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 XVII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII

De productione Adae quoad principia constituentia.

On the production of Adam in regard to constituent principles.

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE I

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 410-413.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 410-413.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

Hic de origine animae plura quaeri solet etc.

 Here there is customarily asked several (things) concerning the origin of the soul etc.

DIVISIO TEXTUS.

DIVISION OF THE TEXT

Supra egit Magister de productionis hominis in comparatione ad principium extra; in hac vero parte agit de productione eius quantum ad principia constitutiva,1 scilicet quantum ad corpus et animam.  Dividitur autem ista pars in duas.  In prima determinat de productione viri; in secunda vero de productione mulieris ex viro, infra:  In eodem quoque paradiso mulierem formavit etc., distinctione decima octava, in principio.

Above Master (Peter) dealt with the production of man in comparison to the outside principle; but in this part he deals with his production as much as regards the constitutive1 principles, that is, as much as regards (his) body and soul.  Moreover this part (of his text) is divided into two.  In the first he determines concerning the production of the man [viri]; but in the second concerning the production of the woman out of the man, below (where he says):  In the same Paradise God also formed a woman etc., in the Eighteenth Distinction, at the beginning.

Prima pars habet duas.  In prima determinat de hominis formatione; in secunda de hominis formati locatione, ibi:  Hominem autem ita formatum etc.  Prima pars habet duas.  In prima determinat de productione animae in se; in secunda vero in relatione ad corpus, ibi:  Sed utrum in corpore, an extra corpus etc.

The first part has two (parts).  In the first he determines concerning the formation of man; in the second concerning the place of the man formed, there (where he says):  Moreover God brought the man thus formed etc..  The first part has two (parts).  In the first he determines concerning the production of the soul in itself; but in the second (concerning its production) in relation to the body, there (where he says):  But whether (God created man’s soul) in (his) body, or outside of (his) body etc..

Pars autem illa, in qua determinat de productione animae in se, habet duas.  In prima determinat veritatem; in secunda removet errorem, ibi:  Putaverunt enim quidam haeretici etc.

Moreover that part, in which he determines concerning the production of the soul in itself, has two (parts).  In the first he determines the truth; in the second he removes an error, there (where he says):  For certain heretics thought etc..

Similiter illa pars, in qua determinat de productione animae in comparatione ad corpus, habet duas.  In prima determinat, utrum Deus creaverit animam in corpore, an extra corpus.  In secunda quaerit, utrum Deus fecerit hominem in aetate perfecta, ibi:  Solet etiam quaeri, utrum Deus hominem repente etc.

Similarly that part, in which he determines concerning the production of the soul in comparison to the body, has two (parts).  In the first he determines, whether God created the soul in the body, or outside of the body.  In the second he asks, whether God made man at the age of maturity [in aetate perfecta], there (where he says):  There is also customarily asked, “Whether God made man without delay” etc..

Similiter pars illa, in qua determinat de locatione iam formati,2 habet duas.  In prima determinat de loco eius in se.  In secunda vero determinat in comparatione ad contenta, ibi:  In hoc autem paradiso erant ligna etc.

Similarly that part, in which he determines concerning the location of the (man)2 already formed, has two (parts).  In the first he determines concerning his place in itself.  But in the second he determines (the same) in comparison to (its) contents, there (where he says):  Moreover in this paradise there were trees etc..

TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio de productione hominis quantum ad duo.

For an understanding of this part there falls here the question concerning the production of man as much as regards two (things).

Primo quaeritur de productione ipsius, quantum est ex parte animae.

First there is asked concerning his production, as much as it is on the part of the soul.

Secundo, quantum est ex parte corporis.

Second, as much as it is on the part of the body.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

About the first, three (questions) are asked.

Primo quaeritur, utrum anima primi hominis producta sit de Dei substantia.

First there is asked, whether the soul of the first man was produced from [de] God’s Substance.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum producta fuerit ex aliqua materia.

Second there is asked, whether it was produced out of any matter.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum producta fuerit ante corpus, vel post, sive in corpore, an extra.

Third there is asked, whether it was produced before, and/or after, the body, or in the body, or whether (it was produced) outside of (it).

ARTICULUS I.

 

De productione hominis quoad animam.

ARTICLE I

 

On the production of man in regard to the soul.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum anima humana sit ex Dei substantia.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether the human soul is out of God’s Substance?

CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod anima humana sit ex Dei substantia:

ABOUT THE FIRST (the argument) is advanced thus and there is shown, that the human soul is out of [ex] God’s Substance:

1. Primo auctoritate, Genesis secundo:3  Inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae; sed inspiratio est per egressum alicuius ab intrinseco:  ergo sicut Spiritus sanctus, qui est eiusdem naturae cum spirante, sic humanus spiritus, qui fuit inspiratus a Deo, est de natura divina.  Si tu dicas, quod insufflatio vel inspiratio potest esse rei diversae per naturam; obiicitur, quia Glossa dicit super illud Ioannis:4  Insufflavit eos et dixit eis:  Accipite etc.:  Augustinus dicit ibi, quod in hoc ostendit, ex se procedere Spiritum sanctum:  si ergo Deus insufflavit in faciem hominis spiraculum vitae, videtur, quod spiritum hominis produxit ex se.

1. First by authority, in the second (chapter) of Genesis:3  He breathed into [inspiravit] his face the breath of life; but an (act of) breathing into [inspiratio] is through an egress of something from (something) intrinsic:  therefore just as the Holy Spirit, who is of the same Nature with the One spirating (Him), so the human spirit, which was breathed into (Adam) by God, is from the Divine Nature.  If you say, that an insufflation and/or inspiration can be of a thing diverse through nature; it is objected, because the Gloss on that (verse) of (the Gospel of St.) John4 says:  He breathed upon [insufflavit] them and said to them:  Accept (the Holy Spirit) etc.:  (St.) Augustine says there, that in this He shows, that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of Himself:  if, therefore, God breathed in upon [insufflavit in] the face of the man a breath of life, it seems, that He produced the spirit of the man out of Himself.

2. Item, Ecclesiastis ultimo:5  Donec pulvis re- / -vertatur . . .

2. Likewise, (there is written) in the final (chapter) of Ecclesiastes:5  Until the dust re- / -turns . . .

1  Plures codd. constituentia.

2  Vat. hominis iam formati.

3  Vers. 7.  —  Cfr. August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 2. n. 3, et II. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 8. n. 11, ubi hoc arg. tribuit Manichaeis.

4  Cap. 20, 22:  Insufflavit et dixit etc.  —  Glossa, quae est interlinearis, sumta est ex August., in Ioan. tract. 121. n. 4:  Insufflando significavit, Spiritum sanctum non Patris solius esse Spiritum, sed et suum.

5  Vers. 7:  Et revertatur pulvis in terram etc.

1  Several codices have constituent [constituentia].

2  The Vatican edition adds man [hominis].

3  Verse 7.  —  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VII, ch. 2, n. 3, and On Genesis against the Manichees, Bk. II, ch. 8, n. 11, where he attributes this argument to the Manichees.

4  Jn. 20:22:  He breathed upon (them) and said etc. [Insufflavit et dixit etc.].  —  The Gloss, which is the interlinear one, has been taken from (St.) Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John, tract 121, n. 4:  By breathing upon (them) He signified, that the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father, but also His own.

5  Verse 7:  Even dust returns into the earth etc. [Et revertatur pulvis in terram etc.].

 

p. 411

 

re- / -vertatur in terram, unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum, qui dedit illum:  si igitur spiritus redit ad Deum, sicut pulvis redit ad terram, sicut homo quantum ad carnem est de terra, ita videtur, quod quantum ad spiritum est de Dei substantia.

re- / -turns into the earth, whence it was, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it:  if, therefore, the spirit (of a man) returns to God, just as dust returns to the earth, just as a man as much as regards (his) flesh is of [de] the earth, so it seems, that as much as regards (his) spirit he is of [de] God’s Substance.

3. Item, Actuum decimo septimo:1  Genus enim Dei sumus, sicut quidam poetarum vestrorum dixerunt; sed quae sunt eiusdem generis sunt eiusdem naturae:  ergo nos et Deus sumus eiusdem naturae.  Sed non quantum ad corpus; ergo quantum ad animam:  ergo anima est de Dei substantia.

3. Likewise, in the seventeenth (chapter of the Book) of Acts1 (there is written):  For we are God’s offspring [genus], just as certain of your poets have said; but (those) which are of the same genus are of the same nature:  therefore we and God are of the same nature.  But not as much as regards the body; therefore as much as regards the soul:  therefore the soul is of [de] God’s Substance.

