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

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 388-391.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 388-391.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista incidunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Producant aquae reptile animae viventis.  Reptilia et natatilia diversarum sunt specierum:  ergo cum producta ex aquis sint natatilia, non debent dici reptilia.  —  Item, cum reptilia spectent ad ornatum terrae, non videtur, quod spectent ad ornatum aquae.  —  Item, videtur hic esse nugatio, cum dicit reptile animae viventis; omnis enim anima, eo ipso quod est anima, vivit.3

In this part fall the doubts about the text, and first there is asked of this which (God) says:  Let the waters produce the creeping (thing) of a living soul.  Creeping (things) [reptilia] and swimming (things) [natatilia] belong to diverse species:  therefore since the swimming (things) were produced out of the waters, they ought not be called “creeping (things)”.  —  Likewise, since creeping (things) pertain to the ornament of earth, it does not seem, that they pertain to the ornament of water.  —  Likewise, there seems to be a superfluous saying [nugatio] here, when (Scripture) says the creeping (thing) of a living soul; for every soul, by this very (thing) that it is a soul, lives.3

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod in animalibus differt motus rependi a motu gradiendi.  Motus enim rependi attenditur secundum tractionem; animal enim, quod repit, anterius aliquam partem protendens et cum illa aliquid apprehendens, trahit totum corpus suum post se, sicut patet in vermibus; motus vero gradiendi est per impulsionem.4  Quoniam igitur ea quae natant, se contrahunt et protendunt anterius, et extendendo se ad anterius, quasi tenendo se ad soliditatem vel ad grossitiem aquae trahunt totum corpus suum, sicut patet in natantibus; hinc est, quod omnia natantia dicuntur reptilia, etsi contingat ea aliquando gradi, sicut est in crocodilis et aliquibus, quae versantur in aquis et in terra.  Denominantur tamen a motu, qui est eis magis naturalis, scilicet qui competit eis secundum habitationem in aquis.  —  Volatilia autem non dicuntur reptilia, quamvis videantur se ferre in aλre, sicut pisces in aquis. Est enim diversus modus movendi, quia magis moventur impulsu quam tractu.  Dum enim avis volat, clauditur aλr in concavitate aliarum; et dum alae applicantur ad corpus, violenter aλr propellitur ex parte alarum posteriori, et ex illo pulsu corpus avis procedit anterius.  Et ideo volatilia sub reptilium nomine non comprehenduntur, nec etiam sub genere gressibilium, quia non moventur virtue pedum, sed virtute alarum.  —  Unde potest sic sumi divisio animalium quantum ad motum, quia animal aut movet se anterius trahendo, et sic est reptile, sive sit in aquis sive in terra, aut impellendo, et hoc dupliciter:  aut pedibus, et sic est gressibile; aut alis, et sic est volatile.  —  Et sic patet, pro quanto pisces dicantur reptilia, et quod falsum est illud quod primo proponitur, quod reptile distinguitur contra aquatile, immo est in plus.5

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that in animals the movement of crawling [rependi] differs from the movement of walking [gradiendi].  For the movement of crawling is attained according to a ‘being dragged’ [tractionem]; for the animal, which craws [repit], protending some anterior part and apprehending something with that, drags the whole of its body after itself, just as is clear among worms; but the movement of walking is through a ‘being impelled’ [impulsionem].4  Therefore since those which swim, contract themselves and protend (their) anterior, and by extending themselves toward the anterior, as if by holding themselves against the solidity and/or heaviness [grossietiem] of the water, they drag their own body, just as is clear in swimming (creatures); hence it is, that all swimming (creatures) are said (to be “creeping (things)”, even if it happens that they sometime walk [gradi], just as it is among crocodiles and some (others), which move [versantur] in waters and on land.  Yet they are denominated from the movement, which is more natural to them, that is which suits them according to their habitation in waters.  —  But flying (things) [volatilia] are not said (to be) “creeping (things)”, even thought they seem to bear themselves in the air, just as fish (do) in waters. For (their) manner of moving is diverse, because they move more by being impelled and by being dragged.  For when a bird flies, the air is enclosed in the concavity of (its) wings; and when the wings are applied to the body, the air is propelled violently out of the posterior side of the wings, and out of that pulse the body of the bird proceeds anteriorly.  And for that reason flying (things) are comprehended under the name of “creeping (things)”, and not even under the genus of walking (things), because they do not move by virtue of feet, but by virtue of wings.  —  Wherefore the division of animals can be taken as much as regards (their) movement, because an animal either moves anteriorly by dragging itself, and thus is a “creeping (thing)”, whether it be in waters or on land, or by impelling (itself), and this in a twofold manner:  either by feet, and thus it is a walking (thing); or by wings, and thus it is a flying (thing).  —  And thus it is clear, to what extent [pro quanto] fish are said (to be) “creeping (things)”, and that that which is first proposed is false, that a creeping (thing) is distinguished against a water (creature) [aquatile], nay it is in more.5

3  Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 37. (c. 4.); V. Metaph. text. 23. et IX. text. 16. (IV. c. 18. et VIII. c. 8.).  Alex. Hal. S. p. II. q. 87. m. 1. a. 2. § 2. textus tam philosophorum quam Patrum hac de re allegat.

