COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 12, a. 1, q. 2: 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 XII.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XII
ARTICULUS I. Quaestio II.	ARTICLE I Question 2
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 295-298. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 295-298. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
QUAESTIO II. Utrum materia producta sit in perfecta actualitate.	QUESTION II Whether matter was produced in perfect actuality?
SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum materia illa producta sit in perfecta actualitate. Et quod sic, videtur:	SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether that matter was produced in perfect actuality. And that (it is) so, seems:
1. Primo per textum Genesis secundo:¹ Istae sunt generationes caeli et terrae in die, qua creavit Deus caelum et terram et omne virgultum agri etc.: ergo in eodem die producta sunt quae prius dixit per sex dierum numerum fuisse distincta.	1. First through the text in the second (chapter of the Book) of Genesis:¹ These are the generations of Heaven and Earth in the Day, in which God created Heaven and Earth and every shoot [virgultum] of the field etc.: therefore on the same Day were produced what he said before were distinguished through the number of six days.
2. Item, Ecclesiastici decimo octavo:² Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul. Si omnia simul sunt creata, ergo corporalia et spiritualia et omnis corporalium differentia.	2. Likewise, in the eighteenth (chapter of the Book) of Ecclesiasticus:² He who lives unto eternity created all (things) together [simul]. If all (things) were created together, therefore corporals and spirituals and every difference of corporals (were created together).
3. Item, Iob quadragesimo:³ Ecce Behemoth, quem feci tecum; sed Behemoth est Angelus primo factus, et homo ultimo die factus: ergo omnia simul facta sunt. — His auctoritatibus arguit Augustinus pro sua opinione in hac parte.	3. Likewise, in the fortieth (chapter of the Book) of Job:³ Behold Behemoth, whom I made with you; but Behemoth is the Angel first made, and man (was) made on the last Day: therefore all (things) were made together. — With these authorities (St.) Augustine argues for his opinion on this side.
4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione. Ab agente perfectae potentiae debet exire effectus, secundum quod magis est manifestativus summae potentiae; sed maioris potentiae est posse simul omnia producere quam successive: ergo magis est declarativa divinae potentiae productio materiae cum perfecta actualitate formae simul et semel sibi collatae, quam postmodum ex illa successive eductae: si ergo Deus operatur, secundum quod eius potentiam magis decet,⁴ videtur etc.	4. Likewise, this very (thing) is shown by reason. From an agent of perfect power there ought to go forth an affect, according to what is more manifestive of most high power; but it belongs to a greater power to be able to produce all (things) together than successively: therefore more declarative of the Divine Power is the production of matter with the perfect actuality of form conferred upon it together and once [simul et semel], than educed out of it successively after a while: if, therefore God operates, according to what is more fitting [magis decet] to His Power,⁴ it seems etc..
5. Item, « perfecte sapientis est ordinare »:⁵ ergo si confusio repugnat ordinationi, videtur, quod Deus nihil produxerit cum confusione, cum sit perfecte sapiens; produxit igitur sub ordine. Sed ordo praesupponit distinctionem: ergo etc.	5. Likewise, « it belongs the one perfectly wise to order »:⁵ therefore if confusion is repugnant to a being-ordered, it seems, that God produced nothing with confusion, since He is perfectly wise; therefore He produced under an order. But order presupposes distinction: ergo etc.
6. Item, perfectio effectus attestatur perfectae bonitati in efficiente; si ergo Deus est bonitatis perfectissimae, videtur, quod statim cum producit materiam, debuit ipsam formis plene perficere, cum ipse hoc posset, et materia etiam exigeret. Si tu dicas, quod hoc non concludit, quod statim debuit perficere, sed quod ex rationabili causa et potuit et debuit differe; obiicitur contra hoc: quia natura et ars operatur quam citius potest, et de excellentia virtutis et bonitatis est, quod effectum suum compleat velociter: ergo si tam natura quam ars est imitatrix divinae artis et virtutis,⁶ videtur, quod Deus, cum statim complere potuerit, quod nulla mora temporis vel durationis distulerit.	6. Likewise, the perfection of an effect attests to the perfect goodness in the one effecting (it); if, therefore, God is of the most perfect goodness, it seems, that as soon as [statim] He produces matter, He ought to have perfected it fully with forms, since He could do this, and matter also required (this). If you say, that this does not conclude, that He ought to have perfected (it) immediately [statim], but that He both could and ought to have differed (it) for [ex] a reasonable cause; there is objected against this: because nature and art work as quickly [citius] as it can, and it concerns the excellence of virtue and goodness, that it complete its effect swiftly [velociter]: therefore if both nature and art is an imitator [imitatrix] of the Divine Art and Virtue,⁶ it seems, that God, since He could complete immediately, what He differed with no delay of time and/or duration, (produced matter in perfect actuality).
SED CONTRA: 1. Primo per textum Genesis⁷ arguitur, ubi dicitur, quod per sex dierum spatium complevit Dominus opus, quod inchoaverat: ergo videtur, quod non subito materia sit in perfecta actualitate producta, secundum sacrae Scripturae sententiam. Si igitur « maior est huius Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii perspicacitas », ut dicit Augustinus,⁸ magis standum est huic sententiae quam omni persuasioni humanae. Si dicas, quod rudibus loquebatur legislator, nec potuit simul dicere quod simul potuit Deus facere; neutra istarum responsionum videtur sufficiens, quia propter ruditatem auditoris non debet ei aliquis dare occasionem deceptionis; Moyses autem bene noverat, quod ipsi verba eius ad litteram intelligerent: ergo scienter docebat eos id, unde possent decipi et errare. Item, quamvis non simul potuerit omnia dicere et opera illa exprimere, tamen potuit exprimere, omnia simul facta esse.	BUT ON THE CONTRARY: 1. One argues first through the text of Genesis,⁷ where it is said, that through the space of the Six Days the Lord completed the work, which He had begun: therefore it seems, that matter was not suddenly [subito] produced in perfect actuality, according to the sentence of Sacred Scripture. If, therefore, « the authority of this Scripture is greater than the perspicacity of all human ingenuity [ingenii] », as (St.) Augustine⁸ says, (the argument) must stand more on this sentence than on all human persuasion. If you say, that (Moses) was speaking to the uneducated [rudibus], and that he could not say together what God was able made together; neither of these responses seem sufficient, because on account of the lack of expertise of the hearer [ruditatem auditoris] no one ought to give an occasion for deception; but Moses knew well, that they would understand his very words according to the letter [ad litteram]: therefore knowingly he taught them that, whence they could be deceived and err. Likewise, though he could not say all together and express those works, yet he could express, that all were made together.