4. Item, ratione videtur.  Omnia corporalia producuntur ex aliqua materia, quae est in omnibus corporalibus una:  ergo pari ratione spiritualia producuntur ex aliqua spirituali natura, quae in omnibus spiritibus sit una; sed spiritualis substantia, in omnibus reperta per identitatem, non est nisi divina:  ergo anima facta est ex Dei substantia.2

4. Likewise, it seems by reason.  All corporal (things) are produced out of some matter, which is one in all corporals:  therefore for an equal reason spiritual (things) are produced out of some spiritual nature, which is one in all spirits; but the spiritual substance, found in all through identity, is not but the Divine (Substance):  therefore the soul has been made out of God’s Substance.2

5. Item, solus Deus est immortalis per naturam,3 ergo nulli convenit immortalitas per naturam, nisi quod est vel Deus, vel ex Deo; nulli autem convenit esse imaginem Dei, nisi cui convenit esse immortalem per naturam — « non enim esset imago, sicut dicit Augustinus, si mortis termino clauderetur » — si igitur anima rationalis naturaliter est imago, ergo naturaliter est immortalis:  ergo de Dei substantia producta fuit.

5. Likewise, God alone is immortal through nature,3 therefore immortality through nature convenes with none, except (that) which is either God, and/or out of God; but to be the image of God convenes with none, except (that) with which it convenes to be immortal through nature — « for it would not be an image », just as (St.) Augustine says, « if it were enclosed by the terminus of death » — if, therefore, the rational soul is naturally an image (of God), therefore it is naturally immortal:  therefore it was produced from the Substance of God.

6. Item, Deus est lux spiritualis, quae est fons omnis illuminationis spiritualis, sicut sol est fons illuminationis corporalis; sed corpora luminosa sunt eiusdem naturae cum luce et cum sole:  ergo pari ratione spiritus naturaliter luminosi sunt eiusdem naturae cum fonte lucis spiritualis.4  Sed quidquid est eiusdem naturae cum Deo, vel est Deus, vel de Deo:  ergo etc.

6. Likewise, God is the spiritual Light [lux spiritualis], which is the Fount of all spiritual illumination, just as the Sun is the fount of corporal illumination; but luminous bodies are of the same nature with light [luce] and with the Sun:  therefore for an equal reason naturally luminous spirits are of the same nature with the Found of spiritual light.4  But whatever is of the same nature with God, either is God, and/or of [de] God:  ergo etc..

CONTRA:  1. Genesis primo:5  Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; hoc non est dictum secundum corpus, ergo secundum animam:  ergo anima hominis est facta; et circa divinam naturam non cadit factio vel mutatio:  ergo non est ex Dei natura sive substantia.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. In the first (chapter) of Genesis5 (there is written):  Let Us make man to Our image and likeness; this has not been said according to the body, therefore (it has been said) according to the soul:  therefore the soul of man has been made; and about the Divine Nature there falls no (act of) making [factio] and/or (act of) changing [mutatio]:  therefore (the soul) is not out of God’s Nature or Substance.

2. Item, si anima est ex Dei natura, cum anima sit pars hominis, Dei natura venit ad constitutionem hominis; sed pars est minus nobilis quam totum:  ergo Deus est minus nobilis quam homo.  Sed hoc est falsum et impium:6  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, if the soul is out of God’s Nature, since the soul is part of man, God’s Nature comes to the constitution of the man; but a part is less noble than the whole:  therefore God is less noble than man.  But this is false and impious:6  ergo etc..

3. Item, si anima est ex divina natura, aut ergo habet aliquam formam superinductam illi naturae, ex qua est, aut nullam.  Si nullam:  ergo non videtur esse nec facta nec a Deo diversa.  Si aliquam:  ergo divina natura est ipsius animae materia.  Sed quod est materiale principium alicuius est minus completum et imperfectum:7  ergo Deus est incompletus et imperfectus per naturam; quod est blasphemia.

3. Likewise, if the soul is out of the Divine Nature, therefore either it has some form induced upon [superinductam] that Nature, out of which it is, or none.  If none:  therefore it does not seem to have been made by God nor (to be) diverse (from Him).  If some:  therefore the Divine Nature is the matter of the soul itself.  But (that) which is the material principle of something is less complete and imperfect:7  therefore God is incomplete and imperfect through nature; which is blasphemy.

4. Item, si anima est ex Dei substantia; et anima depravatur:  ergo contingit, divinam substantiam depravari; et si8 contingit, Dei substantiam depravari, Deus non est summe bonus.  Cum igitur rationalis spiritus peccare possit, sicut patet, rationalis spiritus non est ex Deo.

4. Likewise, if the soul is out of God’s Substance; and the soul is depraved:  therefore it happens, that the Divine Substance is depraved; and if it8 happens, that God’s Substance is depraved, God is not most highly Good.  Therefore since a rational spirit can sin, just as is clear, a rational spirit is not out of God.