4  Vide Aristot., I. de Historia animal. c. 1; II. de Partib. animal. c. 1. et de Animalium incessa, per totum; de volatu avium agit in specie ibid. c. 8. seqq.

5  Sive maioris extensionis, ut genus respectu speciei.  Cfr. tom. I. pag. 348, nota 5.

3  Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 37 (ch. 4); Metaphysics, Bk. V, text 23, and Bk. IX, text 16 (Bks. IV, ch. 18, and VIII, ch. 8).  Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 87, m. 1, a. 2, § 2, cites texts both of philosophers and Fathers on this subject.

4  See Aristotle, On the History of Animals, Bk. I, ch. 1; On the Parts of Animals, Bk. II, ch. 1, and On the Gaits of Animals, throughout; he deals specifically with the flight of birds ibid., ch. 8 ff..

5  Or is of a greater extension, as a genus (is) in respect of a species.  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 18, p. I, a. sole, q. 4, p. 348, footnote 5.

p. 389

Ad illud quod obiicit, quod reptilia spectent ad ornatum terrae; dicendum, quod reptile dicitur quadrupliciter:  uno modo, quod se trahit vi oris, sicut vermes; alio modo, quod se trahit vi costarum, ut serpentes; tertio modo, quod se trahit vi pennullarum, ut pisces; quarto modo dicitur reptile large, quod in movendo se magnum partem corporis applicat terrae, quamvis habeat pedes, sicut lacertae et stelliones.  Et sic secundum diversas acceptiones reptile potest pertinere ad ornandum diversa elementa.

To that which is objected, that creeping (things) [reptilia] pertain to the ornament of earth; it must be said, that reptile is said in a fourfold manner:  in one manner, (it is) that which drags itself by the force of (its) mouth, just as the worms (do); in another manner, (it is) that which drags itself by the force of (its) ribs, as the serpents (do); in a third manner, (it is) that which drags itself by the force of (its) fins [pennullarum], as the fish (do); in a fourth manner reptile is said broadly, (to be) that which in moving itself applies a large part of (its) body to the earth, even though it may have feet, just as lizards [lacertae] and spotted-lizards [stelliones] (do).  And thus reptile, according to (its) diverse acceptations, can pertain to ornamenting diverse elements.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare dicit animae viventis; dicendum, quod vita manifestatur maxime per sensum et motum;1 ideo anima vivens appellatur, quae vivit vita manifesta; et haec est illa, quae dat corpori motum et sensum.  Talis autem non est in plantis, sed in animalibus; et ideo ad differentiam plantarum dicit:  Producant aquae reptile animae viventis, quasi in plantis sit anima virens, et in animalibus sit anima vivens; quia haec moventur et sentiunt, illa vero minime.2

To that which is asked, for what reason does He say of a living soul; it must be said, that live is manifested most of all through sense and movement;1 for that reason that which lives by a manifest life is named a “living soul”; and this is that, which gives movement and sense to (its) body.  But such is not in plants, but in animals; and for that reason to differentiate them from plants [ad differentiam plantarum] He says:  Let the waters produce the creeping (thing) of a living soul, as if in plants there is a greening soul [anima virens], and in animals there is a living soul [anima vivens]; because the latter move and sense, but the former least of all.2

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Producat terra iumenta et bestias et reptilia.  Videtur enim ibi esse superfluitas, quia omne animal brutum bestia est.  Si tu dicas, quod bestia vocatur animal brutum, quod nocet; tunc superfluit dicere reptilia.  Item, in Psalmis3 non solummodo enumerantur iumenta et bestiae et reptilia, sed etiam pecora:  ergo videtur hic esse diminutio.

Likewise there is asked concerning this which He says:  Let the earth produce livestock and beasts and creeping (things).  For there seems to be a superfluity there, because every animal is a brute beast.  If you say, that the brute animal, which harms, is called a “beast”; then it is superfluous to say “creeping (things)”.  Likewise, in the Psalms there are not only enumerated livestock and beasts and creeping (things), but even flocks:  therefore it seems, that there is a diminution here (in the manner of expression).