¹ Vers. 4. — Paulo inferius plures codd. omittunt sex. ² Vers. 1. ³ Vers. 10. — Sententiam Augustini vide IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 33. n. 52. seqq.; V. c. 3. n. 5. seqq. et c. 23. n. 44. seqq.; IV. c. 1. seq.; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 6, seq. ⁴ Deut. 32, 4: Dei perfecta sunt opera. — Paulo ante non pauci codd. successione eductae pro successive eductae. ⁵ Aristot., I. Metaph. c. 2. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 685, nota 1. — Cod. cc cum ed. 1 et Vat. ordinate operari. Paulo inferius cod. Y sub confusione pro cum confusione, et deinde post sub ordine cod. O bene addit omnia. ⁶ Cfr. August., 83 Qq. q. 78. ⁷ Cap. 2, 2, ubi Vulgata patrarat pro inchoaverat. ⁸ Libr. II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 9.	¹ Verse 4. — A little below this several codices omit six [sex]. ² Verse 1. ³ Verse 10. — See the sentence of (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IV, ch. 32, n. 52 ff.; Bk. V, ch. 3, n. 5 ff and in ch. 23, n. 44 ff.; Bk. IV, ch. 1 f.; On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 6 f.. ⁴ Dt. 32:4: God’s works are perfect [Dei perfecta sunt opera]. — A little before this not a few codices have in succession [successione] for successively [succesive]. ⁵ Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. I, ch. 2. Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 39, a. 1, q. 1, p. 685, footnote 1. — Codex cc, together with edition 1 and the Vatican edition, reads to operate in an ordinate manner [ordinate operari]. A little below this codex Y has under a confusion [sub confusione] for with confusion [confusione], and then after under an order [sub ordine] codex O adds well all (things) [omnia]. ⁶ Cf. (St.) Augustine, Eighty-Three Questions, q. 78. ⁷ Chapter 2, verse 2, where the Vulgate has He had accomplished [patrarat] for He had begun [inchoaverat]. ⁸ On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. II, ch. 5, n. 9.

p. 296

2. Item, Chrysostomus super Ioannem, homilia vigesima secunda¹ ait, « quod simul exstitit per substantiam materiae non simul apparuit per speciem formae »: ergo non videtur, quod simul producta sit sub formis. — Ad hoc sunt auctoritates communiter Sanctorum et doctorum, ut Ambrosii,² Hieronymi, Gregorii, Basilii, Dionysii et Damasceni et aliorum plurium, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum.	2. Likewise, (St. John) Chrysostom in (his) twenty-second homily On (the Gospel of St.) John¹ says, « that what existed together through the substance of matter did not appear together through the specie of form »: therefore it does not seem, that (matter) was produced together under forms. — For this (side) are commonly the authorities of the Saints and doctors (of theology), such as (Sts.) Ambrose,² Jerome, Gregory (the Great), Basil, Dionysius (the Areopagite) and (John) Damascene and several others, both Greeks and Latins.
3. Item, per rationem videtur hoc ipsum. Quamvis Deus posset statim hominem in beatitudine collocare et universum in ea perfectione, in qua erit post iudicium, facere; maluit tamen ordinem servare non solum in mundi existentia, sed etiam in decursu, quia efficacius sic manifestatur eius sapientia.³ Ergo similiter videtur, quod in primario rerum exitu non tantummodo servaverit ordinem quantum ad ipsum esse, sed etiam quantum ad ipsum producere sive facere: ergo non videtur, quod omnia simul produxerit, sed successive.	3. Likewise, this very (thing) seems through reason. Though God could have immediately located man completely in beatitude and made the universe in that perfection, in which it will be after the Judgment; yet He preferred to observe [maluit servare] an order not only in the standing-forth [existentia] of the world, but also in (its) course [decursu], because in this manner His Wisdom is more efficaciously manifested.³ Therefore it seems similarly, that in the primary going-forth [exitu] of things He not only observed an order as much as regards ‘being’, but even as much as regards producing or making it: therefore it does not seem, that He produces all (things) together, but successively.
4. Item, divina potentia non tantum manifestatur in productione formae, sed etiam tantum et amplius manifestatur in eductione materiae; materia autem secundum maiorem sui capacitatem magis declarat efficientis potestatem. Sed tanto maior est capacitas in materia, quanto maior est in ea informitas; si ergo ad manifestationem divinae potentiae debuit materia produci capax, secundum quod erat possibile, videtur, quod Deus debuit eam producere in tanta informitate, in quanta materia posset aliquo modo subsistere: ergo non sub perfecta formarum distinctione.	4. Likewise, the Divine Power is not only manifested in the production of form, but It is manifested as much as more in the eduction of matter; but mater according to its greater capacity declares the power of the One effecting (it) more. But as much as the capacity in matter is greater, so much is the formlessness in it greater; if, therefore for the manifestation of the Divine Power matter ought to have been produced capable [capax], according to what was possible, it seems, that God ought to have produced it in so great a formlessness, as matter could subsist in some manner: therefore not under a perfect distinction of forms.
