cognition in the Word a “morning cognition”.  But (the Angels) are said to cognize in the Word in a twofold manner:  in one manner perfectly, namely by gazing upon [speculando] and by intuiting the Word Himself and in Him other (things), and this cognition makes (them) Blessed;2 in another manner by suscepting an illumination from the Word and by cognizing in that susception other (things), and this cognition was innate to the Angels, because God endowed them with the species of all (things), and expanded a light [lumen] even over the minds of the Angels, by which they would cognize (the things) made and to be made [facienda].  And this is the morning cognition, concerning which (St.) Augustine speaks On a Literal Exposition of Genesis;3 and this was in the Angels.  And through this they solve the contrariety on each side [ad utramque partem].  They also say that this (cognition) remained in the demons, but that (it was) obscured on account of (their) fault; for this reason that it is not to be called a “morning” (cognition).  —  And just as they distinguish in regard to “cognition”, so also do they distinguish in regard to “light” [luce] and in regard to “shadows” [tenebris], wherefore the Angels are said in one manner (to be) “light” [lux] on account of the irradiation proceeding from that Supernal Light according to the state of nature, through which they cognize things in their own genus by the cognition, which is said (to be) “of the evening”; and they refer (this cognition) to God, and thus it is said (to be) “of the morning”.  And “shadow” is said, through its opposed (term, to be) the ignorance, which has been excluded from the Angels; wherefore they are said to have been “filled full of wisdom”.4  —  In another manner “light” is said (to be) an Angel himself on account of the irradiation proceeding from the Most High Light according to the fullness of consummated grace or glory, by which the Angels are said (to be) « “illuminated”, so that they might live in a blessed and wise manner »;5 and in this state “morning cognition” is said properly, which (cognition) was never but in the blessed Angels.  —  And thus (St.) Augustine speaks in diverse manners.

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 infra6 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 inquirendo.7  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.

From these (considerations) the reasons for each side are clear, because the reasons for the first side are understood of a “morning cognition” said broadly, that is, in the first manner.  But the reasons for the opposite are understood of a “morning cognition” properly said, namely, (the cognition) which is through (the light of) glory.  —  And this is more appropriate [curialius] to say than to say, that (St.) Augustine says the contrary, and as one unstable says now the this, now the contrary.  For unless one distinguishes, what is said On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis rightly seems to be contrary to that which is said in the eleventh (book) On the City of God.  Yet whatever concerns the opinion of (St.) Augustine on the production of things — because below6 it is determined, since he seems to contradict the other Saints — yet it must not be believed, that so great a man contradicts himself, most of all in those (things) which he does not treat of again [retractat].  But yet [Verum] in whatsoever manner his words be understood, one must stand more upon those which are said in the book On the City of God, where he speaks by asserting, than (upon those which he says) On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, where he himself protests that he is speaking by inquiring.7  Therefore since he says there, that there truly was some delay between the creation and fall of an (evil) Angel, and through this between the glorification and the creation of a (good Angel), and a morning cognition is properly a glorious one; it must be held, that they did not have that from their foundation.

Ad auctoritates igitur in contrarium aut solvendum est, quod ipse locutus fuerit inquirendo et opinando; aut certe respondendum est per distinctionem, ut praedictum est.8

Therefore to the authorities for the contrary either one must solve (the Question by saying), that he had spoken by inquiring and opining; or one must respond in a certain manner through a distinction, as has been aforesaid.8

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

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 matutinam, quarum prima est in sensu proprio accepta et supra definita; secunda vero, in sensu largo dicta, 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 . . .

I. (St.) Augustine first distinguished the cognition of the Angels into a “morning (cognition)”, by which things are known in the Word, seen immediately as the Medium for cognizing them, and into an “evening (cognition)”, by which things are attained in their own genus through species co-created with the Angels.  This distinction, which is very true, the same uses, to explain his hypothesis, that the Six Days (Genesis, chapter 1) of the formation of the world are not days expressing a succession of time, but intelligible (days), by which there is expressed the order, in which created things were represented to the angelic intellect.  Moreover since St. Augustine in solving the question, “Whether all the Angels had from (their) first rise a morning cognition?”, does not seem to be consistent with himself in the diverse passages; there is sought here the true sentence of St. Augustine, so as to render harmonious his testimonies.  With the principles supposed in d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, established, here there is distinguished a twofold cognition of things, a morning (cognition), the first of which is accepted in the proper sense and defined above, but the second, said in a broad sense, (is) that natural cognition of things, which has been conjoined with the act of the will, which refers that cognition unto the praise of the Founder.  Neither the first nor the second morning cognition was ever had by the evil Angels.  —  The other Scholastics also expound the sentence of St. Augustine / in nearly the same manner . . .