Quaeritur igitur horum trium differentia et sufficientia.  —  Quaeritur etiam, cum omnia animantia, quae sunt in mari, contineantur sub una differentia animalis, quae est reptile, et similiter omnia animantia aλris,4 quae est volatile; quare non similiter omnia animantia terrae sub una differentia continentur?

Therefore the difference and sufficiency of these three is sought.  —  There is also asked, since all the living (things), which are in the sea, are contained under one difference of the ‘animal’, which (difference) is the ‘creeping (thing)’, and similarly all the living (things) of the air (are contained under one difference),4 which (difference) is the ‘flying (thing)’; for what reason are all living (things) of the earth non contained similarly under one difference?

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum est, quod quia terra inter cetera elementa minus est decora, ideo magis indiguit decorari.  Et iterum, quia ipsa maxime praestat pabulum animalibus inter cetera elementa, hinc est, quod plures animalium differentiae reperiuntur in illa.  —  Omnes autem illae differentiae reducuntur ad has tres differentias, quarum numerus et sufficientia potest accipi dupliciter:  vel ex parte motus ipsorum animalium, vel ex parte finis.  Ex parte motus ipsorum animalium sic:  omne enim animal, quod movetur, aut movetur tractu, et sic et reptile; aut impulsu, et sic est gressibile.  Et hoc est dupliciter:  aut est animal natum saevire, aut mansuescere.  Primo modo dicitur bestia, secundo modo dicitur iumentum, et sub iumentis comprehenduntur pecora.  —  Ex parte finis sic:  animalia enim facta sunt propter hominem; aut igitur sunt ordinata ad hominis iuvamentum, sic sunt iumenta, quasi iuvamenta; aut sunt ordinata ad hominis exercitium, et hoc potest esse dupliciter:  quia aut exercent nocendo manifeste, et sic sunt bestiae, quasi vastiae; aut occulte, et sic sunt reptilia, quae occulte nocent et insidiantur calcaneo.5  Hos autem fines etsi non haberent, si homo non peccasset, in actu, haberent tamen in aptitudine; et ex ipsa aptitudine melius erudieretur tunc homo in statu innocentiae, quam erudiatur nunc ex actu in statu culpae.  —  Et sic patet horum trium differentia et sufficientia, et patet responsio ad obiecta.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that because earth among all the other elements is less decorous, for that reason it needed more to be decorated.  And again, because it most of all among all the other elements proffers fodder [pabulum] to animals, hence it is, that several differences of animals are found in it.  —  Moreover all those differences are reduced to these three differences, the number and sufficiency of which can be accepted in a twofold manner:  either on the part of the movement of the animals themselves, and/or on the part of (their) end.  On the part of the movement of the animals themselves thus:  for every anima, which moves, either moves by being dragged, and thus is a creeping (thing); or by being impelled, and thus is a walking (thing).  And this is in a twofold manner:  either the animal is bound to rage [saevire], or to be meek [mansuescere].  In the first manner it is said (to be) a “beast” [bestia], in the second manner it is said (to be) a iumentum, and under livestock [iumentis] there are comprehended flocks [pecora].  —  On the part of (their) end thus:  for animals were made for the sake of man; therefore either they were ordered as a help [iuvamentum] for man, thus they are livestock [iumenta], as if (to say) “helps” [iuvamenta]; or they were ordained as an exercise for man, and this can be in a twofold manner:  because either they exercise by harming in a manifest manner, and thus are “beasts” [bestiae], as if (to say) “ravagers” [vastiae]; or in a hidden manner [occulte], and thus are “creeping (things)”, which harm in a hidden manner and lie in wait for (one’s) heel [calcaneo].5  Moreover even if they would not have these ends in act, if man had not sinned, yet they would have (them) in aptitude; and out of (their) very aptitude man would then be better instructed in the state of innocence, than he is instructed now from (their) acting in the state of fault.  —  And thus the difference and sufficiency of these three is clear, and the response to the objections is clear.

DUB. III.

DOUBT III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  In rerum distinctione catholici tractatores dissentire inveniuntur.  Cum enim non sit Deus dissensionis, sed pacis,6 et Scripturae sint in eodem spiritu expositae, quo fuerunt conditae, sicut dicit Gregorius, videtur, quod nullatenus possint dissentire.  — Item, verum vero non opponitur:  ergo si catholici tractatores dissentiunt, unus dicit verum, et alter dicit falsum; sed intellectus Scripturae non potest esse nisi verus:  ergo, cum dissentiunt, necesse est, alterum eorum depravare Scripturam, et ita non erit catholicus tractator, sed potius haereticus.

