Magistri Petri Lombardi
Arch. Episc. Parisiensis

Master Peter Lombard
Archbishop of Paris

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences

LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM.

 

DE  RERUM  CREATIONE  ET  FORMATIONE  CORPORALIUM ET  SPIRITUALIUM
ET  ALIIS  PLURIBUS  EO  PERTINENTIBUS

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE SENTENCES

 

ON THE CREATION AND FORMATION OF THINGS CORPORAL AND SPIRITUAL AND MANY OTHERS PERTAINING TO THIS

DISTINCTIO XIII.

DISTINCTION 13

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 308-310.
Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 308-310.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. I.

 

De primo distinctionis opere.

Chapter I.

On the work of the first distinction.

Prima autem distinctionis operatio fuit formatio lucis, sicut ostendit Scriptura,1 quae, commemorata rerum informitate, earum dispositionem a luce inchoavit subdens:  Dixit Deus:  Fiat lux, et facta est lux; et divisit lucem a tenebris, appellavitque lucem diem, et tenebras noctem.  Et factum est vespere et mane, dies unus.  « Congrue mundi ornatus a luce incepit, unde cetera, quae creanda erant, viderentur ».

But the first work of distinction was the formation of light, just as Scripture shows,1 which having commemorated the formlessness of things, began their arrangement [dispositionem] by light, subjoining:  God said:  “Let there be light”, and light was made; and He divided the light from the darkness, and He named the light “day”, and the darkness “night”.  And there was made evening and morning, one day [dies unus].*  « Fittingly, the ornamentation of the world started from the light, whence all the others, which were to be created, would be seen ».

Cap. II.

 

De luce facta primo die, si spiritualis, an corporalis fuerit.

Chapter II.

On the light made on the First Day, whether it was spiritual, or corporal?

Si quaeritur, qualis illa lux fuerit, corporalis scilicet, an spiritualis; id respondemus quod a Sanctis legimus traditum.  —  Dicit enim Augustinus,2 quia lux illa corporalis, vel spiritualis intelligi potest.  Si spiritualis accipitur, angelica natura intelligitur, quae prius informis fuit, sed postea formata est, cum ad Creatorem suum conversa, ei caritate adhaesit, cuius informitatis creatio superius3 significata est, ubi dictum est:  In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.  Hic vero eiusdem formatio ostenditur, cum ait:  Fiat lux, et facta est lux.  Haec ergo angelica natura prius tenebrae et postea lux fuit, quia prius habuit informitatem et imperfectionem, deinde formationis perfectionem; et ita divisit Deus lucem a tenebris. Nam, ut ait Augustinus super Genesim:4  « Huius creaturae informitas et imperfectio fuit, antequam formaretur in amore Conditoris.  Formata vero est, quando conversa est ad incommutabile lumen Verbi ».  —  Si vero corporalis fuit lux illa, quae utique probabile est, corpus lucidum fuisse intelligitur, velut lucida nubes, quod non de nihilo, sed de praeiacenti materia formaliter factum est, ut lux esset et vim lucendi haberet; cum qua dies . . .

If there is asked, “Of what kind was that light, namely corporal, or spiritual?”; we respond with that which we read (was) handed down by the Saints.  —  For (St.) Augustine2 says, that that light can be understood as corporal, and/or spiritual.  If it is accepted as spiritual, it is understood as the angelic nature, which was first formless, but afterwards was formed, when having converted to its Creator, it cleaved to Him by charity, the creation of whose formlessness was signified above,3 where there was said:  In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.  But here the formation of the same is shown, when (Scripture) says: “Let there be light”, and light was made.  Therefore this angelic nature was first darkness and afterwards light, because it had first a formlessness and imperfection, then the perfection of (is) formation; and thus God divided light from darkness.  For, as (St.) Augustine says On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis:4  « A formlessness and imperfection belonged to this creature, before it was formed in the love of (its) Founder.  But it was formed, when it was converted to the incommutable Light of the Word ».  —  But if that light was corporal, which indeed is probable, it is understood to have been a lucid body, such as a lucid cloud, which (body) was made formally, not from nothing, but from pre-existing [praeiacenti] matter, to be light and to have the force of lighting; with which the First / Day . . .

1  Gen. 1, 3. seqq.  —  Teste cod. Erf., haec et seqq. usque ad cap. 7, sumta sunt ex Gandolpho, II. Sent. c. 54. 56.  Propositio sequens:  Congrue mundi etc. est ex Glossa interlin. ad v. 3.