5. Item, impossibile est, dies materiales⁴ simul esse: ergo impossibile est hoc intelligere, quod Deus simul omnia produxerit, et tamen ea produxerit per sex dies. Oportet ergo secundum positionem, quae ponit, omnia simul esse producta, senarium illum dierum intelligere spiritualiter, et ita lucem spiritualem et noctem spiritualem. Ergo si haec omnia simul producta sunt, in primo instanti divisa est lux a tenebris, id est boni Angeli a malis: ergo non fuit mora inter creationem et lapsum, quod est supra⁵ improbatum, et ostensum est esse contra Augustinum.	5. Likewise, it is impossible, that the material⁴ Days be together: therefore it is impossible to understand this, that God produced all (things) together, and yet He did produce them through the Six Days. Therefore it is necessary [Oportet] according to the position, which posits, that all (things) were produced together, to understand that group of six days spiritually, and thus the light as a spiritual one and the night as a spiritual one. Therefore if all these were produced together, in the first instant light was divided from darkness, that is the good Angels from the evil ones: therefore there was not delay between (their) creation and lapse, which has been disproven above,⁵ and has been shown to be contrary to (St.) Augustine.
6. Item, cum sacra Scriptura ordinat opera sex dierum, aut ordinat quantum ad ordinem durationis, aut quantum ad ordinem naturae, aut quantum ad ordinem dignitatis. Si quantum ad ordinem dignitatis: ergo cum homo sit dignissima creaturarum, debuit eius productio attribui primae diei. Si quantum ad ordinem naturae: ergo productio solis et lunae⁶ ante productionem plantarum et herbae. Restat igitur, hoc esse dictum quantum ad ordinem temporis sive durationis.	6. Likewise, when Sacred Scripture orders the works of the Six Days, either she orders (them) as much as regards the order of duration, or as much as regards the order of nature, or as much as regards the order of dignity. If as much as regards the order of dignity: therefore since man is the most worthy of creatures, his production ought to have been attributed to the First Day. If as much as regards the order of nature: therefore the production of Sun and of the Moon (ought to have been)⁶ before the production of the plants and grass. Therefore it remains, that this has been said as much as regards the order of time or duration.
CONCLUSIO. Probabilius est, omnia corporalia simul esse creata secundum materiam, non autem simul, sed per sex dies esse distincta secundum formam.	CONCLUSION It is more probable, that all corporals were created together according to matter, but were distinguished according to form not together, but through the Six Days.
RESPONDEO: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hanc quaestionem diversae fuerunt Sanctorum opiniones.	I RESPOND: For an understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted, that about this question the opinions of the Saints were diverse.
Quidam enim Sancti in hac quaestione magis secuti sunt viam theologicam, trahentes rationem ad ea quae sunt fidei. Quidam vero, inter quos praecipuus fuit Augustinus, magis secuti sunt viam philosophicam, quae illa ponit, quae magis videntur rationi consona; unde et intellectum Scripturae traxit ad rationis confirmationem et attestationem. Unde cum videatur rationabilius, a summa potentia omnia produci simul, et mora temporis interiacentis nullius videatur esse utilitatis vel necessitatis; posuit, omnia simul esse producta, suam positionem confirmans per auctoritates sacrae Scripturae, et exponens illud quod videtur sibi contraire, videlicet de dierum distinctione, ostendens, quod illi dies non fuerunt dies materiales, sed potius spirituales, qui omnes simul potuerunt esse. — Et haec positio multum fuit rationabilis et vale subtilis.	For in this question certain Saints have followed more the way of theology, drawing reason to those which belong to the Faith. But certain ones, among whom the chief one was (St.) Augustine, have followed more the way of philosophy, which posits those, which seem more consonant with reason; wherefore since it seems more reasonable, that from a most high power all (things) are produced together, and (since) a delay of no intermediary [interiacentis] time seems to be of utility and/or necessity; he posited, that all (things) were produced together, confirming his position through the authorities of Sacred Scripture, and expounding that which seems to go against him, namely concerning the distinction of the Days, showing, that those Days were not material days, but rather spiritual ones, which could all be together. — And this position was very reasonable and very subtle.
Verumtamen, quia ad hanc positionem videtur intellectus Scripturae distrahi, et securius est et magis meritorium, intellectum nostrum et rationem omnino Scripturae supponere, quam ipsam aliquo modo distrahere: ideo communiter alii doctores, et qui praecesserunt Augustinum, et qui secuti sunt, sic intellexerunt et posuerunt, sicut textus et littera sacrae Scripturae Genesis sonare videtur. Unde posuerunt, omnia corporalia simul esse creata in materia, sed non simul, sed per senarium dierum, esse distincta in forma. — Hanc positionem, etsi minus videatur rationabilis quam alia, non tamen . . .	Nevertheless, because the understanding of Scripture seems to be drawn away [distrahi] to this position, and (because) it is more secure and more meritorious, that we submit [supponere] our intellect and reason entirely to Scripture, than to break the latter up [eam distrahere] in any manner: for that reason the other doctors, both those who preceded (St.) Augustine, and those who followed (him), thus commonly understood and posited (the matter), just as the text and letter of the Sacred Scripture of Genesis seems to sound. Wherefore they posited, that all corporals were created together in (their) matter, but not together, but through a group of six days, were they distinguished in form. — This position, even if it seems less reasonable than the other, yet it is not / irrational . . .