Likewise is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says:  In (this) distinction of things Catholic tract-writers are found to dissent.  For since He is not a God of dissension, but of peace,6 and (since) the Scriptures have been expounded in the same spirit, in which they were founded, just as (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says, it seems, that they can to no extent dissent.  —  Likewise, the true is not opposed to the true:  therefore, if catholic tract-writers are dissenting, one says (what is) true, and the other says (what is) false; but the understanding of Scripture cannot be but the true one:  therefore, when they dissent, it is necessary, that one of them deprave Scripture, and thus will not be a Catholic tract-writer, but rather a heretic.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum est, quod vis facienda est in hoc quod dicit Magister:  dissentire videntur.  Videtur quod non est; et secundum hunc duplicem modum potest intelligi verbum Magistri, ut catholici tractatores in aliquo videantur dissentire, non tamen dissentiant.  Aliquid enim dicunt assertive, et aliquid dicunt opinando.  Quantum ad illud quod assertive dicunt, in hoc non discordant, quia quod asserunt per revelationem7 sancti Spiritus dicunt, qui non est sibi . . .

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that the force of the expression [vis facienda] is in that which Master (Peter) says:  “seem to dissent”.  What is not, seems (to be); and the word of Master (Peter) can be understood according to this twofold standard of measure, so that the Catholic tract-writers seem to dissent in something, yet they do not dissent.  For they say something assertively, and they say something by opining.  As much as regards that which they say assertively, in this they are not discordant, because what they assert, they say through the revelation7 of the Holy Spirit, who is not contrary / to Himself. . . .

1  Ut dicit Aristot., I. de Anima, text 49. (c. 2.); II. text. 150. (III. c. 3.); III. text. 40. (c. 9.).  Libr. I. de Plantis, c. 1. ait:  Vita et in animalibus et in plantis esse deprehensa est, in animalibus quidem patens et manifesta, in plantis vero occultior nec adeo evidens.

2  Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 53. m. 1. § 1. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 60; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. ad 3; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit. et Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 3. seq.

3  Psalm. 8, 8; 49, 10; 148, 10.

4  Supple cum Vat. sub una differentia animalis.

5  Cfr. de his Isidor., XII. Etymolog. c. 1. seqq.  Lyranus in Oseae 4, 3:  Bestia namque dicitur quasi vastia a vastando.  —  Idem dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 54. m. 1. ad 3. et 4; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 61; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.

6  Epist. I. Cor. 14, 33.  —  De verbo Gregorii cfr. XXVII. Moral. c. 8. n. 12. seqq., ubi docet, quod doctrina sacra per Patriarchas, Prophetas, Apostolos et sanctos Patres succesive sit tradita.  De sanctis Patribus autem dicit:  « Nam quod illi [Apostoli] sub brevitate locuti sunt, hoc exponendo isti multipliciter auxerunt ».  Cap. 9. n. 15:  Si ex sanctis Apostolis vis intelligentiae non inciperet, nequaquam per doctorum ora largior manaret.

7  In sensu largiore acceptam.  —  De seqq. cfr. August., XII. Confes. c. 30. n. 41.

1  As Aristotle says, On the Soul, Bk. I, text 49 (ch. 2); Bk. II, text 150 (Bk. III, ch. 3); Bk. III, text 40 (ch. 9).  In On Plants, Bk. I, ch. 1, he says:  Life is discovered to exist [esse deprehensa est] both in animals and in plants, patent and manifest indeed in animals, but more hidden nor so evident in plants.

2  Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II. q. 53, m. 1, § 1 f.; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 6; Summa., p. II, tr. 11, q. 60; St. Thomas, here in q. 2, a. 2, in reply to n. 3; (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text and Giles the Roman, here in the 3rd and following doubt on the text.

3  Psalm 8:8; 49:10; 148:10.

4  Supply together with the Vatican edition:  under one difference of the ‘animal’ [sub una differentia animalis].

5  Cf. on these, (St.) Isidore (of Seville), Etymologies, Bk. XII, ch. 1 ff..  (Nicholas) of Lyra on Hosea 4:3:  For indeed “beast” [bestia] is said as if “ravagers” [vastia] from “ravaging” [vastando].  —  Solving the same doubt are Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 54, m. 1, in reply to nn. 3 and 4; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 7; Summa., p. II, tr. 11, q. 61; St. Thomas and Richard of Middleton, here on the text; Giles the Roman, here in the 5th doubt on the text.