5. Item, si anima est ex Deo, aut igitur per generationem, aut per spirationem.  Si primo modo, tunc anima nihil aliud est quam Verbum; si secundo, tunc anima non est aliud quam Spiritus sanctus:  ergo omnis homo esset Deus.

5. Likewise, if the soul is out of God, therefore (it is) either (such) through a generation, or through a spiration.  If in the first manner, then the soul is nothing other than the Word; if in the second, then the soul is not other than the Holy Spirit:  therefore every man would be God.

6. Item, si anima hominis esset ex Deo, aut de toto Deus, aut de parte.  Si de parte:  ergo Deus est compositus et habet partem et partem; quod est omnino falsum.9  Si de toto; sed Deus est immensus et infinitus:  ergo cuiuslibet hominis anima est immensa et infinita.  Et si hoc, quilibet homo est omnipotens; quod nullus dubitat esse falsum.

6. Likewise, if the soul of man would be out of God, either (it would be) God from in whole [de toto], or in part [de parte].  If in part:  therefore God is composed and has this and that part [partem et partem]; which is entirely false.9  If in whole; but God is immense and infinite:  therefore the soul of any man is immense and infinite.  And if this (is true), any man is omnipotent; which no one doubts to be false.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Anima humana non est producta ex Dei substantia.

CONCLUSION

 

The human soul has not been produced out of God’s Substance.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod aliquorum positio fuit, quod intellectus humanus non erat aliud quam intellectus divinus, sed divinus intellectus dicebatur, prout considerabatur in se, humanus vero, prout perficiebat corpus aliquod.  —  Sed cum Deus nullius sit pars constitutiva propter suam summam perfectionem et absolutionem, positio haec fuit stulta et erronea.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that it was the position of some, that the human intellect was not other than the Divine Intellect; but the Intellect was said (to be) “divine”, insofar as it was considered in itself, but “human”, insofar as it perfected some body.  —  But since God is the constitutive part of nothing on account of His own Most High Perfection and Absolution, this position was foolish and erroneous.

Est et alia positio non minus stulta et impia, . . .

There is also another position, no less foolish and impious, . . .

1  Vers. 28:  Sicut et quidam vestrorum poetarum dixerunt:  Ipsius enim et genus sumus.  —  Vat. et ed. 4 philosophorum nostrorum, codd. cum ed. 1 poetarum nostrorum pro poetarum vestrorum.

2  Hoc arg. usus est David de Dinanto (circa an. 1204) in suo libro de tomis, hoc est de divisionibus, in quo docet, Deum esse principium materiale omnium, ut refert B. Albert., S. p. I. tr. 4. q. 20. m. 2. q. incid. et p. II. tr. 12. q. 72. m. 4. a. 2.  Cfr. S. Thom., I. S. contr. Gent. c. 17; hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 3. a . 8.

3  Epist. I. Tim. 6, 16:  Qui solus habet immortalitatem.  —  Seq. textus Augustini invenitur in libro de Spiritu et anima (inter opera Augustini), c. 18:  Non enim poterat esse imago et similitudo Dei, si mortis termino clauderetur ».  Eadem propositio occurrit in Cassiodori libro de Anima, c. 8. et formata esse videtur ex iis quae dicit August., XIV. de Trin. c. 3. n. 6.

4  Alluditur in hoc arg. ad opinionem Manichaeorum dicentium, Deum esse lucem visibilem.  Cfr. August., I. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 3. n. 6. et de Haeresibus, c. 46.  —  In maiori plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 bis habent finis pro fons.

5  Vers. 26.  —  Cfr. de hoc et 4. arg. August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 2. n. 3; c. 11. n. 17; II. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 8. n. 11; I. de Anima et eius origine, c. 4. n. 4; Disput. contra Fortun. Manich. primae diei n. 11.

6  Vide I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2.

7  Cfr. I. Sent. d. 19. p. II. q. 3.

8  Non pauci codd. incongrue addunt hoc.

9  Vide I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 1; et de seqq. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 43. q. 1. seq.

1  Verse 28:  Just as certain of your poets have also said:  For we are His offspring [Sicut et quidam vestrorum poetarum dixerunt:  Ipsius enim et genus sumus].  —  The Vatican edition and edition 1 have of our philosophers [philosophorum nostrorum], the codices together with edition 1 have of our poets [poetarum nostrorum] for of your poets [poetarum vestrorum].