2  Libr. I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. n. 7, secundum sensum; et XXII. contra Faustum, c. 10.  —  Paulo inferius post Creatorem Vat. cum codd. A G et plurimis edd. omittit suum.

3  Cfr. dist. II. c. 6

4  Libr. I, c. 5. n. 10, sed non ad verbum.

1  Gen. 1:3 ff..  —  According to the Erfurt Codex, these and the following up to chapter 7, have been taken from Gandolphus, Sent., Bk. II, chs. 54 and 56.  The following proposition:  Fittingly the ornamentation etc. [Congrue mundi etc.] is from the Glossa interlinearis, on v. 3.

2  On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. I, ch. 3, n. 7, according to the sense; and Against Faustus, Bk. XXII, ch. 10.  —  A little below this at Creator, the Vatican edition, together with codices A and G and very many editions, omits its [suum].

3  Cf. Distinction II, ch. 6.

4  Book I, ch. 5, n. 10, but not literally.

 

* [Trans. note:  Here it must be noted that Master Peter, following the Vulgate, uses the masculine for day [dies], wheras, as we shall see, St. Bonaventure in his commentary uses the masculine for the daytime and the feminine for one entire day, comprising the daytime and the night, following the custom of the Italian tongue:  il giorno, la giornata.]

p. 309

prima exorta est, quia ante lucem nec dies fuit nec nox, licet tempus fuerit.

the First / Day [dies prima] rose, because before the light there was neither day nor night, though there was time.

Cap. III.

 

Ubi facta fuerit.

Chapter III.

Where was it made?

Si autem quaeritur:  ubi facta est lux illa, cum abyssus omnem terrae altitudinem tegeret? dici potest in illis partibus facta, quas nunc illustrat solis diurna lux.  Nec mirum, lucem in aquis posse lucere, cum etiam nautarum operatione saepius illustrentur, qui in profundum mersi, misso ex ore oleo1 aquas sibi illustrant; quae multo rariores fuerunt in principio, quam modo sunt, quia nondum congregatae fuerunt in uno loco.  Facta ergo lux illa vicem2 et locum solis tenebat, quae motu suo circumagitata, noctem diemque discernebat.  Ibi ergo primum lucem apparuisse verisimile est, ubi sol quotidiano cursu circumvectus apparet, ut eodem tramite lux circumcurrens ac primo ad occasum descendens, vesperam faceret, deinde revocata ad ortum, auroram, id est mane illustraret; et ita divisit Deus lucem et tenebras et appellavit lucem diem, et tenebras noctem.

But if there is asked:  “Where was that light made, since the abyss covered every altitude of the Earth?” it can be said (to have been) made in those parts, which the diurnal light of the Sun now brightens [illustrat].  Nor (is it) to be wondered at, that light can shine in the waters, since they are even often lit up by the work of sailors [nautarum operatione illustrentur], who having plunged into the depth, light up the waters by sending [misso] oil out of (their) mouth;1 which were much more scattered in the beginning, than they are now, because they were not yet gathered together in one place.  Therefore, having been made, that light had the duty [vicem]2 and place of the Sun, which (light) driven about by its own movement, divided [discernebat] night and day.  Therefore it is likely [verisimile] that light first appeared there, where the Sun appears to ride around in (its) daily course, so that the light, running about by the same footpath and descending first to the setting (of the Sun), would cause the evening, (and) then recalled to the rising (of the Sun), (would cause) the dawn [aururam], that is would light up the morn; and thus God divided light and darkness and He named the light “day”, and the darkness “night”.

Cap. IV.

 

Quibus modis accipitur dies.

Chapter IV.

In what manners “day” is accepted.

Hic notandum est, quod dies diversis modis accipitur in Scriptura.  Dicitur3 enim dies lux illa, quae illo triduo tenebras illuminabat, et dicitur dies illuminatio ipsa aëris.  Dicitur etiam dies spatium viginti quatuor horarum, qualiter accipitur, cum ait:  Factum est vespere et mane, dies unus.  Quod ita distinguendum est:  factum est vespere prius, et postea mane, et ita fuit dies unus expletus viginti quatuor horarum, dies scilicet naturalis, qui habuit vesperam, sed non mane.  Mane enim dicitur finis praecedentis et initium sequentis diei, quod est aurora, quae nec plenam lucem nec omnino tenebras habet.  Mane ergo primus dies non habuit, quia nec dies praecesserat, qui sequentis diei initio terminaretur, et eo praecipue, quia luce apparente, mox super terram plenus atque praeclarus dies exstitit, qui non ab aurora, sed a plena luce inchoavit et mane sequentis diei consummatus est.  Unde Beda supra Genesim:4  « Decebat, ut dies a luce inciperet et in mane sequentis diei tenderet, ut opera Dei a luce inchoasse et in lucem completa esse significarentur ».  Reliqui autem dies mane habuerunt et vesperam, quorum quisque, a suo mane incipiens, usque ad alterius diei mane tendebatur.