6  1 Cor. 14:33.  —  On the verse from (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great), cf. Morals on the Book of Job, Bk. XXVII, ch. 8, n. 12 ff., where he teaches, that Sacred Doctrine has been handed down successively through the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and holy Fathers.  Moreover of the holy Fathers he says:  « For that which the former (i. e. the Apostles) spoke briefly, the latter (i. e. the Fathers) by expounding enriched in a manifold manner ».  In chapter 9, n. 16 (the same says):  If the force of understanding did not start from the holy Apostles, it would not at all remain wider through the mouths of the Doctors.

7  In the broader sense [Trans. note: that is, through those gifts of grace and virtue which do not involve the revelation of truths on the authority of God the revealer, as is had among the Apostles, the Blessed Virgin, St. John the Baptist, other holy Disciples of the Lord, the Holy Evangelists, Prophets and Patriarchs.].  On the following cf. (St.) Augustine, Confessions, Bk. XII, ch. 30, n. 41.

p. 390

contrarius.  In eo vero, in quo opinantur, dissentire possunt et aliquando dissentiunt, quia opinio venit aliquando ex probabili coniectura rationis, in qua homo frequenter decipitur, deceptione potius, quae est poena quam culpa, a qua vix aliquis tractator catholicus immunis fuit.  Et ideo talis dissensio reprehensibilis non est.  Quamvis enim discordent aliquo modo iudicia, concordant tamen desideria; omnes enim catholici tractatores veritatem dicere volunt.  Et sic patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur.

not contrary / to Himself.  But in that, in which they opine, they can dissent and sometimes do dissent, because (their) opinion comes sometimes from the probable conjecture of (human) reason, in which man is frequently deceived, by a deception, which is rather a punishment than a fault, from which scarcely any Catholic tract-writer was immune.  And for that reason such a dissension is not reprehensible.  For though (their) judgments are in some manner discordant, yet (their) desires are concordant; for all Catholic tract-writers want to say the truth.  And thus the response to that which is objected is clear.

Aliter posset dici, sicut supra1 tactum fuit, quod, etsi dissentire videantur, non tamen dissentiunt; quia non dicunt, quod fuerit in re, sed quid congruum esse potuerit; nec dicunt, quid legislator, scilicet Moyses, in illo verbo intellexerit, sed magis, quid Spiritus sanctus intenderit, qui eum illustravit.  Et quoniam diversi modi producendi, sive simul sive successive, congruere possunt divinae potentiae, et Spiritus sanctus in eadem Scriptura multa simul intelligit et facit expositores intelligere; ideo, etsi discordia videatur inter doctores sanctos secundum exteriorem faciem litterae, non tamen est discordia secundum veritatem.  Et ideo signanter dicit:  dissentire videntur, non dissentiunt.  Unde Augustinus in libris suis2 in multis locis tenuit viam aliorum Sanctorum, ex quo patet, quod non erat eis contrarius.

It could be said in another manner, just as was touched upon above, that, even if they seem to dissent, yet they do not dissent; because they do not say, what was in reality [in re], but what could be a fitting (interpretation) [congruum]; nor do they say, what the lawgiver, namely Moses, understood in that verse, but rather, what the Holy Spirit intended, who enlightened [illustravit] him.  And since diverse manners of producing, whether together or successively, can befit [congruere] the Divine Power, and (since) the Holy Spirit in the same Scripture understands and causes (Catholic) expositors to understand many (things) together [simul]; for that reason, even if there seems (to be) discord among the holy Doctors according to the exterior face of the letter, yet there is no discord according to the truth.  And for that reason he says markedly [signantur]:  “they seem to dissent”, not “they do dissent”.  Wherefore (St.) Augustine in his books2 holds in many places the way of the other Saints, out of which it is clear, that he was not contrary to them (in what he said).

DUB. IV.

DOUBT IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Novam creaturam facere cessavit.  Contrarium enim dicitur Ieremiae trigesimo primo:3  Novum faciet Dominus super terram.  —  Item, ad Galatas sexto:  In Christo enim Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet neque praeputium, sed nova creatura.

