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 XV.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio II.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 384-386.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 384-386.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Quo ordine ex parte temporis Deus produxerit res sensibiles.

QUESTION 2

 

In what order, on the part of time, did God produce sensible things?

SECUNDO QUAERITUR de ordine productionis sensibilium, quantum est ex parte temporis.  Et dicit Scriptura,1 quod volatilia et natatilia facta sunt in uno die, scilicet quinto; gressibilia vero cum homine facta sunt die altero, scilicet sexto.

SECOND THERE IS ASKED concerning the order of the production of sensible (things), as much as it is on the part of time.  And Scripture1 says, that flying (things) and swimming (things) were made in one day, that is on the fifth (day); but waking (things) [gressibilia] were made with man on the other day, that is, on the sixth (day).

Contra istum ordinem primo obiicitur ex parte ipsorum animalium sensibilium in se; secundo vero, in comparatione ad hominem.

Against this order there is objected first on the part of the sensible animals themselves in themselves; but second, in comparison to man.

1. Contra primum obiicitur sic.  Uno die2 fuerunt omnia elementa distincta, non solum aër et ignis, sed etiam aqua et terra:  ergo pari ratione a summo Opifice debent fuisse ornata:  ergo in uno die debuit fieri ornatus aëris et aquae et terrae.

1. Against the first it is objected thus.  In one day2 all the elements were distinguished, not only air and fire, but even water and earth:  therefore they ought to have been ornamented by the Most High Worker according to the same reckoning:  therefore the ornamenting of air and water and earth ought to have been done in one day.

2. Item, distinctio dierum fit penes diversitatem operum:3  ergo si tria sunt elementa, quae ornantur ex animalibus, et tria sunt genera animalium, scilicet volatilia, natatilia et gressibilia, videtur, quod produci debuerunt saltem in tribus diebus.

2. Likewise, the distinction of the Days comes to be from within the diversity of the works:3  therefore if there are three elements, which are ornamented out of the animals, and there are three genera of animals, that is, flying ones, swimming ones and walking ones, it seems, that they ought to have been produced at least in three days.

3. Item, terra prior omnibus producta est:  ergo prior omnibus debet esse ornata:  ergo animalia, quae terram ornant, prius produci debuerunt, quam illa quae ornant aquam vel aërem.

3. Likewise, the earth was produced before all (things):  therefore it ought to have been ornamented prior to all (things):  therefore the animals, which ornament the earth, ought to have been produced before those which ornament the water and/or air.

4. Item, cum producuntur animalia ornantia elementa, aut producuntur secundum ordinem dignitatis, ut incipiatur a supremo; aut secundum ordinem ascensionis, ut incipiatur ab infimo.  Si primo modo:  ergo deberet prius fieri ornatus ignis quam aëris.  Si secundo modo:  ergo prius deberet fieri ornatus terrae quam aquae; quorum utrumque repugnat Scripturae sacrae4 et ordinationi productionis, prius determinatae quantum ad productionem ipsorum animalium.

4. Likewise, when the animals ornamenting the elements are produced, either they are produced according to an order of dignity, so as to begin [ut incipiatur] from the supreme (one); or according to an order of ascension, so as to begin from the lowest (one).  If in the first manner:  therefore the ornamenting of fire would have [deberet] to be done before (that) of air.  If in the second manner:  therefore the ornamenting of earth would have to be done before (that) of water; each of which is repugnant to Sacred Scripture4 and to the ordering of production, determined beforehand as much as regards the production of the animals themselves.

Item, obiicitur contra ordinem productionis animalium in comparatione ad hominem.

Likewise, it is objected against the order of the production of the animals in comparison to man.

5. Homo enim plus convenit cum Angelis quam cum bestiis:5  ergo magis debuit produci eodem die cum Angelis quam eodem die cum bestiis:  ergo productio hominis et bestiarum non recte facta est in eodem die.