Here it must be noted, that in Scripture (the word) “day” [dies] is accepted in diverse manners.  For that light,3 which illumined the darkness in that Triduum, is called [dicitur] “day”; and the illumination of the air (is) itself called “the day”.  The space of twenty four hours is also called “a day”, in what manner it is accepted, when (Scripture) says:  And there was made evening and morning, one day [dies unus].  Which must be distinguished thus:  there was made first the evening, and afterwards the morning, and thus there was one day [dies unus] comprising [expletus] twenty four hours, namely a natural day, which had an evening, but not a morning.  For the end of the preceding and the start of the following day is called the “morning” [mane], which (start) is the dawn, which has entirely neither the full light nor the darkness.  Therefore the First Day [primus dies] did not have a morning, because neither had a day preceded (it), which would be terminated at the start of the following day, and for this (reason) chiefly, because with the light appearing, there soon stood forth upon the Earth the full and very clear day, which did not start from the dawn, but from the full light, and (which) was consummated on the morning of the following Day.  Wherefore (St.) Bede (the Venerable says) on Genesis:4  « It was fitting, that the Day start with the light and stretch unto the morning of the following Day, so that the works of God might be signified to have begun from the light and be completed in the light [in lucem] ».  Moreover the rest of the Days had a morning and an evening, each of which, starting from its morning, stretched up to the morning of the next [alterius] Day.

Cap. V.

 

De naturali ordine computationis dierum, et de illo qui pro mysterio introductus est.

Chapter V.

On the natural order of the computation of Days, and on that, which was introduced as a mystery.

Hic est naturalis ordo distinctionis dierum, ut distinguantur atque computentur dies a mane usque ad mane.  Postea vero in mysterio factum est,5 ut dies computentur a vespera in vesperam, et adiungatur dies praecedenti nocti in computatione, cum iuxta naturalem ordinem praecedens dies sequenti nocti adiungi debeat, quia homo a luce per peccatum corruit in tenebras ignorantiae et peccatorum, deinde per Christum a tenebris ad lucem rediit.  Unde Apostolus:  Eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino.  Primus itaque dies non ab aurora, sed a plena luce incipiens, et post paulatim vesperam, occidente luce, excipiens, mane sequentis diei expletus est.  Unde Beda:6  « Occidente luce paulatim et post spatium divinae longitudinis inferiores partes subeunte, factum est vespere, sicut nunc usitato cursu solis fieri solet.  Factum est autem mane, eadem super terram redeunte et alium diem inchoante; et dies expletus est unus viginti quatuor horarum.  Fuitque nox illo triduo omnino tenebrosa, quae post creata sidera aliqua luce claruit ».

In this there is a natural order of the distinction of the Days, so that the Days be distinguished and computed from morning unto [usque ad] morning.  But afterwards it came to be [factum est]5 in mystery, that the days were computed from evening unto [in] evening, and the day was adjoined to the preceding night in computation, though in accord with the natural order the preceding day ought to be adjoined to the following night, because through sin man fell from the light into the shadows [tenebras] of ignorance and sins, (and) then through Christ returned from darkness [tenebris] to the light.  Wherefore the Apostle (says):  We were once darkness, but now (we are) light in the Lord.  And so the First Day, starting [incipiens] not from the dawn, but from full light, and finishing [excipiens] gradually after the evening, with the light setting, is completed [expletus est] on the morn of the following Day.  Wherefore (St.) Bede (the Venerable says):6  « With the light setting gradually and sinking below [subeunte] the inferior parts (of the Earth) behind the space of the divine longitude (i. e. the horizon), it became [factum est] evening, just as now customarily happens [fieri solet] with the usual course of the Sun.  But it became morning, with the same (light) returning upon the Earth and starting another Day; and one Day was completed [expletus est] by twenty four hours.  And in that Triduum the night was entirely dark [tenebrosa], which (night) was made bright by some light after the stars (were) created.