Likewise there is asked concerning this which (St. Augustine) says:  He ceased making a new creature.  For the contrary is said in the thirty-first (chapter) of Jeremiah:3  The Lord shall make (something) new upon the Earth.  —  Likewise, in the sixth (chapter of St. Paul’s Letter) to the Galatians (there is written):  For in Christ neither is the circumcision worth anything nor the foreskin, but the new creature.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod novum dicitur dupliciter.  Uno modo dicitur novum contra antiquitatem cursus naturae et consuetudinem rationalis creaturae; et sic Deus non cessavit in sex diebus facere novam creaturam, immo multa facit miraculose et mirabiliter contra solitum cursum naturae et consuetudinis humanae, et ista nova dici possunt.  Alio modo dicitur novum, cuius nulla similitudo praecessit, nec etiam aliquod principium creatum, quod esset ipsius seminarium; et sic dicit Magister in proposito, quod novam creaturam facere cessavit; et dicitur etiam Ecclesiastis primo4:  Nihil sub sole novum.  Nihil enim produxit Deus, cuius non fecerit aliquo modo simile, vel cuius non produxerit principium seminale in operibus sex dierum.  Et sic patet, quod non est contradictio aliqua.  —  Aliter etiam posset dici, quod requievit facere novam creaturam, quae quidem sit de necessitate perfectionis universi; productio autem Christi excedit universi complementum, et ideo purae gratiae est, et dicitur Deus fecisse novum, cum mulier circumdedit virum.5

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that the “new” is said in a twofold manner:  In one manner (something) is said (to be) “new” contrary to the antiquity of the course of nature and the custom of the rational creature; and thus in the Six Days God did not cease to make a new creature, nay He makes many (things) miraculously and wonderfully contrary to the accustomed course of nature and of human custom, and these can be said (to be) “new”.  In another manner the “new” is said (of that), no similitude of which has preceded, nor even any created principle, which would be its seed-bed [seminarium]; and thus Master (Peter) says in the proposed, that He ceased making a new creature; and (thus) there is said in the first (chapter) of Ecclesiastes:4  Nothing (is) new under the Sun.  For God produced nothing, the similar of which He in no manner made, and/or the seminal principle of which He did not produce in the works of the Six Days.  And thus it is clear, that there is no contradiction.  —  It could also be said in another manner, that He took rest from [requievit] making (any) new creature, which indeed belongs of necessity to the perfection of the universe; but the production of Christ exceeded the complement of the universe, and for that reason it belongs to pure grace, and (thus) God is said to have made (something) new, when the Woman surrounded the Man [mulier curcumdedit virum].5

DUB. V.

DOUBT V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Illum diem benedixisse et sanctificasse dicitur etc.  Cum enim tempus, quantum est de se, sit indifferens, et dies dicat tempus, non magis debet benedici dies septimum quam secundus.  —  Item, cum sanctificatio respiciat creaturam rationalem, quid est, quod dicitur, quod sanctificavit diem?  —  Item, cum aequalis vel maioris dignitatis sit bene operari quam requiescere, videtur, quod magis debuit benedicere diei sexto, in quo operatus est, quam diem septimum, in quo requievit.

Likewise there is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says:  He is said to have blessed and sanctified that day etc..  For since time, as much as it concerns itself, is indifferent, and “day” means a time, He ought not bless the seventh day more than the second one.  —  Likewise, since sanctification respects the rational creature, what is (that), which is said, that He sanctified the day?  —  Likewise, since it is of equal and/or greater dignity to work well than to take rest, it seems, that He ought rather to bless (creation) on the sixth day, on which He worked, than (to bless) the seventh day, in which He took rest.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod sicut dies dicitur esse malus, non ratione sui, sed quia mensura est actionis malae, sicut dicit Apostolus ad Ephesios quinto:6  Redimentes tempus, quoniam dies mali sunt; sic dies dicitur benedictus et sanctus, quia est mensura alicuius operationis, in qua est benedictio et sanctificatio. Et nihil aliud est diem aliquem benedicere et sanctificare, quam diem tali actioni ut mensuram deputari.  —  Quoniam igitur Deus omnia fecit propter hominis instructionem, ut hominem non solum verbo, sed etiam opere erudiret; sicut sex dies operatus fuerat,7 sic sex diebus dedit homini licentiam operandi et intendendi rebus inferioribus; et sicut septimo die ab opere cessavit, sic voluit, quod septimo die homo ab omni opere cessaret et ei per contemplationem inhaereret et inhaerendo quiesceret.  Et quia in hac inhaesione homo obtinet a Deo ampliationem benedictionis et sanctitatis; ideo dies septimus dicitur a Domino benedictus et sanctificatus, non ratione sui, sed ratione illius quod Dominus deputavit in illo fieri.  —  Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta; patet etiam, quantum Deo placet, quod homo sibi soli intendat et in eo requiescat, dum talem vacationem sive requietionem benedixit et sanctificavit; propterea in Lege8 frequentissime iterat inter omnia mandata de observantia sabbati.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that just as a day is said to be “evil”, not by reason of itself, but because it is the measure of an evil action, so the Apostles says in the fifth (chapter of his Letter) to the Ephesians:  Redeeming the time, since the days are evil; so a day is said (to be) “blessed” and “holy”, because it is the measure of some operation, in which there is a blessing and sanctification.  And ‘that anyone bless and sanctify a day’ is not other, that to depute a day to such an action as (its) measure.  —  Therefore, since, God made all (things) for man’s instruction [instructionem], so that He might instruct [erudiret] man not only by word, but also by work; just as He had worked Six Days,7 so did He give man license to work and be intent upon [indendendi] inferior things for six days; and just as He ceased from work on the seventh day, so did He will, that on the seventh day man would cease from every work and cling to Him through contemplation and by clinging be at rest.  And because in this clinging, man obtains from God an amplification of blessing and sanctity; for that reason the seventh day is said by the Lord (to be) “blessed” and “sanctified”, not by reason of itself, but by reason of that which the Lord deputed to be done on that (day).  —  And thus the response to the objections is clear; it is also clear, how much it pleases God, that man be intent upon Him alone and take (his) rest in Him, when He blessed and sanctified such a vacation and taking-of-rest; on which account He repeats (these words) very frequently in the Law8 among all the mandates concerning the observance of the Sabbath.