5. For man convenes more with the Angels than with the beats:5  therefore he ought to have been produced more on the same day with the Angels than on the same day with the beasts:  therefore the production of man and beasts was not done rightly on the same day.

6. Item, plus convenit irrationale cum irrationali quam cum homine sive rationali:  ergo magis competens fuit in eodem die producere omnia animalia irrationalia, quam simul producere hominem et bruta.

6. Likewise, the irrational convenes more with the irrational than with man or the rational:  therefore it was more suitable [competens] to produce all irrational animals on the same day, than to produce man and the brutes together.

7. Item, principalius opus diei debet primo fieri; sed homo principalius opus fuit sextae diei:  ergo debuit ante fieri, quam fierent sensibilia sive bruta; quod est contra ordinem sacrae Scripturae.6

7. Likewise, the more principal work of the day ought to be made first; but man was the more principal work of the Sixth Day:  therefore he ought to have been made before the sensible (creatures) or brutes were made; which (conclusion) is contrary to the order of Sacred Scripture.6

8. Item, posterius magis indiget priori quam e converso;7 sed bruta animalia magis indigebant homine, quam homo indigeret eis secundum illum statum:  ergo ante debebat homo produci, quam illa in esse prodirent.

8. Likewise, the posterior needs the prior more than the other way around;7 but brute animals needed man more than man needed them according to that state:  therefore man ought to have been produced before they came forth into ‘being’.

CONCLUSIO.

 

In productione rerum sensibilium servatus est ordo convenientissimus secundum duplicem distinctionem ordinis.

CONCLUSION

 

In the production of sensible things the most convenient order was observed, according to the twofold distinction of order.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod in productione sensibilium duplex attenditur ordo, unus scilicet secundum distinctionem die a die, alius scilicet secundum ordinem eorum quae eodem die producta sunt.  —  Primus autem ordo attenditur secundum exigentiam finis et materiae.  Et quia volatilia et natatilia ex aquis producta sunt, prout aqua communiter accipitur ad humorem et vaporem,8 et sunt . . .

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that in the production of sensible (things) a twofold order is attained, the one, that is, according to the distinction of Day from Day, the other, that is, according to the order of those which were produced on the same day.  —  Moreover the first order is attained according to the exigency of end and matter.  And because flying and swimming (creatures) were produced out of the waters, insofar as “water” is accepted commonly for humor and vapor,8 and they are . . .

1  Gen. 1, 20. seqq.

2  Scilicet die tertio, ut explicatum fuit supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 1.

3  Vat. operationum.

4  Gen. 1, 20. seqq.  —  De ordinatione productionis animalium vide supra a. 1. q. 2. seq.

5  Cfr. supra d. 1, p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

6  Gen. 1, 24. seqq.

7  Cfr. Aristot., II. Metaph. text. 10. (I. brev. c. 2.) et V. text. 16. (IV. c. 11.).

8  Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. in fine corp.

1  Gen. 1:20 ff..

2  Namely on the third day, as has been explained above in d. 14, p. II, Doubt 1.

3  The Vatican edition reads of the operations [operationum] for of the works [operum].

4  Gen. 1:20 ff.  —  On the ordering of the production of the animals, see above a. 1, q. 2 f..

5  Cf. above d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

6  Gen. 1:24 ff..

7  Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. II, text 10 (in the shorter version Bk. I, ch. 2), and Book V, text 16 (Bk. IV, ch. 11).

