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 III.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 386-388.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 386-388.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

 

Qui sit ordo productionis animalium respectu quietis.

QUESTION 3

 

Which is the order of the production of the animals in respect to (God’s) rest?

TERTIO QUAERITUR de ordine productionis animalium ad quietum.  Et quaeritur, utrum Deus, postquam animalia produxit, ab omni opere quieverit.  Et quod sic, videtur:

THIRD THERE IS ASKED concerning the order of the production of the animals regarding (God’s) being at rest [quietum].  And there is asked, whether God, after He produced the animals, was at rest [quieverit] from every work. And that (it is) so, seems:

1. Per Scripturam Genesis secundo:2  Requievit Deus die septimo ab omni opere, quod patrarat; sed animalia producta sunt quinto et sexto die:  ergo post eorum productionem sequitur quietatio.

1. Through Scripture in the second (chapter) of Genesis:2  God rested on the seventh day from all the work, which He had accomplished; but the animals were produced on the fifth and sixth day:  therefore after their production there followed (God’s) going to rest [quietatio]

2. Item, omnis operatio, quae pervenit ad completionem, habet quietem subsequentem; sed productio creaturarum completur in productione animalium, et maxime hominis:  ergo videtur, quod postquam Deus die sexto animalia produxit, quod deinceps requievit.

2. Likewise, every operation, which arrives at completion, has a subsequent rest; but the production of creatures is completed in the production of the animals, and most of all (in the production) of man:  therefore it seems, that after God produced the animals on the sixth day, that He rested [requievit] afterwards [deinceps].

3. Item, distinctio dierum est ad nostram instructionem;3 sed sex diebus permissit Deus homines operari, septimo praecepit quiescere et cessare ab omni opere:  si ergo illud mandatum rationem habet ex primaria rerum conditione, videtur, quod ad animalium productionem subsecuta fuerit quies.

3. Likewise, the distinction of the Days is for our instruction;3 but God permitted men to work six days, He precepted that they be at rest and cease from every work on the seventh:  if, therefore, that mandate has (its) reason out of the primary foundation of things, it seems, that (God’s) rest [quies] was subsequent to the production of the animals.

4. Item, omnis creaturae productio finem habet et terminum, ergo similiter dies omnis, in qua aliquid producitur, habet vesperam; sed septimae diei secundum Scripturam4 non assignantur vesperae:  ergo post sextam diem nulla sunt producta; et in sexto die producta sunt animalia:  ergo etc.

4. Likewise, the production of every creature has an end and terminus, therefore, similarly every Day, on which something is produced, has an evening; but according to Scripture4 no Vespers are assigned to the Seventh Day:  therefore after the Sixth Day none were produced; and on the sixth day the animals were produced:  ergo etc..

CONTRA:  1. Ioannis quinto:5  Pater meus operatur usque modo, et ego operor:  ergo si usque modo operatus est, videtur, quod septimo die non cessaverit ab opere.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. In the fifth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John5 (there is written):  My Father works unto now, and I work:  therefore, if He worked unto now, it seems, that He did not cease from work on the seventh day.

2. Item, septimus dies aut est novus dies praeter praecedentes, aut non:  ergo non debet aliis connumerari; si sic, et illud fecit Deus:  constat ergo, quod non requievit ab omni opere, postquam produxit animalia.6  Si tu dicas, quod dies ille non differt a praecedentibus nisi secundum numerum; sed sic differt octavus et decimus, et sic deinceps:  ergo si septimus numeratur, eadem ratione et octavus deberet numerari.

2. Likewise, the seventh day is either a new day besides the ones preceding, or not:  therefore it ought not be numbered with the others; if so, and God made it:  therefore it is established, that He did not rest from every work, after He produced the animals.6  If you say, that that day does not differ from the ones preceding except according to number; but the eight and tenth differ in this manner, and thus successively [deinceps]:  therefore if the seventh is numbered, for the same reason the eighth ought also to have been numbered.

3. Item, requies aut connotat aliquem effectum, aut nullum.  Si nullum effectum connotat:  ergo ab aeterno requievit:  ergo ante requievit, quam aliquid produceret:  ergo penes requietionem non debet accipi aliquis dies.  Si connotat aliquem effectum; et iste effectus non fuit in diebus praecedentibus:  ergo aliquid novum produxit in die septimo:  non ergo requievit ab omni opere suo, postquam produxit animalia die sexto.