1  Dist. 12. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. circa finem.

2  Praecipue in I. de Gen. contra Manich. per totum; XII. et XIII. Confess.

3  Vers. 22:  Creavit Dominus novum super terram.  —  Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 15.

4  Vers. 10.

5  Ier. 31, 22:  Femina circumdabit virum.  —  De hac secunda solutione vide I. Sent. d. 44. dub. 3.

6  Vers. 16.

7  In nonnullis codd. et Vat. desiderantur sex dies operatus fuerat, sic.  Non pauci codd. sex diebus pro sex dies.

8  Exod. 20, 8. seqq., 31, 13. seqq; Deut. 5, 12. seqq.  —  Item dubium solvit. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 56. m. 2; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 67. q. inc. 4; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3.

1  Distinction 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body (of the Question), near the end.

2  Chiefly in On Genesis against the Manichee, Bk. I throughout, Confessions, Bks. XII and XIII.

3  Verse 22:  The Lord has created (something) new upon the Earth [Creavit Dominus novum super terram].  —  The following text is loc. cit., v. 15.

4  Verse 10.

5  Jer. 31:22:  A woman shall surround a man [Femina circumdabit virum].  —  On this second solution see Sent., Bk. I, d. 44, Doubt 3.

6  Verse 16.

7  In not a few codices and the Vatican edition there is read just as He gave [sicut sex] for just as He had worked Six Days, so did He give [sex dies operatus fuerat, sic].  Not a few codices have for Six Days [sex diebus] for Six Days [sec dies].

8  Ex. 20:8 ff.; 31:13 ff.; Dt. 5:12 ff..  —  Solving the same doubt are Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 56, m. 2; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa, p. II, tr. 11, q. 67, incidental q. 4; St. Thomas and (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 3, a. 2; Richard of Middleton, here in a. 5, q. 2; Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, a. 3.

p. 391

DUB. VI.

DOUBT VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Numerando dies usque ad septimum procedimus.  Cum enim status esse non debeat nisi in aliqua perfectione, et senarius potius dicat perfectionem1 quam septenarius, vel etiam denarius; videtur, quod aut infra septem deberemus stare, aut ultra procedere.  —  Quaeritur etiam, quare gentiles, qui sacram Scripturam non recipiunt, in computatione dierum usque ad septem procedunt.  Si tu dicas, quod hoc est propter septenarium planetarum; tunc non videtur ordo rectus, quia mars non sequitur immediate lunam:2  ergo non debet sequi dies martis post diem lunae.

Likewise there is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says:  By numbering the days we proceed up to the seventh.  For since there ought not be a standing still except in some perfection, and a group of six [senarius] means a perfection1 more than a group of seven, and/or even a group of ten; it seems, that we either ought to stay below seven, or proceed beyond.  —  There is also asked, for what reason the Gentiles, who do not receive Sacred Scripture, in the computation of days, proceed up to seven.  If you say, that this is on account of the group of seven planets; then it does not seem (that there is among them) a right order, because Mars does not immediately follow the Moon:2  therefore the day for Mars ought not follow the day for the Moon.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod numerus dierum praefigitur secundum diversitatem mensuratorum, quibus ipsa mensura appropriatur.  Quoniam igitur nunc dies non appropriatur ad aliquem specialem effectum, sed solum in primaria rerum conditione, in qua reperitur distinctio secundum septem;3 ideo numerus dierum secundum illum numerum semper terminatur, non propter perfectionem numeri vel temporis, quod clauditur in septenario, sed propter perfectionem divini operis et quietis accipitur sic numerus.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that the number of days is fixed beforehand according to the diversity of measured, to whom the measure itself is appropriated.  Therefore, since, a day is not appropriated to any special effect, but only in the primary foundation of things, in which is found the distinction (of days) according to the seven (days);3 for that reason the number of days is always terminated according to that number, not on account of the perfection of the number and/or of the time, which is enclosed in a group of seven, but on account of the perfection of the Divine Work and Rest (their) number is thus accepted.