Solet autem quaeri, quare factus est sol, si lux illa faciendo diei sufficiebat.  Ad quod dici potest, quoniam lux illa forte superiores partes illustrabat, et ad illuminationem inferiorum solem fieri oportebat; vel potius ideo, quia, facto sole, diei fulgor auctus est.  Ampliori enim multo luce radiavit dies postea quam ante.  —  Si vero quaeritur, quod de illa luce factum sit, cum modo non appareat; potest dici, aut de ea corpus solis formatum, aut in ea parte caeli esse, in qua sol est, non quod ipsa sit sol, sed sic ei unita, ut discerni non valeat.7

Moreover there is customarily asked, why the Sun was made, if that light sufficed for the making of the day.  To which it can be said, since that light strongly lit up the superior parts (of the world), (that) for the illumination of the inferior (parts) it was necessary [oportebat] that the Sun also be made; and/or rather for this reason, because, with the Sun made, the brightness [fulgor] of the day was increased.  For the day radiated with a much more ample light afterwards than (it did) before.  —  But if there is asked, “What came to be from that light, since it does not now appear?”; it can be said, that either the body of the Sun was formed from it, or that it is in that part of the sky, in which the Sun is, not because it itself is the Sun, but (because it is) so united to it, that it is not able to be discerned.7

Cap. VI.

 

De intelligentia horum verborum:  Dixit Deus.

Chapter VI.

On the understanding of these words:  “God said”.

Praeterea investigandum est, quomodo accipiendum sit quod ait:  Dixit Deus, utrum temporaliter vel sono vocis illud dixerit, an alio modo.  Augustinus super Genesim8 tradit, nec temporaliter nec sono vocis Deum fuisse locutum; quia si temporaliter, et mutabiliter; et si corporaliter dicatur sonuisse vox Dei, nec lingua erat, qua loqueretur, nec erat quem oporteret audire et intelligere.  Bene ergo vox Dei ad naturam Verbi, per quod omnia facta sunt, refertur.  Dixit ergo Deus:  Fiat etc. non temporaliter, non sono vocis, sed in Verbo sibi coaeterno, id est, Verbum genuit intemporaliter, in quo erat et disposuit ab aeterno, ut fieret in tempore, et in eo factum est.

Moreover it must be investigated, in what manner that which (Scripture) says:  God said, is to be accepted, whether He said that temporally and/or with the sound of voice, or in another manner.  (St.) Augustine On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis8 hands down, that God spoke neither temporally nor with the sound of voice; because if (He spoke) temporally, (He) also (spoke) mutably; and if the Voice of God is said to have sounded “corporally”, (then) neither was there a tongue, by which He spoke, nor was there (anything) which one must [oporteret] hear and understand.  Therefore rightly is the Voice of God referred to the nature of the Word, through which all (things) where made.   Therefore God said:  Let there be etc., not temporally, nor with the sound of voice, but in the Word coeternal to Himself, that is, He begot the Word non-temporally [intemporaliter], in Whom He was and (in Whom) He arranged from eternity, that (this) would come to be in time, and in Him it came to be.

1  Ad haec verba cod. Erf. annotat:  Illud exemplum ponitur in Hexaëm. Ambrosii, hom. 1. libr. I. c. 9. n. 33, et Basilii, hom. 2. n. 7. —  Hoc totum cap. in Hugone invenitur, I. de Sacram. p. I. c. 9.

2  Vat. cum paucis edd. Facta est ergo lux illa, quae vicem.

3  Cfr. August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 18. seqq.

4  Libr. I. Hexaëm., et habetur in Glossa ord. ad v. 5.  —  In fine cap. pro tendebatur edd. 1, 8 extendebatur.

5  Teste cod. Erf., haec sententia sumta est ex August., IV. de Trin. c. 6. n. 10.  Paulo inferius loc. Apostoli est Eph. 5, 8.

6  Loc. cit., et in Glossa ord. ad Gen. 1, 5.

7  Haec sumta sunt ex August., I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 10. n. 22. 23.

8  Libr. I. c. 11. n. 23.  Plurima in hac distinctione dicta iam a Beda collecta sunt et ab Hugone repetita.  —  Circa finem cap. pro intemporaliter edd. 1, 8 non temporaliter.