¹ Hom. 22. (alias 21.) n. 1, ubi in explicatione illius verbi Nondum venit hora mea (Ioan. 2, 4.) ait: Verum per haec dicta hoc vult significare, se omnia congruenti tempore operari nec simul facere, ne hinc rerum ordo turbaretur, si non opportuno tempore singula ederet, sed omnia simul misceret, generationem, resurrectionem, iudicium. Hic animum adhibe: oportuit creaturam facere, sed non omnem simul; hominem et mulierem, sed non una ambos. Idem docet hom. 2. n. 4. et hom. 3. n. 3. seq. in cap. 1. Gen. — Ipsa autem verba huius sententiae invenitur in Gregor., XXXII. Moral. c. 12. n. 16: Rerum quippe substantia simul creata est, sed simul species formata non est; et quod simul exstitit per substantiam materiae, non simul apparuit per speciem formae. ² Libr. I. Hexaëm. c. 7. seq. — Hieron., Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, 1, 3. seq. — Gregorii verba vide in nota praecedente. — Basil., Hom. 2. in Hexaëm. — Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 4. et c. 5. § 7. seq. — Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 5. seqq. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. seqq. ³ Cfr. verba Chrysost. hic nota 1. ⁴ Codd. H W bb substituunt naturales pro materiales; sed infra in corp. legitur etiam in his materiales. ⁵ Dist. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. ⁶ Supple cum cod. aa debuit esse, pro quo Vat. fuit. Eadem Vat. dein planetarum et herbarum pro plantarum et herbae substituit.	¹ Homily 22 (alias 21), n. 1, where in the explanation of this verse My hour has not yet come (Jn. 2:4) he says: Truly through these sayings he wants to signify this, that He works all at a congruent time nor does He do (them) together, lest the order of things be disturbed from this, if He would not put forth each at an opportune time, but would mix all together, the generation, the Resurrection, the Judgment. Here employ the spirit: it was opportune that He made the creature, but not all together; man and women, but not body by one (creation). He teaches the same in Homily 2, n. 4, and Homily 3, n. 3 f., on the first chapter of Genesis. — But the words themselves of this sentence are found in (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great), Morals on the Book of Job., Bk. XXXII, ch. 12, n. 16: Indeed the substance of things was created together, but the species was not formed together; and what existed together through the substance of matter, did not appear together through the species of form. ² On the Hexaëmeron, Bk. I, ch. 7 f.. — (St.) Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, 1:3 f.. — See the words of (St.) Gregory in the preceding footnote. — (St.) Basil, On the Hexaëmeron, Homily 2. — (St.) Dionysius (the Areopagite), On the Divine Names, ch. 4, § 4, and ch. 5, § 7 f.. — (St. John) Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 5, ff.. — Cf. here the text of Master (Peter), ch. 3 ff.. ³ Cf. the words of (St. John) Chrysostom, here in footnote 1. ⁴ Codices H W and bb substitute natural [naturales] for material [materiales]; but below in the body of the Question there is also read material [materiales]. ⁵ Distinction 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 f.. ⁶ Supply, together with codex aa, ought to have been [debuit esse], in place of which the Vatican edition has was [fuit]. The same Vatican edition then substitutes planets and green plants [planetarum et herbarum] for plants and grass [plantarum et herbae].

p. 297

est irrationabile sustinere. Quamvis enim ratio non percipiat huius positionis congruitatem, prout considerationi suae innititur, percipit tamen, prout sub lumine fidei captivatur. Est enim huius successivae formationis et distinctionis ratio quadruplex, videlicet litteralis, moralis, allegorica et anagogica.	yet it is not / irrational to sustain. For though reason does not perceive the congruity of this position, insofar as it leans upon [innititur] its consideration, yet it does perceive (this), insofar as it is captivated under the light of faith. For for this successive formation and distinction there is a fourfold reason, namely the literal, the moral, the allegorical and the anagogical.
Litteralis in hoc, quod Deus non tantum intendit facere quod potest, quantum¹ etiam communicare creaturae quod potest recipere. Unde cum possit dare beatitudinem absque meritis, vult tamen quod mereamur. Sic cum posset statim perficere materiam, maluit tamen ipsam sub quadam informitate et imperfectione facere, ut ex sua imperfectione quasi materia ad Deum clamaret, ut ipsam perficeret. Et hoc idem voluit per senarium dierum differre, ut in perfectione numeri simul ostenderetur perfectio universi.² Secundum enim arithmeticum senarius est numerus perfectus, quia constat ex omnibus suis partibus aliquotis, ita quod nec defecit nec excrescit. Partes autem aliquotae dicuntur, quae sumtae aliquoties reddunt totum.³	The literal (reason) in this, that God did not so much intend to make what He is able (to make), as¹ also to communicate to the creature what it was able to receive. Wherefore though He can give beatitude apart from merits, yet He wills that we merit. Thus, though He could perfect matter immediately, yet He preferred to make it under a certain formlessness and imperfection, so that out of its imperfection matter might as if shout to God, to perfect it. And this same did He will to differ through a group of six days, so that in the perfection of the number there might be shown together the perfection of the universe.² For according to arithmetic a group of six is a perfect number, because it is established out of all its aliquot parts [partibus aliquotis], such that it neither fails nor grows [excrescit] (from them). Moreover they are said to be “aliquot parts”, which taken several times [aliquoties] render the total.³
Ratio moralis est, ut in hoc erudiatur homo, quod sicut natura corporea per se ipsam informis existit, tunc autem formatur, cum divina bonitas cuius informitati tribuit formam; sic anima formari non potest per se ipsam, nisi Deus gratiam suam infundat.⁴ Cui etiam senarius numerus attestatur, quia tempus est merendi per universum tempus vitae praesentis, ut postmodum detur homini quies, quia non pervenitur ad perfectionem meriti usque ad consummationem gratiae finalis, post quam nulla sequitur vespera; et ideo dies septimus non habet sibi assignatum vespere in Scriptura.⁵	The moral reason is, that in this man be instructed, that just as corporeal nature exists formless through its very self, but is then formed, when the Divine Goodness grants form to its formlessness; so the soul cannot be formed through its very self, unless God infused His own grace.⁴ To which even the number of a group of six attests, because the time for meriting by each and every one [per universum] is the time of the present life, so that after a while there may be given man rest, because one does not arrive ad the perfection of merit until [usque ad] the consummation of the final grace, after which no Vespers [vespera] follows; and for that reason the Seventh Day does not have assigned to it an evening [vespere] in Scripture.⁵
Allegorica vero ratio est, quia, sicut expresse Augustinus⁶ ostendit, in illa prima mundi conditione, quae distincta est per senarium, totum spatium decursus mundi praesentis secundum sex aetates praesignatur: ut primus dies primae aetati respondeat, secundus secundae, et sic deinceps, secundum quod plane adaptat Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram;⁷ quod hic longum esset repetere.	However the allegorical (reason) is, because, just as (St.) Augustine⁶ expressly shows, in that first foundation of the world, which (foundation) was distinguished through a group of six, the whole space of the course of the present world is presaged [praesignatur] according to six ages: so that the First Day responds to the First Age, the Second to the Second, and thus one after the other [sic deinceps], according to what (St.) Augustine plainly adapts On a Literal Exposition of Genesis;⁷ which would be long to repeat here.