2  This argument is used by David of Dinan (c. A. D. 1204) in his book de tomis, that is “On Divisions”, in which he teaches, that God is the material principle of all (things), as Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus) reports, Summa., p. I, tr. 4, q. 20, m. 2, incidental q., and p. II, tr. 12, q. 72, m. 4, a. 2.  Cf. St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles, Bk. I, ch. 17; here in q. 1, a. 1; and Summa., I, q. 3, a. 8.

3  1 Tim 6:16:  Who alone has immortality [Qui solus habet immortalitatem].  —  The following text of (St.) Augustine is found in the book (numbered among his works), On Spirit and the Soul, ch. 18:  For it could not have been the image and similitude of God, if it were enclosed by the terminus of death ».  The same proposition occurs in Cassiodorus’s book On the Soul, ch. 8, and seems to have been formed from what (St.) Augustine says, On the Trinity, Bk. XIV, ch. 3, n. 6.

4  There is an allusion in this argument to the opinion of the Manichees who said that God is visible light.  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On Genesis against the Manichees, Bk. I, ch. 3, n. 6 and On Heresies, ch. 46.  —  In the major (of the argument) very many codices, together with edition 1, have twice end [finis] for fount [fons].

5  Verse 26.  —  On this and the 4th argument, cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VII, ch. 2, n. 3; ch. 11, n. 11; On Genesis against the Manichees, Bk. II, ch. 8, n. 11; On the Soul and its Origin, Bk. I, ch. 4, n. 4; Disputation against Fortunus the Manichee, First Day, n. 11.

6  See Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, q. 2.

7  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 19, p. II, q. 3.

8  Not a few codices incongruously read this [hoc] for it.

9  See Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, q. 1; and on the following, d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 43, q. 1 f..

 

p. 412

 

Manichaeorum videlicet, quod spiritus rationalis sit de Dei substantia et natura.  Dicunt enim, quod in homine est duplex anima, sicut recitat Augustinus in libro de Duabus Animabus,1 quarum una inclinat ad bona, et alia inclinat ad mala; et illa quae facit bona, nunquam potest facere mala; et illa quae facit mala, nunquam potest facere bona; et illa quae inclinat ad faciendum bonum, est de Dei natura.  —  Sed haec positio multipliciter a veritate est aliena.  Primum, quia ponit, Deum eiusdem naturae esse cum creatura et alicuius creaturae esse materiam, cum ponit, creaturam fieri ex Dei substantia. Et ad hanc positionem sequuntur innumerabilia inconvenientia, et hoc praecipuum est, quia implicat in se duo opposita, dum ponit, animam a Deo esse factum, et eam esse de substantia divina.  —  Deviat etiam a veritate in hoc, quod ponit in nobis duas animas; sed huius improbatio melius tangetur infra.2

namely (that) of the Manichees, that the rational spirit is of God’s Substance and Nature.  For they say, that in man there is a double soul [duplex anima], just as (St.) Augustine cites in the book On the Two Souls,1 one of which inclines to good (things), and the other (of which) inclines to evil ones; and the former which does good (deeds), can never do wicked ones; and the latter, which does wicked (deeds), can never do good ones; and that which inclines to the doing of the good, is of God’s Nature.  —  But this position is alien from the truth in a multiple manner.  First, because it posits, that God is of the same nature with a creature and is the matter of some creature, when it posts, that the creature is made out of God’s Substance.  And from [ad] this position follows innumerable unfitting (consequences), and the chief is, that it implies in itself two opposites, so long as it posits, that the soul has been made by God, and is of the Divine Substance.  —  It also deviates from the truth in this, that it posits two souls in us; but the disproof of this will be touched upon better below.2

Et ideo tertia positio est vera et catholica, quod anima non est producta de Dei substantia.  Deus enim ad creaturas se habet in ratione efficientis et formalis3 et finis; sed nullo modo potest se habere in ratione materialis, quantumcumque creatura sit nobilis.  Et ideo rationes hoc probantes concedendae sunt.

And for that reason the third position is the true and Catholic one, that the soul has not been produced from God’s Substance.  For God holds Himself to creatures in the reckoning of an efficient, formal,3 and final (cause) [efficientis et formalis et finis]; but in no manner can He hold Himself in the reckoning of a material (cause), however so much the creature be noble.  And for that reason, the reasons proving this are to be conceded.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod inspiravit in faciem eius etc.; dicendum, quod inspirare idem est ibi quod spiritum facere et factum corpori infundere; similiter et insufflare est flatum hominis facere et factum corpori infundere.4  Unde sicut, quando Deus res produxit dicendo, non fuit ibi vox materialis, sic, quando insufflavit, non fuit mediantibus faucibus et instrumentis corporalibus.  Et ideo non valet illud simile de Ioannis vigesimo,5 ubi ad litteram:  sufflavit, et illa insufflatio erat processionis Spiritus sancti signatio et ostensio.