1  At these words the Erfurt codex notes:  This example is posited in (St.) Ambrose’s On the Hexaëmeron, Homily 1, Bk. I, ch. 9, n. 33, and (St.) Basil’s (On the Hexaëmeron), Homily 2, n. 7.  —  This whole chapter is found in Hugo (of St. Victor), On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. I, ch. 9.

2  The Vatican edition, together with a few editions, has Therefore, that light was made, which had etc. [Facta est ergo lux illa, quae vicem] for Therefore, having been made, that light had [Facta ergo lux illa vicem].

3  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, bk. I, ch. 10, n. 18 ff..

4  On the Hexaëmeron, Bk. I, (which) is also had in the Glossa ordinaria, on v. 5.  —  At the end of the chapter editions 1 and 8 have extended [extendebatur] for stretched [tendebatur].

5  According to the Erfurt codex, this sentence has been taken from (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. IV, ch. 6, n. 10.  A little below this the passage of the Apostle is Eph. 5:8.

6  Loc. cit., and in the Glossa ordinaria on Gen. 1:5.

7  These have been taken from (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. I, ch. 10, nn. 22 and 23.

8  Book I, ch. 11, n. 23.  Much of what is said in this distinction has already been collected by (St.) Bede and repeated by Hugo (of St. Victor).  —  Near the end of the chapter editions 1 and 8 have He did not beget the Word temporally [non temporaliter] for He begot the Word non-temporally [intemporaliter].

p. 310

 

Cap. VII.

 

Ex quo sensu Pater dicitur operari in Filio, vel per Filium, vel in Spiritu sancto.

Chapter VII.

In what sense the Father is said “to work in the Son”, and/or “through the Son”, and/or “in the Holy Spirit”.

Hic quaeri solet, quomodo accipiendum sit quod dicitur Pater operari in Filio, vel per Filium, vel in Spiritu Sancto.  Haec enim Scriptura frequenter nobis proponit, ut illud:  « Omnia in sapientia fecisti, Domine », id est « in Filio ».1  Et:  « In principio, id est in Filio, creavit Deus caelum et terram ».  Et illud:  Per quem fecit et saecula.  Super illum quoque Psalmi locum:  Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt etc. dicit Augustinus, quod « Pater operatur per Verbum suum et Spiritum sanctum ».  Quomodo ergo hoc accipiendum est?  —  Putaverunt quidam haeretici, quod Pater velut auctor et artifex Filio et Spiritu sancto in rerum operatione quasi instrumento uteretur, ex praedictis verbis errandi occasionem sumentes; quod velut blasphemum atque sanae doctrinae adversum abiicit pia fides.  —  Non est itaque intelligendum, ideo Scripturam frequenter commemorare Patrem operari in Filio, vel per Filium, tanquam Filius non posset facere, si ei non porrexisset Pater dexteram, vel tanquam aliquod instrumentum fuerit Patris operantis; sed potius illis verbis Patrem intelligi voluit cum Filio et Spiritu sancto operari et sine eis nihil facere.

Here there is customarily asked, in what manner is it to be accepted that the Father is said “to work in the Son”, and/or “through the Son”, and/or “in the Holy Spirit”.  For these (sayings) does Scripture frequently propose to us, such as this:  « In wisdom has Thou made (them) all, Lord », that is « in the Son ».1  And:  « In the beginning », that is in the Son, « God created Heaven and Earth ».  And this:  Through Whom He also made the ages.  On that passage of the Psalm:  By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made firm etc., (St.) Augustine also says, that « The Father works through His Word and the Holy Spirit ».  In what manner, therefore, must this be accepted?  —  Certain heretics thought, that the Father used the Son and Holy Spirit as an instrument, as an author and craftsman (does) in the operation of things, taking an occasion of erring from the aforesaid words; which (saying) pious faith rejects as blasphemous and adverse to sane doctrine.  —  And so it must not be understood, that Scripture frequently commemorates that the Father works in the Son, and/or through the Son for this reason, as if the Son would not be able to work, if the Father had not stretched out (His) Right Hand to Him, and/or as if He is as some instrument of the Father working; but rather (Scripture) wanted by those words that the Father be understood to work with the Son and Holy Spirit and to do nothing without Them.