Gentiles vero numerum dierum accipiunt penes dominium septem planetarum, secundum quos regi habet et disponi tempus; et quia saturnus est primus inter planetas, dicunt, quod dominatur in prima hora diei,4 et sequens planeta in sequenti, et sic usque ad septem horas; postmodum fit regressus ad principium, et sic procedendo; et postmodum ille planeta, qui dominatur in vigesima quinta hora, ille est principium sequentis diei, et ab illo denominatur dies illa, et sic deinceps procedendo denominant septem dies a septem planetis.5  Et hoc patet consideranti ordinem planetarum, quo ordine servato in enumerando, quando saturnus dominatur in prima hora diei, sol dominatur in prima hora sequentis et luna in prima hora tertii, et sic procedendo ulterius.  Hunc autem modum denominandi dies nec omnino tenemus, ne videamur elementis mundi servire,6 nec omnino reliquimus propter consuetudinem; unde dominicam diem nominamus a nobis, sabbatum a Iudaeis; in aliis diebus servamus consuetum morem gentilitatis.  Ecclesia7 tamen loco illorum nominum ponit:  secunda feria, tertia feria, et sic deinceps.  Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.

But the gentiles accept the number of days from the domain of the seven planets, according to which time has to be ruled and disposed; and because Saturn is the first among the planets, they say, that he dominates in the first hour of the day,4 and the following planet in the following (day), and thus up to the seven hours; afterwards one makes a return to the beginning, and thus by proceeding (one numbers the hours of the day); and afterwards that planet, which dominates in the twenty-fifth hour, that is the beginning of the following day, and from the former (planet) is denominated the former day, and thus thereafter by proceeding they denominate the seven days from the seven planets.5  And this is clear to the one considering the order of the planets, with which order observed in enumerating (the days), when Saturn dominates in the first hour of the day, the Sun dominates in the first hour of the following (day) and the Moon in the first hour of the third (day), and thus by proceeding further (one names all the days).  Moreover this manner of denominating the days we (Catholics) do not hold entirely, lest we seem to serve the elements of the world,6 nor do we entirely relinquish on account of custom; wherefore we name “the Lord’s Day” [dominicam diem] from our own, “the Sabbath” from the Jews; on the other days we observe the customary usage of the nations [consuetum morem gentilitatis].  However the Church7 in place of these names puts: “second ferial day” [secunda feria], “third ferial day” [tertia feria], and thus afterwards.  And thus the response to the objections is clear.

1  Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.  —  Paulo inferius plures codd. cum ed. 1 infra septenarium pro infra septem.

2  Planetae in systemate Ptolomaei sic ordinantur:  luna, mercurius, venus, sol, mars, iupiter, saturnus.  —  Subinde nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1 post sequi adiungunt immediate.

3  Cod cc cum ed. 1 septenarium, et aliquanto inferius post accipitur subiungit hic.

4  In Vat. additur sabbati, quae etiam cum pluribus mss. et aliis edd. substituit procedendum pro procedendo.

5  Vat. septem dies quasi septem planetas.

6  Gal. 4, 3:  Ita et nos, cum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus servientes.

7  Ex constitutione Silvestri Papae I.

1  Cf. above d. 12, a. 1, q. 2 in the body (of the Question).  —  A little below this several codices, together with edition 1, have below a group of seven [infra septenarium] for below seven [infra septem].

2  The planets in the system of Ptolemy are ordered thus:  the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.  —  Then not a few codices, together with edition 1, after follow [sequi] adjoin immediately [immediate].

3  Codex cc, together with edition 1, has a group of seven (days) [septenarium], and somewhat below this after accepted [accipitur] subjoins here [hic].

4  In the Vatican edition there is added of the Sabbath [sabbati], which (edition) also, together with several manuscripts and the other editions, substitutes (one must) proceed (to number the hours of the day) [procedendum] for by proceeding (one numbers the hours of the day) [procedendo].

5  The Vatican edition reads the seven days as if (they were) the seven planets [septem dies quasi septem planetas].

6  Gal. 4:3:  Thus we too, when we were little ones, were servants under the elements of the world [Ita et nos, cum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus servientes].

7  From the Constitution of Pope Silvester I.

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.