1. To that, however, which is objected unto the contrary, that He breathed into [inspiravit] his face etc.; it must be said, that “to breath into” [inspirare] is the same there as “to give breath” [spiritum facere] and “to infuse (the breath) made into a body”; similarly too “to breath upon” is “to give human breath” [flatum hominis facere] and “to infuse (the breath) made into a body”.4  Wherefore just as, when God produced things by speaking, there was no material voice there, so, when He breathed upon, (this) was not by means of a throat and corporal instruments.  And for that reason that similar (verse) from the twentieth (chapter) of (St.) John5 is not valid, where according to the letter (there is written):  He blew upon [sufflavit], and that insufflation was an act marking and showing [signatio et ostensio] the procession of the Holy Spirit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ecclesiaste:  Et spiritus redeat ad Deum etc.; dicendum, quod sicut corporis resolutio stat, cum perventum est ad terram, sic mutabilitas animae tunc demum stat, quando coniungitur ei, secundum quem facta est.  In solo enim Deo invenit perfectam quietam.6  Et ideo non vult Sapiens dicere, quod spiritus redeat ad Deum per corruptionem, sicut corpus in terram; sed similitudo est quantum ad quietationem.

2. To that which is objected from Ecclesiastes:  And the spirit returns to God etc.; it must be said, that just as the body is dissolved [corporis resolutio stat], when it has come to the earth, so the mutability of the soul is then at last put to rest [tunc demum stat], when it is conjoined to Him, according to Whom it was made.  For in God alone does it find perfect rest [quietam].6  And for that reason the Wise Man does not want to say, that the spirit returns to God through corruption, just as the body (returns) unto the earth; but the similitude (employed therein) is (used) as much as regards (its) going to rest [quietationem].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod genus Dei sumus; dicendum, quod genus dupliciter accipi potest:  uno modo proprie; et sic dicuntur aliqua convenire in genere, quae conveniunt in aliqua forma et natura communi.  Alio modo accipitur large; et sic dicuntur aliqua convenire in genere, in quibus est aliqua convenientia specialis secundum habitudinem analogiae.  Et sic dicit Augustinus duodecimo de Trinitate,7 quod anima « cognoscit in quadam luce sui generis »; et vocat illam lucem lucem increatam, quam dicit esse sui generis propter hoc, quod est spiritualis, sicut anima.  Et sic intelligitur verbum Apostoli.

3. To that which is objected, that we are God’s offspring [genus Dei]; it must be said, that genus can be accepted in a twofold manner:  in one manner properly; and thus some (things) are said to convene in genus, which convene in some common form and nature.  In another manner it is accepted broadly, and thus some (things) are said to convene in genus, in which there is some special convening according to the habitude of an analogy.  And thus (St.) Augustine says in the twelfth (book) On the Trinity,7 that the soul « cognizes in a certain light [luce] of its own kind [sui generis] »; and he calls that light an “uncreated light”, which he says is sui generis on account of this, that it is spiritual, just as the soul (is). And in this manner is the word of the Apostle understood.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corporalia sunt ex aliquo uno; respondendum est, quod hoc non concludit, quod spiritus rationales fiant ex Deo;  illud enim unum, ex quo fiunt corporalia, est ens in potentia respectu illorum; Deus autem respectu nullius potest esse in potentia; et ideo ex hoc non sequitur, quod spirituales substantiae producantur de divina natura.

4. To that which is objected, that corporals are out of one something; it must be responded, that this does not conclude, that rational spirits are made out of God; for that one, out of which corporals are made, is being in potency [ens in potentia] in respect of them; but God can be in potency in respect of none; and for that reason there does not follow from this, that spiritual substances are produced from the Divine Nature.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solus Deus est immortalis per naturam; dicendum, quantum sufficit ad praesens — quia infra8 habebitur de immortalitate — quod immortalitas per naturam, dicta de Deo, intelligitur per privationem omnis gratiae, sive gratia dicat aliquid superadditum naturae, sive dicat gratuitam influentiam, per quam conservatur natura; quia Deus se ipso permanet, anima autem, etsi de sui natura sit ad permanendum idonea, tamen nunquam permaneret, nisi conservaretur per gratuitam Dei influentiam.