3. Likewise, “taking rest” [requies] either connotes some effect, or none.  If it connotes no effect:  therefore He rested [requievit] from eternity:  therefore He rested before He produced anything:  therefore no day ought to be accepted from within (His) ‘taking rest’ [requietionem].  If it connotes some effect; and that effect was not in the preceding days:  therefore He produced something new on the seventh day:  therefore He did not rest from all His work, after He produced the animals on the sixth day.

4. Item, Deus creat quotidie novas animas et infundit corporibus; creare autem est opus soli Deo proprium:  ergo non videtur, quod ab operatione quieverit post diem sextum.

4. Likewise, God creates new souls each day and infuses (them) into bodies; but ‘to create’ is a work proper to God alone:  therefore it does not seem, that He was at rest from (His) work after the sixth day.

5. Item, animalia quaedam producuntur per putrefactionem; sed constat, quod illa non sunt producta in sex diebus, sicut dicit Augustinus tertio7 super Genesim ad litteram, et huiusmodi habent species proprias et naturas:  ergo videtur, quod post sextum diem non cessaverit a productione novarum specierum in genere animalium.

5. Likewise, certain animals are produced through putrefaction; but it is established, that they were not produced in the Six Days, just as (St.) Augustine says in the third (book) On a Literal Exposition of Genesis,7 and (animals) of this kind have their own species and natures:  therefore it seems, that after the sixth day He did not cease from the production of new species in the genus of animals.

6. Item, quaedam animalia generantur per commixtionem, sicut mulus ex equa et asino;8 haec autem in sex diebus non fuerunt facta, nec in esse individuali nec in sua specie:  ergo post sextum diem non cessavit a rerum productione, non solum quantum ad individua, sed etiam quantum ad species et genera.

6. Likewise, certain animals are generated through a commingling, just as a mule [mulus] (is) out of a female horse [equa] and a male donkey [asino];7 but these were not made in the Six Days, neither in (their) individual ‘being’ nor in their own species:  therefore after the sixth day He did not cease from the production of thing, not only as much as regards individuals, but even as much as regards species and genera.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Post animalium productionem secuta est quies die septimo, non quasi facta sit laboris cessatio, sed operis inchoati completio.

CONCLUSION

 

After the production of the animals there followed (God’s) rest on the seventh day, not as if there came to be the cessation of (His) work, but (rather) the completion of the work undertaken.

RESPONDEO:  Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod omnis artifex perfectus opus inchoat, ut ad perfectionem perducat; et sicut intendit, ita facit, si per omnia sufficientia virtutis agentis sibi suppetit; cum autem ad perfectionem deduxerit, habet quod intendit.  Omne autem operans propter aliquid, obtento eo, propter quod agit, quie- / -scit.  Omnis . . .

I RESPOND:  For an understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted, that every perfect craftsman takes a work in hand [opus inchoat], to bring (it) to perfection; and just as he intends, so he does, if through all (things) there is at hand for him [sibi supetit] a sufficiency of acting virtue; but when he has led (it) forth to perfection, he has what he intended.  Moreover everyone working for the sake of something, with that obtained, on account of which he acts, is at rest / [quiescit].  Therefore, . . .

2  Vers. 2.

3  Sicut supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. monstratum est.  —  De minori cfr. Exod. 20, 9. seq.; Deut. 5, 13. seq.

4  Vide Gen. 2, 2.  —  Explicationem huius vide apud August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 18. n. 31. seqq.  —  Plures codd. cum Vat. ergo post septimum pro ergo post sextam.

5  Vers. 17.

6  Hoc arg. insinuat August., IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 20. n. 37. et ut refert B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 67, hoc modo « quaerunt Iudaei ».

7  Cap. 14. n. 23.  —  Vat. post septimum diem pro post sextum diem.

8  Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 28. (VI. c. 8.), hanc obiectionem aliquatenus tangit.

2  Verse 2.

3  Just as has been demonstrated above in d. 12, a. 1, q. 2.  —  On the minor (of the argument), cf. Exod. 20:9 f.; Deut. 5:13 f..