Ratio autem anagogica est, ut in illa dierum distinctione intelligatur perfectio cognitionis in angelica natura beatificata, secundum quod plane ostendit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram quasi per totum,⁸ quod ideo vocat ad litteram, quia expositionem istam, quam alii reputabant anagogicam, dixit Legislatorem intendisse ad litteram. Nihil tamen ibi asserendo dicit, sed protestatur ipse, modo inquisitorio se ibi procedere. Et sicut patet ex eius intentione ibidem,⁹ magis volebat intellectum ex Scriptura elicere, ex quo Scriptura non posset a viri philosophicis derideri, nec propter hoc aliquis, naturali philosophia imbutus, a fidei veritate retardi, sicut ipse aliquando fuerat retardatus, magis, inquam, quam intellectum principalem exponere, quem ibi habuit Legislator; et magis intendit ostendere, quid congruum fuerit vel tunc esse potuerit, quam quid factum fuerit. Et in duodecimo Confessionum¹⁰ ostendit, quod una et eadem Scriptura multipliciter potest intelligi, et in omnibus sensibus vere, quorum nullus Spiritum sanctum latuit, ex cuius inspiratione Scriptura edita fuit. Et in hoc manifeste ostendit, quod aliis non contradicit. — Hanc igitur positionem sustinendo, ad obiecta in contrarium respondendum est.	But the anagogical reason is, that in that distinction of Days there be understood the perfection of cognition in the beatified angelic nature, according to what (St.) Augustine plainly shows On a Literal Exposition of Genesis through almost the whole (work),⁸ wherefore he calls (it) “literal” [ad litteram] for this reason, because that exposition of his, which others reputed anagogical, he said the Lawgiver intended according to the letter [ad litteram]. Yet nothing does he says there by asserting, but he himself protests, that he proceeds there in an inquisitory manner. And just as is clear from his intention in the same place,⁹ he wanted rather to elicit an understanding from Scripture, out of which (understanding) Scripture could not be derided by the men of philosophy, nor anyone on account of this, imbued with natural philosophy, be held back [retardi] by a truth of the Faith, just as he himself had at some time been held back, rather, I say, than to expound the principal understanding, which the Lawgiver had there; and he intended to show rather, what was congruent and/or could be at that time, than what had be done. And in the twelfth (book) of the Confessions¹⁰ he shows, that one and the same Scripture can be understood in a multiple manner, and (that) in all (its) senses, none of which lay hidden to the Holy Spirit, Scripture was truly given forth [edita fuit] out of His inspiration. And in this he manifestly shows, that he does not contradict the others. — Therefore by sustaining this position, one must respond to the objections unto the contrary.
1. Ad illud enim quod primo obiicitur de textu Genesis, dicendum, quod illud dictum est per recapitulationem, et iste terminus die ibi confunditur, ut teneatur pro diversis diebus, vel tenetur zeugmatice,¹¹ ut reddatur singulis membris illius recapitulationis.	1. For to that which is objected first concerning the text of Genesis, it must be said, that that has been said through a recapitulation, and that term “day” [die] is confounded there, so that it is held for the diverse Days, and/or is held zeugmatically [zeugmatice],¹¹ so as to be rendered to the individual [singulis] members of that recapitulation.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ecclesiastici decimo octavo:¹² Qui vivit in aeternum etc.; dicendum quod Scriptura facit vim inter creare et facere. Nam creationem vocat productionem ex nihilo, factionem vero ipsam distinctionem; et hoc bene significatur Genesis secundo, ubi dicitur, quod cessavit ab omni opere suo, quod creavit, ut faceret. Omnes igitur Sancti in hoc concordant, quod omnia sunt simul producta in materia; et ideo concedunt, omnia simul esse creata, sed tamen non simul facta.	2. To that which is objected concerning the eighteenth (chapter) of Ecclesiasticus:¹² He who lives unto eternity etc.; it must be said, that Scripture makes a distinction [facit vim] between “creating” and “making”. For she calls the production out of nothing the “creation”, but the very distinction (of things) the “making”; and this is well signified in the second (chapter) of Genesis, where it is said, that He ceased from all His work, which He had created, to do. Therefore all the Saints agree in this, that all (things) were produced together in (their) matter; and for that reason they concede that all (things) were created together, but yet were not made together.
¹ Cod. Q praemittit nec. Vat. substituit tantum et bis quantum potest pro quod potest. Cod. bb post etiam a manu suppari addit intendit. Sed lectiones codd. et edd. sunt parum congruae. ² Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 9. seq. ³ Cfr. August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 2. n. 2. seqq. et Bonav. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4, scholion. — Paulo superius unus alterque cod. cum edd. 2, 3 Augustinum pro arithmeticum. ⁴ Vide August., I. contra Advers. legis et proph. c. 8. n. 11. ⁵ Gen. 2, 3. seq. — Cfr. August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 18. n. 31. ⁶ Libr. I. de Genesi contra Manich. c. 23. n. 35. seqq.; XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 30. n. 5; IV. de Trin. c. 4. n. 7; Enarrat. in Ps. 92. n. 1. ⁷ Intellige: Librum I. de Genesi contra Manichaeos, c. 23. n. 35. seqq., cuius ipse Augustinus, VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 2. n. 5, mentionem facit. — Paulo superius cod. aa praefiguratur pro praesignatur. ⁸ Praecipue libr. IV. c. 21. n. 38. seqq. — August., II. Retract. c. 24. n. 1. ait: Titulus eorum librorum inscribitur de Genesi ad litteram, id est, non secundum allegoricas significationes, sed secundum rerum gestarum proprietatem. In quo opere plura quaesita quam inventa sunt, et eorum quae inventa sunt, pauciora firmata, cetera vero ita posita, velut adhuc requirenda sint. Cfr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 1, c. 17. n. 34, c. 21. n. 41; IV. c. 28. n. 45. et VIII. c. 1. n. 4. seq.; I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 1. seq. — Cod. T quem ideo pro quod ideo. ⁹ Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19-21; IX. c. 12. n. 22. — In fine propositionis non pauci codd. cum ed. 2 gratum, Vat. creatum pro congruum, quod tamen recurrit etiam infra d. 15. dub. 3, in quo respicitur hic locus; dein post vel tunc ex pluribus codd. et ed. 1 supplevimus esse. ¹⁰ Cap. 18-32. ¹¹ A Graeco vocabulo xeugma i. e. connexo, per quod apud grammaticos significatur illa dictionis figura, qua plura (plures sensus) uno verbo connectuntur. — Verbum confunditur accipitur pro distribuitur; cfr. I. Sent. d. 4. q. 1, scholion. ¹² Vers. 1. — Seq. textus est Gen. 2, 3, ubi Vulgata post creavit subiungit Deus.	¹ Codex Q reads God did not intended to make as much as He is able, nor to communicate to the creature even as much as it is able to receive [Deus non tantum intendit facere quod potest, nec quantum etiam communicare creaturae quod potest recipere] by adding nor [nec] and the beginning of the second clause. The Vatican edition reads God did not intend only to make as much as He is able, as much as to communicate to the creature as much as it is able to receive [Deus non tantum intendit facere quantum potest, tantum quantum etiam communicare creaturae quantum potest recipere]. Codex bb has in an unequal hand He intended [etiam intendit] at also [etiam]. But the readings of the codices and edition are on a little congruous. ² Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. I, ch. 4, n. 9 f.. ³ Cf. (St.) Augustine, loc. cit., Bk. IV, ch. 2, n. 2 ff. and (St.) Bonaventure, Sent., Bk. I, d. 2, q. 4, in the Scholium. — A little above this one or the other codex, together with edition 2 and 3, has (St.) Augustine [Augustinum] for arithmetic [arithmeticum]. ⁴ See (St.) Augustine, Against the Adversaries of the Law and the Prophets, Bk. I, ch. 8, n. 11. ⁵ Gen. 2:3 f.. — Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IV, ch. 18, n. 31. ⁶ On Genesis against the Manichees, Bk. I, ch. 4, n. 7; Enarrations on the Psalms, Ps. 92, n. 1. ⁷ Understand: On Genesis against the Manichees, Bk. I, ch. 23, n. 35 ff., of which (St.) Augustine himself makes mention in On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VIII, ch. 2, n. 5. — A little above this codex aa has prefigured [praefiguratur] for presaged [praesignatur]. ⁸ Chiefly in Book IV, ch. 21, n. 38 ff.. — (St.) Augustine, Retractations, Bk. II, ch. 24, n. 1, says: The title of these books is inscribed On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, that is, not according to (their) allegorical significations, but according to the propriety of the things done. In which work more have been asked than found, and of those which have been found, fewer confirmed [firmata], but all the others so posited, as to be still sought again. Cf. On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. I, ch. 1, n. 1; ch. 17, n. 34; ch. 21, n. 41; Bk. IV, ch. 28, n. 45, and Bk. VIII, ch. 1, n. 4 f.; On Genesis against the Manichees, Bk. I, ch. 1 f.. — Codex T has which he calls [quem] for wherefore he calls (it) [quod]. ⁹ On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. I, chs. 19-21; Bk. IX, ch. 12, n. 22. — At the end of the proposition not a few codices, together with edition 2, have pleasing [gratum], the Vatican edition has created [creatum] for congruent [congruum], which however recurs also below in d. 15, Doubt 3, in which there is a reference to this passage; then after and/or could [vel tunc] we have supplied from several codices and edition 1 the be [esse]. ¹⁰ Chapters 18-32. ¹¹ From the Greek term xeugma, i. e. connected, through which there is signified by grammarians that figure of speech, in which several things or senses are connected by one word [Trans. note: as in the clause: God gave light to eyes and minds, “light” is held zeugmatically, because in one sense it is to be understood of corporeal light, in the other of intellectual or spiritual light.]. — The verb confounded is to be accepted here for distributed, cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 4, q. 1, Scholium. ¹² Verse 1. — The following text is Gen. 2:3, where the Vulgate subjoins God [Deus] at He had created [creavit].

p. 298

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Iob quadragesimo, dicendum, quod Gregorius¹ exponit, quod tecum dicit ibi simultatem non temporis, sed similitudinem rationis, quasi dicat, ecce Behemoth, quem feci tecum, id est tibi similem in rationis capacitate.	3. To that which is objected concerning the fortieth (chapter) of Job, it must be said, that (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great)¹ expounds, that “with you” [tecum] means there a togetherness [simultatem] not of time, but the similitude of reason, as if He says, “Behold Behemoth, whom I made with you”, that is “similar to you in the capacity of reason”.