5. To that which is objected, that God alone is immortal through nature; it must be said, as  much as suffices for the present (consideration) — because (the discussion) of immortality will be had below8 — that “immortality through nature”, said of God, is understood through the privation of every grace, whether “grace” means something superadded to nature, or means a gratuitous influence, through which the nature is conserved; because God perdures by Himself, but the soul, even if from its own nature it is suitable [idonea] for perduring, yet it never would perdure, unless it were conserved through the gratuitous influence of God.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus est lux spiritualis etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile de luce spirituali et corporali omnino.  Lux enim spiritualis, quae Deus est, cum sit simplicissima, non potest esse perfectio rerum diversarum naturarum.  Cum autem sit omnipotentissima, potest producere et facere lucem creatam aliquo modo sibi conformem; quae tamen sibi non sufficit, etiam postquam . . .

6. To that which is objected, that God is a spiritual light [lux] etc.; it must be said, that it is not entirely similar concerning a spiritual and corporal light.  For the spiritual Light, which is God, since It is most simple, cannot be the perfection of things of diverse natures.  But since It is most omnipotent, it can produce and cause a created light conform to Itself in some manner; which, however, is not sufficient for itself, even after . . .

1  Cap. 1. n. 1 seqq.  Cfr. I. Retract. c. 15. n. 1.  —  Paulo inferius in paucis codd. et in omnibus edd., excepta secunda, desideratur et illa quae facit bona, nunquam potest facere mala.

2  Dist. 31. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 34. a. 1. q. 1.  Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.

3  Intellige exemplaris, quod indicant codd. Y aa legendo et formalis exemplaris.  Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4.  —  Paulo inferius post nobilis ed. 4 et Vat. subiungunt quia quod se habet ut materiale respectu alicuius, est minus completum ipso.

4  Eodem modo explicat August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. n. 5. seqq. et XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 24.  —  Paulo superius post et factum corpori plures codd. cum edd. 2, 3 insinuare, Vat. cum ed. 4 insinuare vel infundere pro infundere.  Paulo inferius Vat. verbo pro dicendo.

5  Vers. 22.  Textus graecus enefushse; idem verbum habetur in hac propositione ex Gen. 2, 7, de qua August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 2:  Ac primum illud videamus, quod scriptum est Flavit vel Sufflavit in faciem eius flatum vitae.  Nonnulli enim codices habent Spiravit vel Inspiravit in faciem eius.  Sed cum Graeci habeant enefusesen, non dubitatur, flavit vel sufflavit esse dicendum.  Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.  —  Vat. omisso ubi, dein substituit Insufflavit; nam illa pro sufflavit et illa.

6  August., I. Confess. c. 1. n. 1:  Quia fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te.

7  Cap. 15. n. 24.  Cfr. opusculum a nobis editum de Humanae Cognitionis ratione.  —  Plures codd. cum Vat. convenientia spiritualis pro convenientia specialis.

8  Dist. 19. a. 1. q. 1.  Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

1  Chapter 1, n. 1 ff..  Cf. Retractations, Bk. I, ch. 15, n. 1.  —  A little below this in a few codices and in all the editions, except 2, there is wanting and the former which does good (deeds), can never do wicked ones [et illa quae facit bona, nunquam potest facere mala].

2  Distinction 31, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 34, a. 1, q. 1.  Cf. above d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 1.

3  Understand exemplary [exemplaris], which codices Y and aa indicate by reading and formal exemplar [et formalis exemplaris].  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. I, a. 1. q. 1, in reply to n. 4.  —  A little below this after noble [nobilis], edition 4 and the Vatican edition subjoin because what holds itself as a material (principle) in respect of something, is less complete than it [quia quod se habet ut materiale respectu alicuius, est minus completum ipso].

4  (St.) Augustine explains this in the same manner, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis¸ Bk. VII, ch. 3, n. 5 ff., and On the City of God, Bk. XIII, ch. 24.  —  A little above this after and [et factum corpori] several codices, together with editions 2 and 3, have to introduce [insinuare], the Vatican edition, together with edition 4, has to introduce and/or infuse [insinuare vel infundere] for to infuse [infundere].  A little below this the Vatican edition has with a word [verbo] for by speaking [dicendo].

5  Verse 22.  The Greek is enefushse; the same word is had in this proposition from Gen. 2:7, concerning which (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VII, ch. 4, n. 2 (says):  And first let us take a look at that, which was written:  He blowed [Flavit] and/or He blew upon [Sufflavit] his face the breath [flatum] of life.  For not a few codices have He breathed [Spiravit] and/or He breathed into [Inspiravit] his face.  But since the Greeks have enefusesen, it is not doubted, that He blowed and/or He blew into must be said.  Cf. here the text of Master (Peter), ch. 2.  —  The Vatican edition, having omitted the where [ubi], substitutes He breathed upon; for that [Insufflavit; nam illa] for He blew upon, and that [Sufflavit, et illa].