8  Cf. above a. 1, q. 3, at the end of the body (of the Question).

 

p. 385

 

ad ornatum naturae perspicuae; ideo sacra Scriptura dicit, ea facta esse uno die.  Quia vero gressibilia non solum rationalia, sed etiam irrationalia ad ornamentum terrae spectant et ex eadem materia sunt producta, scilicet terra; ideo non in eodem die, sed alio a praedictis facta sunt, ita quod, sicut uno die ornata est natura caelestis, scilicet quarto, sic uno die ornetur natura elementaris perspicua, scilicet quinto, et alio terra, scilicet sexto.  Et sicut natura caelestis praecedit elementarem perspicuam, et perspicua opacum; sic harum naturarum ornamenta sunt ordine temporis correspondente producta.

for the ornament of perspicuous nature; for that reason Sacred Scripture says, that they were made in one day.  But because walking (creatures), not only the rational, but also the irrational, pertain to the ornament of earth and were produced out of the same matter, that is, earth; for that reason they were not made on the same day, but on an other than the aforesaid, such that, just as on one day the celestial nature was ornamented, that is on the fourth (day), so on one day is the perspicuous elementary nature ornamented, that is on the fifth (day), and earth on another, that is on the sixth (day).  And just as the celestial nature precedes the perspicuous elementary (nature), and the perspicuous the opaque; so the ornaments of these natures were produced in a corresponding order of time.

Secundus autem ordo, qui est inter ea quae producta sunt eodem die, attenditur secundum praecellentiam perfectionis naturae; prius enim producitur quod imperfectum est, et deinde quod perfectum, quia is est ordo, ut a minus completo perveniatur ad magis completum.1  Et ideo Scriptura prius dicit esse producta natatilia die quinto, quae sunt minus perfecta quam volatilia; et similiter in sexto die prius dicit esse producta irrationalia quam hominem.

But the second order, which is among those which have been produced on the same day, is attained according to the pre-excellence of the perfection of (their) nature; for first there is produced that which is imperfect, and then that which (is) perfect, because that is the order, to arrive from the less complete to the more complete.1  And for that reason Scripture first says that the swimming (things), which are less perfect than the flying (things), were produced on the fifth day; and similarly on the sixth day it says that irrationals were produced before man (was).

Quamvis multiplex assignari possit ratio, quare homo post creaturas ceteras est productus; occurrit autem triplex ratio ad praesens, quare post omnia productus est homo; scilicet propter partium corporis multitudinem, propter animae et corporis distantiam, et proper totius coniuncti perfectionem.  Propter partium corporis multitudinem debuit homo ultimo produci.  Cum enim corpus eius sit completissimum inter cetera corpora, et quanto aliquid compositius,2 tanto posterius, post omnia producendus erat.  —  Propter animae et corporis distantiam debuit fieri post cetera.  Quia enim distat anima a corpore, et non solum sicut forma a materia, sed etiam sicut spirituale a corporali et « sicut perpetuum a corruptibili »;3 ideo magna distantia temporis debuit intervenire inter productionem hominis quantum ad materiale principium et coniunctionem suarum partium, ut per distantiam temporis intelligeretur distantia principiorum constituentium.  —  Propter totius compositi perfectionem post cetera debuit homo produci.  Quia enim homo sua dignitate et complemento finis est omnium corporalium; ideo post omnia erat producendus, ut sua productione finiret et compleret omnia praecedentia, tanquam finis complet quod ad ipsum ordinari habet.4  —  Et sic patet, quo divina sapientia in productione sensibilium conservavit ordinem convenientissimum.

Though a multiple reason can be assigned, why man was produced after all other creatures; there occurs, however, a threefold reason for the present, whey man was produced after all (things); that is on account of the multitude of the parts of (his) body, on account of the distance of soul and body, and on account of the perfection of the conjoined whole [totius coniuncti].  On account of the multitude of the parts of (his) body man ought to have been produced last.  For since his body is the one most complete among all other bodies, and as much as anything (is) more composite,2 so much (is it) posterior, he had to be produced after all (things).  — On account of the distance of soul and body he ought to have been made after all other (things).  For because the soul is distant from the body, and not only just as form (is distant) from matter, but just as the spiritual (is) from the corporal and « just as the perpetual (is) from the corruptible »;3 for that reason a great distance of time ought to have intervened between the production of man as much as regards the material principle and the conjunction of his parts, so that through the distance of time there would be understood the distance of the principle constituents.  —  On account of the perfection of the whole composite [totius composit] man ought to have been produced after all other (things).  For because man by his dignity and complement is the end of all corporals; for that reason he had to be produced after all (things), so that by his produced all preceding (things) would be finished and completed, as an end completes that which has to be ordered to it.4  —  And thus it is clear, how the Divine Wisdom conserved the most convenient order in the production of sensible (things).