Sed dicit haereticus, hac ratione posset dixisse, Filium operari per Patrem vel in Patre, et Spiritum sanctum cum utroque vel per utrumque, quia Filius cum Patre, et Spiritus sanctus cum utroque operatur.  —  Cui breviter respondetur, ideo illud dictum esse et non istud, ut in Patre monstraretur auctoritas.2  Non enim Pater a Filio, sed Filius a Patre operatur, et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque.  Ideoque Filius etiam per Spiritum sanctum legitur operari, quia cum Spiritu sancto operatur, hoc ipsum a Filio habente, ut operatur.  —  Potest et aliter illud accipi, ut dicatur Pater in Filio vel per Filium operari, quia eum genuit omnium opificem, sicut dicitur3 per eum iudicare, quia genuit iudicem; ita et per Spiritum sanctum dicitur operari, sive Pater, sive Filius, quia ab utroque procedit Spiritus sanctus, factor omnium.  Unde Ioannes Chrysostomus in expositione Epistolae ad Hebraeos4 sic ait:  «  Non ut haereticus inaniter suspiratur, tanquam aliquod instrumentum Patris exstiterit Filius; neque per eum Pater dicitur fecisse, tanquam ipse facere non posset; sed sicut dicitur Pater iudicare per Filium, quia iudicem genuit, sic etiam dicitur operari per Filium, quia eum constat opificem genuisse.  Si enim causa eius Pater est, secundum quod Pater est, multo amplius eorum causa est, quae per Filium facta sunt ».  —  Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.

But the heretic says, that it could be said for this reason, that the Son works through the Father and/or in the Father, and that the Holy Spirit (works) with Each and/or through Each, because the Son (does work) with the Father and the Holy Spirit does works with Each.  —  To which one briefly responds, that the latter has been said and not the former, so that in the Father an authority2 might be demonstrated.  For the Father does not work by the Son, but the Son by the Father, and the Holy Spirit (works) by Each.  And for that reason the Son is also read to work through the Holy Spirit, because He does work with the Holy Spirit, (who) has this very (thing) from the Son, that He works.  —  It can also be accepted in another manner, so that the Father be said “to work in the Son” and/or “through the Son”, because He begot Him as the Worker of all (things), just as He3 is said “to judge through Him”, because He begot (Him) as the Judge; thus also either the Father, or the Son, is said to work through the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from Each, as the Maker of all.  Wherefore (St.) John Chrysostom in the exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews4 says thus:  « Not as the heretic emptily longs, that the Son exists as some instrument of the Father; nor is the Father said to have worked through Him, as if He could not do (it) Himself; but just as the Father is said “to judge through the Son”, because He begot (Him to be) the Judge, so also is He said “to work through the Son”, because it is established that He begot Him (to be) the Worker.  For if the Father, according to which He is the Father, is His Cause, much more amply is He the Cause of those, which have been made through the Son ».  —  These (things) have been said of the work of the First Day [primae diei].

1  Psalm. 103, 24. Deinde Gen. 1, 1:  Hebr. 1, 2, et Ps. 32, 6.  Explicatio interiecta habetur in Glossa.  Verba August., ad ult. locum inveniuntur in Enarrat. 3. in Ps. 32. n. 5, sententialiter.

2  Cod. C addit principii.  Paulo inferius ad verba cum Spiritu sancto cod. Erf. annotat:  Alias, quia, cum Spiritus sanctus operatur, hoc ipsum habet a Filio, ut operetur.

3  Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 adiicit Pater.  —  Verba immediate sequentia per eum iudicare respiciunt Ioan. 5, 22.

4  Homil. 2. n. 2, et est in Glossa ad Hebr. 1, 3, scil. ad verba figura substantiae eius.

1  Ps. 103:24.  Then Gen. 1:1; Heb. 1:2, and Ps. 32:6.  The interjected explanation is had in the Gloss.  The words of (St.) Augustine, are found in the last passage of Enarrations on the Psalms, Bk. III, Ps. 32, n. 5, according to the thought.

2  Codex C reads the authorship of a principle [auctoritas principii].  A little below this, at the words with the Holy Spirit [cum Spiritu sancto], the Erfurt codex notes:  Otherwise, because, when the Holy Spirit works, he has from the Son this very (thing), that He works.  [Trans. note:  Here one can read auctoritas as (Their) authorship, in reference to the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Father.  Cf. St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on Book I.]

3  The Vatican edition, together with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 has the Father [Pater] for He.  —  The words immediately following to judge through Him [per eum iudicare] refer to Jn. 5:22.

4  Homily 2, n. 2, and in the Gloss on Heb. 1:3, namely ad the words the figure of His Substance [figura substantiae eius].

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.