4  See Gen. 2:2.  —  See the explanation of this in (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IV, ch. 18, n. 31 ff..  —  Several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have therefore after the seventh day [ergo post septimum diem] for therefore after the Sixth Day [ergo post sextam diem].

5  Verse 17.

6  (St.) Augustine insinuates this argument On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IV, ch. 20, n. 37, and, as Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) reports, Summa., p. II, tr. 11, q. 67, « the Jews question » in this manner.

7  Chapter 14, n. 23.  —  The Vatican edition reads after the seventh day [post septimum diem] for after the sixth day [post septimum diem].

8  Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. VII, text 28 (Bk. VI, ch. 8), touches upon this objection to some extent.

 

p. 387

 

quie- / -scit.  Omnis ergo agens perfectus sic operatur, ut aliquando quiescat.

quiet / [quiescit].  Therefore, every perfect agent works thus, that he sometimes is at rest.

Cum igitur Deus sit agens perfectissimus in producendo ipsum universum, necesse est ipsum aliquando quiescere.  Sed cum duplex sit agens, quoddam, quod movetur et laborat in sua operatione, quoddam vero, quod nec mutatur nec variatur; illud quod primo modo agit, quiescit per quietationem, quae quidem est privatio motus et laboris, sicut est agens creatum; illud vero, quod secundo modo agit, quiescit quietatione, non quae sit laboris vel fatigationis privatio, sed quae est cessatio ab opere propter ipsius perfectionem; et sic dicitur Deus ab omni opere quievisse, cum universum produxit ad perfectum esse, et sic quievit, sicut1 ad perfectum esse deduxit.

Therefore since God is the most perfect Agent in producing the very universe, it is necessary that He sometimes is at rest.  But since there is a twofold agent, a certain one which is moved and labors in his operation, but a certain one, which neither is moved nor is varied, that which acts in the first manner, is at rest through a ‘being at rest’ [quietationem], which is indeed a privation of movement and labor, such as is a created agent; but that which acts in the second manner, is at rest by a ‘being at rest’, not (by a ‘being at rest’) which is a privation of labor and/or fatigue, but one which is a cessation from work on account of its perfection; and thus God is said to have been at rest [quiesvisse] from every work, when He brought the universe forth [produxit] to perfect ‘being’, and thus was at rest, just as1 He led (it) forth [deduxit] to perfect ‘being’.

Propter quod nota, quod duplex est perfectio universi:  una et praecipua secundum esse permanens, alia est secundum ipsius esse decurrens.  Prima attenditur in completa existentia principiorum et completo numero specierum, quae quidem species naturam generis participant secundum rectam et ordinatam intentionem naturae.  Secunda vero perfectio consistit in productione eorum quae per tempora decurrunt et sibi consequenter succedunt, ex cuius successionis ordinatione resultat quaedam unitatis pulcritudo et perfectio.2  Quoniam igitur secundum primam perfectionem Deus universum in sex diebus ad esse produxit, scilicet quantum ad completam existentiam principiorum et quantum ad completum numerum specierum; ideo dicitur requievisse ab omni opere, quod patrarat.  Quia vero continue operatur ad rerum successionem per propagationem et individuorum multiplicationem; ideo dicitur operari usque modo.  Et ex his patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam.

On account of which note, that the perfection of the universe is twofold:  the one and chief (is) according to permanent ‘being’ [esse permanens], the other is according to decurrent ‘being’ [esse decurrens].  The first is attained in the complete existence of principles and in the complete number of species, which species indeed participate in the nature of a genus according to the upright and ordered intention of (their) nature.  But the second perfection consists in the production of those which run down [decurrunt] through the seasons and succeed one another consecutively [sibi consequenter], out of which ordering of succession there results a certain beauty and perfection of the unity.2  Therefore since God, according to the first perfection, brought the universe forth to ‘being’, that is as much as regards the complete existence of (its) principles and as much as regards the complete number of the species (of created things); for that reason He is said to have took rest [requievisse] from every work, which He had accomplished.  But because He continually works for the succession of things through propagation and the multiplication of individuals; for that reason He is said to work unto now.  And out of these (considerations) the response to the proposed Question is clear.