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod elementa simul sunt distincta; dicendum, quod non est simile:  quia distinctio non est in uno elemento nisi respectu alterius, ideo non potest distingui unum elementum ab alio, quin alterum distinguatur ab eo;5 non sic autem est in ornatu, ornatus enim unius elementis non necessario respicit alterum.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that the element were distinguished together; it must be said, that it is not similar:  because the distinction is not in one element but in respect of the other, for that reason one element cannot be distinguished from the other, where [quin] the other is not distinguished from it;5 but not so is it in the ornamenting (of the elements), for the ornamenting of one element does not necessarily look-back to the other.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tria sunt elementa, quae ornantur:  ergo etc.; dicendum, quod etisi tria sint, ornatus tamen duorum, scilicet aëris et aquae, non respicit illa, ut duo sunt, sed ut in uno communicant, scilicet in natura aquea, sicut determinatum est supra; et ideo duorum ornatus ad eandem diem spectat, et productio animalium, quae illa duo elementa ornant, in uno die est facta.

2. To that which is objected, that there are three elements, which are ornamented:  therefore etc.; it must be said, that even if there are three, yet the ornamenting of the two, namely of air and water, does not respect those, as they are two, but as they communicate in one, that is in the nature of water, just as has been determined above; and for that reason the ornamenting of the two pertains to the same Day, and the production of the animals, which ornament those two elements, was done in one day.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod terra prior est producta; dicendum, quod falsum est.  Nam in principio Genesis terra non accipitur pro elemento, sed pro materia.7

3. To that which is objected, that earth was produced beforehand; it must be said, that it is false.  For at the beginning of Genesis “earth” [terra] is not accepted for the element, but for matter.7

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de igne, quod quia est praecipuus inter elementa, prius deberet ornari; dicendum, est, quod propter qualitatem activam non possunt in eo vivere animalia, et propter nimiam distantiam a nobis8 non essent usui hominis apta; et ideo non determinatur eius ornatus, nec post nec antea.  Terrae vero ornatus ordinatur prostremo, pro eo quod ipsa est intima et obscura, et ideo maiori indiget ornamento; et propter hoc ornatur plantis et animalibus et mineralibus, et in eius ornatu consistit totius ornatus complementum quantum ad hominem, qui est praecipuus inter alia animalia.9

4. To that which is objected concerning fire, that because it is chief among the elements, it ought to have been ornamented beforehand; it must be said, that on account of (its) active quality animals cannot live in it, and on account of (their) exceedingly great distance from us8 (the luminous celestial bodies) are not apt for the use of man; and for that reason its ornamenting is not determined, neither before nor afterwards.  But the ornamenting of earth is ordained afterwards, in virtue of this that it is most interior and obscure, and for that reason it needs more an ornament; and on account of this it is ornamented with plants and animals and minerals, and in its ornamenting consists the complement of the whole ornamenting, as much as regards man, who is chief among the other animals.9

5. 6. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod homo debuit produci cum Angelis, cum quibus magis communicat; dicendum, quod etsi magis communicat, quantum est a parte animae, non tamen quantum est a parte corporis.10  —  Similiter ad sequens dicendum est, quod quamvis gressibilia et volatilia magis communicent in formali perfectione, non tamen tantum communicant quantum ad elementum, ex quo principaliter constituuntur et quod ornant; quod quidem est elementum terrae.