1  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.

2  Haec insinuatur in Dialog Orosii, q. 26.  —  Paulo inferius multi codd. cum tribus primis edd. incongrue cognoscere, aliqui codd. cognoscente pro cognoscendo.

3  Praesertim libro IV. c. 22. seqq.  —  Mox Vat. falso solvit pro solvunt.

4  Cfr. August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 22-32; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. et 9.

5  August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 11.  Cfr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 10. et II. c. 8. n. 17.

6  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.

7  Libr. IX. 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.

8  In corp. quaest.

1  Chapter 22 unto the end of the book.  —   The sentence of (St.) Augustine on this matter is found in On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 11, chs. 13-15, ch. 19 f.; the same is expounded above in d. 3, p. II, a, and here in aa. 1 and 2.

2  This is insinuated in (St.) Orosius ’ Dialogue, q. 26.  —  A little below this many codices, together with three first editions have incongruously to cognize [cognocere], some codices by one cognizing [cognoscente] for by cognizing [cognoscendo].

3  Chiefly in Book IV, ch. 22 ff.  —  Next the Vatican edition has falsely he solves [solvit] for they solve [solvunt].

4  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Bk. IV, chs. 22-32; On the City of God, Bk. XI, chs. 7 and 9.

5  (St.) Augustine, On the City of God, Bk. II, ch. 11.  Cf. On a Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Bk. I, ch. 5, n. 10, and Bk. II, ch. 8, n. 17.

6  Distinction 12, a. 1, q. 2; d. 13, a. 1, q. 1.  Very many codices, contrary to codex L have thus [ita] for below [infra]; the Vatican edition with a varied interpunctuation has:  on the production of things is thus determined.  Because though he seems etc. [in productione rerum ita determinatur.  Quia licet aliis etc.].  A little below this codex cc and edition 1 have But yet [Verumtamen] for But yet [Verum].

7  Book IX, ch. 28, n. 45.  Cf. Retractations, Bk. II, ch. 24.  See more on this below in d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body of the Question near the end.  —  Next very many codices, together with three first editions have incongruously that there was a delay of the Angel between (his) creation and fall [quod Angeli mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum] for that there was truly some delay between the creation and fall of an (evil) Angel [quod vere aliqua mora fuit inter creationem et lapsum Angeli], which reading is that of codices F and V.  The Vatican edition has that in regard to an (evil) Angel there was a delay etc. [quod in Angelo mora] etc.

8  In the body of the Question.

p. 141

S. Augustini exponunt et plerumque simul hanc et seq. quaestionem tractant, exceptis Alexandro, S. Thoma in Summa, Petro et Richardo.

of St. Augustine / in nearly the same manner and very many treat this and the following Question together, with the exception of Alexander (of Hales), St. Thomas in (his) Summa., (and Bl.) Peter (of Tarentaise) and Richard (of Middleton).

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. n. 10.  —  S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 12. q. unica, a. 3; S. I. q. 58. 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. 5. 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.

II.  On each Question and (their) other annexed (considerations) there dispute at length:  Alexander of Hales., Summa., p. II, q. 23, throughout.  —  Briefly (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, Sent., Bk. II, d. 3, q. 9, n. 9 and n. 10.  —  St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. II, d. 12, q. sole, a. 3; Summa., I, q. 58, aa. 6 and 7; de Veritate., q. 8, aa. 16 and 17.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. II, tr. 4, q. 14, m. 3, a. 2, partic. 2.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. sole, aa. 5 and 6.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 4, qq. 1 and 2.   —  Giles the Roman, Sent., Bk. II, d. 13, q. 1, a. 3, lateral doubt 3.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 4.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, Sent., Bk.II, d. 3, q. 2, at the end.

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.