Concedendum est enim, quod ad productionem animalium, maxime hominis, secuta est quies in die septimo, non quia facta sit laboris terminatio, sed quia facta3 est operis inchoati completio; et concedendae sunt rationes hoc probantes.

For it must be conceded, that after the production of the animals, most of all of man, there followed (God’s) rest [quies] on the seventh day, not because there came to be a termination of labor, but because there came to be3 a completion of the work undertaken; and the reasons proving this are to be conceded.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de Ioannis quinto:4  Pater meus operatur etc.; iam patet responsio.  Obiicit enim de illa operatione, quae spectat ad perfectionem universi secundum esse decurrens, non secundum esse permanens.

1. To that which is objected unto the contrary concerning the fifth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John:4  My Father works etc.; the response is already clear.  For it objects of that operation, which pertains to the perfection of the universe according to decurrent ‘being’, not according to permanent ‘being’.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fecit diem septimum; dicendum, quod dies septimus non fuit alius specie a praecedentibus diebus, immo quodam modo iam erat in aliis productus; et ideo ad primum complementum universi nihil addebat ratione sui; et ideo eius productio non repugnabat quieti, secundum quod quies dicit cessationem a productione eorum quae sunt de principali universi constitutione.  Enumeratur tamen cum praedictis diebus magis quam dies octavus vel decimus propter cessationem ab opere constituendi universum, secundum quam non attenditur numeratio dierum, quia non habent terminum; et ideo septimus dies non dicitur habere vesperam, nec post illum enumeratur dies novus, sed fit regressus ad principium.5

2. To that which is objected, that He made the seventh day; it must be said, that the seventh day was not other in species from the preceding days, nay it was already produced in a certain manner in the others; and for that reason by its reckoning nothing was added to the first complement of the universe; and for that reason its production was not repugnant to (God’s) rest [quieti], according to which (His) “rest” [quies] means a cessation from the production of those which concern the principle constitution of the universe.  Yet it is enumerated with the aforesaid days more than the eight and/or tenth days (is) on account of (His) cessation from the work of constituting the universe, according to which (cessation) there is attained no numeration of days, because they have no end [terminum]; and for that reason the seventh day is not said to have an evening, nor is a new day enumerated after it, but a regress to the beginning5 is made.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod requiescere ab opere, aut connotat effectum aliquem aut nullum; dicendum, quod secundum Augustinum6 requiescere dicitur in Deo causaliter, quia facit creaturam spiritualem per completam contemplationem sibi inhaerendo quiescere, vel quiescendo sibi inhaerere.  Secundum autem alios Sanctos et viam communem quiescere dicit effectum, non qui sit in die sabbati, sed qui praecessit; unde Deus dicitur requiescere ab opere, quia prius fecit, et deinde nova non facit.  Et propter hoc dicitur complesse omne opus suum in die septimo, non quia tunc aliquid fecerit, quod fuerit ad completionem, sed quia tunc quiescendo consummatum ostendit.

3. To that which is objected, that resting [requiescere] from work, either connotes some effect or none; it must be said, that according to (St.) Augustine6 “to take rest” [requiescere] is said causally in regard to God, because He causes the spiritual creature to be at rest [quiescere] through a complete contemplation by cleaving to Himself, and/or to cleave to Himself by being at rest.  Moreover according to the other Saints and the common way (of speaking) “to be at rest” [quiescere] means an effect, not that which is on the Sabbath day, but that which preceded; wherefore God is said “to take rest from work”, because He first worked, and then He makes no new (things).  And on this account He is said to have completed all His work on the seventh day, not because He then made something, which was for the completion (of the universe), but because He then showed (it to have) been consummated by being at rest.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de creatione animarum, dicendum, quod cum creantur nunc animae rationales, non creatur nova species, sed novum individuum; hoc autem individuum non est de constitutione universi primaria; et ideo per quietationem in sabbato non excludebatur animarum creatio.

4. To that which is objected concerning the creation of the animals, it must be said, that since rational souls are now created, no new species is created, but a new individual (is); but this individual does not concern the primary constitution of the universe; and for that reason the creation of souls was not excluded through (His) being at rest on the Sabbath.