6  (St.) Augustine, Confessions, Bk. I, ch. 1, n. 1:  Because Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it rests in Thee.

7  Chapter 15, n. 24.  Cf. the opusculum published by us, de Humanae Cognitionis ratione.  —  Several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have spiritual convening [convenientia spiritualis] for special convening [convenientia specialis].

8  Distinction 19, a. 1. q. 1.  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, a. 2. q. 2.

 

p. 413

 

producta est, nisi adsit ei summae lucis influentia.1  Et sic intelligendum est in anima humana, quod ipsa habet lucem propriam, scilicet creatam, per quam completur, quae a luce aeterna et producitur et conservatur.  Lux autem corporalis in diversis corporibus potest reperiri ut perfectio, cum non sit forma omnino simplex, sed sit nata coniungi materiae.

it has been produced, unless the influence of the Most High Light be at hand for it.1  And thus must it be understood in the human soul, that it has its own light, namely a created one, through which it is completed, which is both produced and conserved by the Eternal Light.  Moreover corporal light can be found as a perfection in diverse bodies, since it is not an entirely simple form, but is bound to be conjoined with matter.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. De errore nefando hic notato, qui ultimis saeculis sub variis formis renovatus est, dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 1.):  « Iam quoque a philosophis atque theologis plenissime est probatum et demonstrative ostensum, quod supergloriosissimus Deus sit purus actus, bonitas pura, incommutabile, incircumscriptibile penitusque perfectum ens, universis et singulis prorsus in infinitum sublimior . . . Ideo superstultissimum et ineffabiliter rudissimum ac imperitissimum est putare, aliquid factum esse, aut fieri posse de substantia Dei; quoniam sequeretur, Dei substantiam esse mutatam, aut rem factam Deo esse consubstantialem ».

I. Of the abominable error here noted, which has been renewed in recent centuries under various forms, (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian (here in q. 1) says:  « It has already been most fully proven and demonstratively shown by philosophers and theologians, that the most super-glorious God is pure act, pure goodness, the incommutable, incircumscribable and thoroughly perfect Being, in a word more sublime than each and every single (thing) unto an infinite (degree) . . . For that reason it is most super-foolish and most ineffably rude and most ignorant to think, that something was made, or can be made from God’s Substance, since it would follow, that God’s Substance had changed, or that the thing made is consubstantial with God ».

In solutione ad 3. notanda est expositio verborum S. Augustini, quod « anima cognoscit in quadam luce sui generis; quae interpretatio respondet sententiae S. Bonaventurae de modo, quo intelligibilia cognoscuntur per rationes aeternas (cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 1, scholion).  Alii aliter haec verba interpretantur.  —  Item notanda est in solut. ad 6. differentia inter lucem corporalem et duplicem lucem spiritualem, scil. increatam et creatam.  De luce ut forma cfr. supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2.

In the solution to n. 3 there is to be noted the exposition of the words of St. Augustine, that « the soul cognizes in a certain sui generis light, which interpretation responds to the sentence of St. Bonaventure concerning the manner, in which intelligibles are cognized through eternal reasons (cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, p. I, q. 1, Scholium).  Others interpret these words in another manner.  —  Likewise there is to be noted in the solution to n. 6 the difference between corporal light and the twofold spiritual light, that is the uncreated and created.  On light as a form, cf. above d. 13, a. 2, q. 2.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 60. m. 1.  —  Scot., in utroque Scripto, hic q. 1.  —  S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 90. a. 1; S. c. Gent. II. c. 85.  —  B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. p. II. tr. 12. q. 72. m. 2.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1.  —  Biel, hic q. 1.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 60, m. 1.  —  (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in each version of his Commentary, here in q. 1.  —  St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 1; Summa. , I, q. 90, a. 1; Summa contra Gentiles.,. Bk. II, ch. 85.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 2; Summa., p. II, tr. 12, q. 72, m. 2.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 1.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 1, a. 1.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, here in q. 1.

1   Vide infra d. 37. a. 1. q. 2. et I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.  —  De seqq. cfr. infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 2.

1   See below d. 37, a. 1, q. 2, and Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 1. q. 1, in the body of the Question.  —  On the following, cf. below d. 18, a. 2. q. 1, and d. 24, p. I, a. 2. q. 2.

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.