5. 6. To that, however, which is objected, that man ought to have been produced with the Angels, with whom he communicates more; it must be said, that even if he communicates more (with them), as much as is on the part of (his) soul, yet (he does not) as much as is on the part of (his) body.10  —  Similarly it must be said to the following (objection), that though walking and flying (creatures) communicate more in formal perfection, yet they do not communicate as much as regard the element, out of which they are principally constituted and which they ornament, which indeed is the element of earth.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod principalius opus deberet esse prius; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia in eis quae producuntur, prius est minus . . .

7. To that which is objected, that the more principal work ought to have been beforehand; it must be said, that it is false, because in those which are produced, the less / perfect is before . . .

1  Cfr. supra pag. 330, nota 5.

2  Cod. cc et ed. 1 quanto aliquid completius [quod etiam Vat. habet] et compositius, tanto perfectius et posterius.  Paulo inferius cod. P Item propter pro Propter.  —  Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 83. m. 2. ait:  Alia autem ratio fuit compositio ex multis.  Homo enim inter omnes creaturas est compositissimus, sicut habetur in libro Fontis vitae (Avicebron) . . . Propter quod dicit Isaac in libro de Elementis:  Homo in naturali generatione ultimum est.

3  Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 21. (c. 2.).  —  Cfr. de hac ratione supra d. I. lit. Magistri, c. 6; Gregor. Naz., Oratio 37. n. 17; 42. n. 13. seqq; 43. n. 11.

4  Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 24. (c. 2.) et V. Metaph. text. 21. (Bk. IV. c. 16.).

5  Vide supra d. 14. p. II. dub. I.

6  Hic in corp. quaest. et supra a. 1. q. 2. seq.

7  Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. 2. et dub. 1.

8  Vide supra pag. 321, nota 4.

9  Plures codd. cum Vat. omnia alia, cod. aa cetera.

10  Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.

1  Cf. above d. 13, Doubt 2, p. 330, footnote 5.

2  Codex cc and edition 1 have as much as anything (is)more complete (which even the Vatican edition has) and more composite, so much (is it) more perfect and posterior [quanto aliquid completius et compositius, tanto perfectius et posterius].  A little below this codex P has Likewise on account of [Item propter] for On account of [propter].  —  Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 83, m. 2, says:  Moreover the other reason was (his) composition out of many (things).  For man among all creatures is the most composed, just as is had in the book On the Fountain of Life, (by Avicebron) . . . On account of which Isaac says in the book On the Elements:  Man is last in natural generation.

3  Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 21 (ch. 2).  —  On this reason, cf. the text of Master (Peter), above in d. I, ch. 6; (St.) Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 37, n. 17, 42, n. 13 ff; 43, n. 11.

4  Cf. Aristotle, Physics, Bk. II, text 24 (ch. 2), and Metaphysics, Bk. V, text 21 (Bk. IV, ch. 16).

5  See above d. 14, p. II, Doubt 1.

6  Here in the body of the Question and above in a. 1, q. 2 f..

7  Cf. above d. 12, a. 1, q. 3, in reply to nn. 1 and 2, and in Doubt 1.

8  See above d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, p. 320, footnote 4.

9  Several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have all the others [omnia alia], codex aa all others [cetera] for the other animals [alia animalia].

10  Cf. above d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in reply to n. 2.

 

p. 386

 

perfectum quam magis perfectum secundum ordinem generationis, quamvis magis perfectum sit prius secundum ordinem dignitatis.

less perfect is before the more perfect according to the order of generation, though the more perfect is prior according to the order of dignity.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod posterius indiget priori; dicendum, quod verum est, quando aliqua ordinantur ita, quod inter ea cadit ordo essentialis; quando vero est ordo solius congruentiae, sicut in proposito, non est necesse, quod habeat veritatem.1

8. To that which is objected, that the posterior needs the prior; it must be said, that (this) is true, when some are ordered thus, that among them there false an essential order; but when there is an order of congruency alone, just as in the proposed, it is not necessary, that it have truth.1

1  Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

1  See the Scholium to the preceding Question.

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.