5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de productione eorum, quae sunt per putrefactionem et commixtionem, quod sunt novae species; dicendum, quod tam illa quae generantur per putrefactionem, quam illa quae generantur per diversarum specierum commixtionem, producta sunt in suis principiis et rationibus seminalibus, quamvis non sint producta in simili secundum formam.  Principia enim eorum sunt de primaria constitutione universi, utpote species completae et rationes seminales; sed illarum specierum actualis existentia ad primariam constitutionem universi non spectat, quia species illae quodam modo sunt degenerantes et quasi per quandam degenerationem produci habent, sicut vermes producuntur ex humano corpore per corruptionem aliquam, quae quidem facit corpus humanum a propria forma degenerare.  Et ideo non oportuit, haec produci in se nec in suo simili ad primariam constitutionem universi; nec tamen sunt superflua, quia universum, quantum ad bene esse, aliquo modo decorant.

5. 6. To that which is objected concerning the production of those, which are through putrefaction and commingling, that they are new species; it must be said, that both those which are generated through putrefaction, and those which are generated through the commingling of diverse species, were produced in their principles and seminal reasons, even though they were not produced in a similar (species) according to form.  For their principles are from the primary constitution of the universe, as for example (their) complete species and seminal reasons; but the actual existence of their species does not pertain to the primary constitution of the universe, because those species are in a certain manner degenerate ones and have been produced through a certain degeneration, just as worms are produced out of a human body through some corruption, which indeed causes the human body to degenerate from its own form.  And for that reason it was not necessary [non oportuit], that these be produced in themselves nor in their own similar (species) for the primary constitution of the universe; yet neither are they superfluous, because they do decorate the universe, as much as regards (its) well being [bene esse], in some manner.

Unde breviter nota, quod eorum quae succes- / -sione . . .

Whence note briefly, that of those which are produced / by succession, . . .

1  Cod. T a secunda manu bene cum.

2  Cfr. q. 1. huius art. ad ult.

3  Ed. 1 cum cod. cc perfecta.

4  Vers. 17.  —  Paulo inferius auctoritate cod. aa posuimus ad perfectionem universi, dum alii codd. et edd. perperam habent ad operationem universi.  Vide hic in corp.

5  Cod. cc et ed. 1 primum; Vat. addit vel primum.  Paulo ante aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 nonus pro novus.

6  Libr. IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 9. n. 16. et c. 16. n. 27. seqq.  —  Dialog. Qq. 65. cum Orosio (inter opera Augustini) q. 42 haec et seq. opinio habetur.  Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. seq.

1  Codex T by a second hand has well when [cum] for just as [sicut].

2  Cf. Q. 1 of this Article, in reply to the last (objection).

3  Edition 1, together with codex cc, has there was perfected [perfecta est] for there came to be [facta est].

4  Verse 17.  —  A little below this, on the authorityof codex aa, we have put to the perfection of the universe [ad perfectionem universi], while the other codices and editions have faultily to the operation of the universe [ad operatoinem universi].

5  Codex cc and edition 1 have the first one [primum]; the Vatican edition adds and/or first one [vel primum].  A little before this some codices, together with edition 1, have ninth [nonus] for new [novus].

6  On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IV, ch. 9, n. 16, and ch .16, n. 27 ff.. —  This and the following opinion are had in The Dialogue of 65 Questions with Orosius (among the works of St. Augustine), q. 42.  Cf. the text of Master (Peter) here in ch. 7 f..

 

p. 388

 

succes- / -sione producuntur, quaedam fuerunt in prima dierum1 distinctione producta in simili, sed non in ratione seminali, utpote animae rationales, quae scilicet producuntur per creationem et ideo non habent rationem seminalem; in simili tamen productae sunt, quando producta fuit anima Adae, post cuius productionem non producitur nova species, quamvis producantur nova individua.  —  Quaedam sunt, quae productae sunt in primis diebus quantum ad rationem seminalem, sed non in simili, sicut ea quae generantur per putrefactionem et per diversarum specierum commixtionem.  —  Quaedam sunt, quae producta sunt et in ratione seminali et in simili, sicut plantae et bruta animalia, quae producuntur per propagationem.  —  Et ad haec tria rerum genera possunt reduci omnia quae fiunt; et propterea non dicitur Deus producere aliqua de novo, secundum quod dicitur in Ecclesiastis primo,2 quod nihil novum sub sole; sed dicitur ab omni opere requievisse, quia nihil producit, quod prius non fuerit vel in simili specie, vel in ratione seminali, quae tunc erant de primaria constitutione universi.  —  Et sic patet, qualiter ad animalium productionem in die sexto sequitur requies ab omni opere in die septimo.