4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maioris potentiae est declarativum, producere multa simul; dicendum, quod Deus potentiam suam magis intendebat manifestare in production de non-esse in esse quam postmodum in formatione; ibi enim magis manifestat sapientiam et bonitatem. Et ut singillatim et distinctim et appropriatim in productione effectuum manifestaretur perfectio potentiae, sapientiae et bonitatis; placuit divino Auctori praemittere opus creationis, postmodum subiungere opus distinctionis, postremo vero opus ornatus et decorationis. Et in primo manifestatur potentia, in secundo sapientia, in tertio vero bonitas perfecta, licet omnia in quolibet horum manifestari possint. Et ideo² bene manifestata sunt post consummatum esse rerum illa tria, sicut si in principio statim materia fuisset producta et distincta et ornata. — Et per hoc patent duo sequentia, quae procedunt consimili via, videlicet de bonitatis et sapientiae perfectione. Illae enim rationes non concludunt, nisi quod Deus materiam in informitate non debuit relinquere, quia hoc esset contra ordinem et perfectionem; sed dum fecit informem, ut formaret, et imperfectam, ut perficeret, ostendit, et perfectionem et ordinem a se materiae dari. Et si tu obiicias, quod ad perfectionem omnium horum spectat velociter effectum perficere et ordinare³ et distinguere; dicendum, quod illud verum est, ubi agens agit secundum totum suum posse, ubi vero condescendit possibilitati et infirmitati et utilitati alienae, non habet veritatem; et sic est in proposito. Sicut enim Deus sacram Scripturam nobis tradidit quasi rudi modo et inepto, ut quilibet posset capere et intelligere, cum tamen in Christo sint infiniti thesauri sapientiae et scientiae;⁴ sic etiam in formatione rerum, quantum decebat, condescendit modo naturae et etiam eruditioni rationalis creaturae. Et quia ex illa dilatione homo erudiebatur, sicut prius visum est; ideo placuit divinae potentiae, bonitati et sapientiae, rerum formas sub dierum successione distinguere, cum tamen posset eis subito materiam distinguere et ornare.	4. 5. 6. To that which is objected, that it is declarative of a greater power, to produce many (things) together; it must be said, that God intended to manifest His own Power more in the production of ‘not-being’ [non-esse] into ‘being’ [esse] than afterwards in formation; for in the latter [ibi] He manifests more (His) Wisdom and Goodness. And so that the perfection of (His) Power, Wisdom and Goodness might be manifested the production of effects singly and distinctly and appropriately; it pleased the Divine Author send first [praemittere] the work of creation, (and) after a while subjoin the work of distinction; but lastly the work of ornamenting and of decoration. And in the first there is manifested (His) Power, in the second (His) Wisdom, but in the third (His) perfect Goodness, though all can be manifested in any of these. And for that reason these three have been² well manifested after the ‘to be’ [esse] of things (was) consummated, just as if in the beginning matter had been immediately produced and distinguished and ornamented. — And through this there are clear the two following, which proceed in a consimilar way, namely from the perfection of goodness and wisdom. For those reasons do not conclude, except that God ought not have left mater in formlessness, because this would be contrary to order and perfection; but so long as He made (it) formless, to form (it), and imperfect, to perfect (it), He shows, that both a perfection and an order are given to matter by Himself. And if you object, that to the perfection of all these pertains the perfecting and ordering³ and distinguishing swiftly of an effect; it must be said, that is true, where the agent acts according to his whole ‘being able’ [posse], but where one condescends to the possibility and infirmity and utility of another, it does not have truth; and thus it is in the proposed. For just as God handed Sacred Scripture down to us as if in an rough and inept manner, so that anyone could grasp and understand (it), though, however, in Christ there are infinite treasures of wisdom and knowledge;⁴ so also in the formation of things, as much as was fitting [decebat], He condescends now to the nature and even to the erudition of the rational creature. And because man was instructed on account of that postponing (of revelation), just as was seen before; for that reason it pleased the Divine Power, Goodness and Wisdom, to distinguish the forms of things under the succession of days, even though He could have immediately [subito] distinguished and ornamented matter by them.
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. S. Augustinus ob rationes, quae hic ad opposit. tactae sunt, singularem expositionem duorum primorum capitulorum Genesis fecit, quam S. Thom. (hic q. unica, a. 2.) sic explicat: « Augustinus enim vult, in ipso creationis principio quasdam res per species suas distinctas fuisse in natura propria, ut elementa, corpora caelestia et substantias spirituales, alia vero in rationibus seminalibus tantum, ut animalia, plantas et homines, quae omnia postmodum in naturis propriis producta sunt in illo opere, quo post senarium illorum dierum Deus naturam prius conditam administrat . . . Nec in distinctione rerum attendendum esse ordinem temporis, sed naturae et doctrinae: naturae, sicut sonus praecedit cantum natura, sed non tempore; et ita quae naturaliter priora sunt prius facta memoratur, sicut terra prius quam animalia, et aqua prius quam pisces, et sic de aliis; doctrinae vero ordine, sicut patet in docentibus geometriam. Quamvis enim partes figurae sine ordine temporis figuram constituant, tamen geometria docet, constitutionem fieri protrahendo lineam post lineam » etc. Unde August. sex dies creationis intellexit esse spirituales, quia una dies, distincta secundum diversa rerum genera, sex illuminationibus ab intellectu angelico cognoscitur (cfr. infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1.). — Sed aliorum Ss. Patrum communis interpretatio sex illos dies intellexit in ordine temporis sibi succedentes; quam sententiam Scholastici communiter magis verbis s. Scripturae consonam et magis securam esse censebant. Sed de sententia S. Augustini S. Thomas (loc. cit.) dicit: « Haec opinio plus mihi placet »; cui consentiunt B. Albert. et Uldaricus; alii autem ob auctoritatem S. Augustini eam aestimant esse probabilem et valde rationabilem. — Licet igitur fide certum sit, mundum a Deo esse creatum nec esse aeternum, tamen circa modum et ordinem distinctionis rerum et circa interpretationem illorum capitulorum Genesis diversae semper fuerunt sententiae in Ecclesia. Sapienter autem cavendum esse admonet S. Thom. (de Potent. q. 4. a. 1.), « ne aliquis ita Scripturam ad unum sensum cogere velit, quod alios sensus, qui in se veritatem continent et possunt, salva circumstantia litterae, Scripturae aptari, penitus excludantur ».