are produced / by succession, certain ones were produced in a similar (species) in the first distinction of days,1 but not in (their) seminal reason, as for example rational souls, which, that is, are produced through a creation and for that reason do not have a seminal reason; yet they were produced in a similar (species), when the soul of Adam was produced, after the production of which no new species is produced, though new individuals are produced.  —  There are certain ones, which were produced in the first days as much as regards (their) seminal reason, but not in a similar (species), such as those which are generated through putrefaction and through the commingling of diverse species.  —  There are certain ones, which were produced both in (their) seminal reason and in a similar (species), such as the plants and brute animals, which are produced through propagation.  —  And to these three genera of things all (the animals) which come to be can be reduced; and on this account God is not said to produce some a new [de novo], according to which there is said in the first (chapter)2 of Ecclesiastes, that (there is) nothing new under the Sun; but He is said to have taken rest from every work, because He produces nothing, which was not beforehand either in a similar species, and/or in (its) seminal reason, which were at that time from the primary constitution of the universe.  — And thus it is clear, in what kind of manner (God’s) taking rest from every work on the seventh day follows after the production of the animals on the sixth day.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Distinctio duplicis perfectionis universi, scil. secundum ipsius esse permanens et esse decurrens, eadem est cum ea quae vocatur ab Alex. Hal. (S. p. II. q. 56. m. 1.) completio secundum materiam et formam, et completio in fine.  Similiter loquitur B. Albertus. Haec distinctio fere coincidit cum ea quae a S. Thoma in Sum. (I. q. 73. a. 1.) dicitur rei perfectio prima et secunda; in Comment. autem (hic q. 3. a. 1.) idem praeter eandem distinctionem distinguit etiam perfectionem totalitatis, et eam quae est ex ratione finis.  —  De sententia Augustini, quae tangitur in solutione ad 3, cfr. supra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1.  —  De generatione aequivoca, quae commemoratur in solut. ad 5. 6, cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1, scholion.  —  In fine eiusdem solutionis S. Doctor breviter repetit principales quasdam suas doctrinas de productione rerum, distinguens tria rerum genera producenda.

I. The distinction of the twofold perfection of the universe, that is according to its permanent ‘being’ and decurrent ‘being’, is the same together with that which is called by Alexander of Hales (Summa., p. II. q. 56, m. 1) the completion according to matter and form and the completion in the end.  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) speaks similarly.  This distinction nearly coincides with that which is called by St. Thomas in the Summa. (I, q. 73, a. 1) the first and second perfection of the thing; in the Commentary (here in q. 3, a. 1), however, besides the same distinction he also distinguishes the perfection of the totality, and that which is out of the reckoning of the end.  —  On the sentence of (St.) Augustine, which is touched upon in the solution to n. 3, cf. above d. 13, a. 1, q. 1.  —  On equivocal generation, which is mentioned in the solution to nn. 5 and 6, cf. above d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the Scholium.  —  At the end of the same solution the Seraphic Doctor briefly repeats certain principal doctrines of his own concerning the production of things, distinguishing the three genera of things to be produced.

II. Alex. Hal., loc. cit.  —  S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2; S. I. q. 73. a. 1. 2.  —  B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 66. et 67.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2.  —  Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

II. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit..  —  St. Thomas, here in q. 3, aa. 1 and 2; Summa., I, q. 73, aa. 1 and 2.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa, p. II, tr. 11, qq. 66 and 67.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 3, aa. 1 and 2.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 5, q. 1.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, aa. 1 and 2.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 4.

1  Vat. rerum.

2  Vers. 10.  —  Ultima solutionis verba in die septimo desiderantur in Vat.

1  The Vatican edition has of things [rerum].

2  Verse 10.  —  The phrase on the seventh day [in die septimo] at the end of the solution is wanting in the Vatican edition.

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.