*	I. St. Augustine because of the reason, which have been touched upon here in the Contrary, gave a singular exposition of the first two chapters of Genesis, which St. Thomas (here in the q. sole, a. 2) explains thus: « For (St.) Augustine wants, that at the very beginning of creation certain things were distinguished through their species in their own nature, such as the elements, the celestial bodies and the spiritual substances, but that others were only (distinguished) in seminal reasons, such as the animals, the plants and men, which all were produces after a while in their own natures in that work, in which God administered the prior founded nature after the group of those Six Days . . . Nor in the distinction of things must one attend to the order of time, but (to that) of nature and doctrine: of nature, just as the sound precedes the song in nature, but not in time; and thus there is commemorated those which are naturally prior are mentioned as done before, just as the Earth (is mentioned) before the animals, and the water before the fish, and thus concerning the others, but the order of doctrine, just as is clear in (those) teaching geometry. For although the parts of figure constitute the figure without an order of time, yet geometry teaches, that (their) constitution is to be done by protracting line after line » etc. Wherefore (St.) Augustine understood the Six Days of creation to be spiritual ones, because one day, distinguished according to the diverse genera of things, is cognized by the angelic intellect in six illuminations (cf. below d. 13, a. 1, q. 1). — But the common interpretation of the other Holy Fathers understood those Six Days as succeeding one another in the order of time; which sentence the Scholastics commonly judged to be more consonant with the words of Sacred Scripture and more secure. But concerning the sentence of St. Augustine, St. Thomas (loc. cit.) says: « This opinion pleases me more »; to which there consent Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) and Ulric (his disciple); but the others on account of the authority of St. Augustine judge that it is probable and very reasonable. — Therefore though it is certain by faith, that the world was created by God and that it is not eternal, yet about the manner and order of the distinction of things and about the interpretation of those chapters of Genesis there were always diverse sentences in the Church. But wisely does St. Thomas (de Potentia., q. 4, a. 1) admonish that one must beware, « lest anyone wish to so force Scripture to one sense, that the other senses, which contain in themselves the truth and can be, saving the circumstances of the text, adapted to the Scripture, be thoroughly excluded ».*
Hoc monitum pro nostra aetate eo maioris momenti esse videtur, quia ex ipsa rerum naturalium scientia nova orta sunt systemata, vel potius magna ex parte coniecturae circa geogoniam, ut dicunt, quae ex positione et ordine rerum destructarum, praecipue organicarum, sub terra latentium, res istas successive, per longos* periodos et certo quodam ordine productas esse concludunt. Nec desunt nostra aetate catholici auctores, qui egregie licet diversis viis, probaverunt, ea quae certa explorataque sunt secundum scientiam naturalem, nullo modo contradicere verbis s. Scripturae, immo potius eadem confirmare.	This warning seems to be of greater moment for this our age, because out of the very science of natural things there have arisen new and/or rather great systems on the part of conjecture about geogony [geogoniam], as they say, which conclude from the position and order of destroyed things, chiefly (those) organic, lying under the earth, that these things have been produced successive, through longs periods and in a certain order. Nor are there lacking in our age catholic authors, who prove egregiously, though in diverse ways, that those (systems) which are certain and explored according to natural science, in no manner contradict the words of Sacred Scripture, nay rather confirm the same.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 46. m. 1-4, q. 49. m. 2. — Scot., apud Hier. de Montefortino, t. II. q. 66. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 2. 3; S. I. q. 66. a. 1; de Potent. q. 4. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 46. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 6. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. 2.	II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 46, m. 1-4; q. 49, m. 2. — (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in Jerome of Montefortino, (Summa Scoti.), tome II, q. 66, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here in the q. sole, aa. 2 and 3; Summa., I, q. 66, a. 1; de Potentia, q. 4, a. 1. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus)., here in a. 1; Summa., p. II, tr. 11, q. 46. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in the q. sole, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here in q. 6. — Giles the Roman, here in q. 1, a. 1. — (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 1. — (Gabriel) Biel, here i n q. 2.
¹ Vers. 10. Verba Gregorii, XXXII. Moral. c. 12. n. 17, sunt: Sed si rerum causas subtili discussione pensamus, simul Angelum factum hominemque cognoscimus: simul videlicet non unitate temporis, sed cognitione rationis; simul per acceptam imaginem sapientiae, et non simul per coniunctam substantiam formae . . . In cuncta igitur creatura homo et Angelus simul conditus exstitit, quia ab omni creatura irrationali distinctus processit. Quia ergo in cuncta conditione rerum nullum rationale animal nisi Angelos et homo est, quidquid ratione uti non potest, cum homine factum non est. — Ed. 1 et Vat. simultatem rationis pro similitudinem rationis. Dein multi codd. tui similem pro tibi similem. ² In codd. L O additur adeo, in Vat. ita. ³ Vat. ornare. ⁴ Colos. 2, 3: In quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi. — Mox post formatione in multis codd. et ed. 1 desideratur rerum. In fine solutionis plures codd. cum edd. 2, 3 ordinare pro ornare.	¹ Verse 10. The word of (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great), Morals on the Book of Job, Bk. XXXII, ch. 12, n. 17, are: But if we think according to a subtle discussion of the causes of things, we recognize that Angel and man (were) made together [simul]: together, namely, not by a unity of time, but by the cognition of reason; together through an accepted image of Wisdom, and not together through the conjoined substance of a form . . .Therefore in all other (things) the (rational) creature, man and Angel, existed founded together, because he proceeded distinct from every irrational creature. Therefore, because in the whole foundation of things there is no rational anima except the Angels and man, whatever cannot use reason, was not made with man. — Edition 1 and the Vatican edition have the togetherness of reason [simultatem rationis] for the similitude of reason [similitudinem rationis]. Then many codices have your similar [tui similem] for similar to you [tibi similem] . ² In codex L and I there is added so [adeo], in the Vatican edition so [ita]. ³ The Vatican edition has ornamenting [ornare]. ⁴ Col. 2:3: In Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge [In quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientaie et scientiae absconditi]. — Next after formation [formatione] in many codices and in edition 1 of things [rerum] is wanting. At the end of the solution several codices, together with edition 2 and 3, have ordered [ordinare] for ornamented [ornare].
* [Trans. nota: Hic et in Editione Taurini a. d. 1953, videtur quod ideo textus S. Thomae errorem transcriptionis contineat, quia alios sensus in nominativo scriberi debeant, ut ista nomina pro verbi excludantur subiecto sint, sive contrarie per mutationem finalis verbi excludantur de passiva in activam vocem mediante verbo excludat scriberi debeant, quae mutatio primariae textus partis magis consona videatur. — Aliquanto inferius lectio Scholionis originalis perperam legere videtur longas pro longos, quia periodos est in casu masculino. ]	* [Trans. note: Here and in the Taurini Edition of 1953, the text of St. Thomas seems to contain an error of transcription, since the other senses [alios sensus] in the Latin would have to be written in the nominative [alii sensus] to be the subject of the final be excluded [excludantur] as it appears in the Latin text, or contrariwise the last verb in the Latin text ought to be in the active voice, as he exclude [excludat] and that that entire clause be moved in the English after that and before the other senses. The English translation follows the first hypothesis, as it seems to require less of an error of transcription. The Latin text of St. Thomas being left as it appears in the Taurini Edition and in the Scholium of the Quaracchi Editors.

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 XII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XII