title: Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 386 -->

### Quaestio III. *Qui sit ordo productionis animalium respectu quietis.*

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

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

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

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

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

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Ioannis quinto[^5]: *Pater meus operatur usque modo, et ego operor:* ergo si usque modo operatus est, videtur, quod septimo die non cessaverit ab opere.

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

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

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

5. Item, animalia quaedam producuntur per putrefactionem; sed constat, quod illa non sunt producta in sex diebus, sicut dicit Augustinus tertio[^7] super Genesim ad litteram, et huiusmodi habent species proprias et naturas: ergo videtur, quod post sextum diem non cessaverit a productione novarum specierum in genere animalium.

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

### Conclusio.

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

<!-- page 387 -->

**Respondeo:** *Praenotandum.* Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod omnis artifex perfectus opus inchoat, ut ad perfectionem perducat; et sicut intendit, ita facit, si per omnia sufficientia virtutis agentis sibi suppetit; cum autem ad perfectionem deduxerit, habet quod intendit. Omne autem operans propter aliquid, obtento eo, propter quod agit, quiescit. Omnis ergo agens perfectus sic operatur, ut aliquando quiescat.

*Duplex genus.* Cum igitur Deus sit agens perfectissimus in producendo ipsum universum, necesse est, ipsum aliquando quiescere. Sed cum duplex sit agens, quoddam, quod *movetur* et *laborat* in sua operatione, quoddam vero, quod *nec mutatur nec variatur;* illud quod *primo* modo agit, quiescit per quietationem, quae quidem est *privatio* motus et laboris, sicut est agens creatum; illud vero, quod secundo modo agit, quiescit quietatione, non quae sit laboris vel fatigationis *privatio,* sed quae est *cessatio* ab opere propter ipsius perfectionem; et sic dicitur Deus ab omni opere quievisse, cum universum produxit ad perfectum *esse,* et sic quievit, sicut[^9] ad perfectum *esse* deduxit.

*Duplex perfectio universi.* Propter quod nota, quod duplex est perfectio universi: una et praecipua secundum *esse permanens,* alia est secundum ipsius *esse decurrens.* Prima attenditur in completa existentia principiorum et completo numero specierum, quae quidem species naturam generis participant secundum rectam et ordinatam intentionem naturae. Secunda vero perfectio consistit in productione eorum quae per tempora decurrunt et sibi consequenter succedunt, ex cuius successionis ordinatione resultat quaedam unitatis pulcritudo et perfectio[^10]. Quoniam igitur secundum *primam* perfectionem Deus universum in sex diebus ad *esse* produxit, scilicet quantum ad completam existentiam principiorum et quantum ad completum numerum specierum; ideo dicitur *Corollarium.* quievisse *ab omni opere, quod patrarat.* Quia vero continue operatur ad rerum successionem per propagationem et individuorum multiplicationem; ideo dicitur operari *usque modo.* Et ex his patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam.

*Conclusio.* Concedendum est enim, quod ad productionem animalium, maxime hominis, secuta est quies in die septimo, non quia facta sit *laboris terminatio,* sed quia facta[^11] est *operis inchoati completio;* et concedendae sunt rationes hoc probantes.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de Ioannis quinto[^12]: *Pater meus operatur* etc.; iam patet responsio. Obiicit enim de illa operatione, quae spectat ad perfectionem universi secundum *esse decurrens,* non secundum *esse permanens.*

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fecit diem septimum; dicendum, quod dies septimus non fuit alius specie a praecedentibus diebus, immo quodam modo iam erat in aliis productus; et ideo ad primum complementum universi nihil addebat ratione sui; et ideo eius productio non repugnabat quieti, secundum quod *quies* dicit cessationem a productione eorum quae sunt de principali universi constitutione. Enumeratur tamen cum praedictis diebus magis quam dies octavus vel decimus propter cessationem ab opere constituendi universum, secundum quam non attenditur numeratio dierum, quia non habent terminum; et ideo septimus dies non dicitur habere vesperam, nec post illum enumeratur dies novus, sed fit regressus ad principium[^13].

3. *Quiescere secundum August.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *requiescere ab opere,* aut connotat effectum aliquem aut nullum; dicendum, quod secundum Augustinum[^14] *requiescere* dicitur in Deo causaliter, quia facit creaturam spiritualem per completam contemplationem sibi inhaerendo quiescere, vel quiescendo sibi inhaerere. *Sec. alios Sanctos.* Secundum autem alios Sanctos et viam communem *quiescere* dicit effectum, non qui sit in die sabbati, sed qui praecessit: unde Deus dicitur *requiescere ab opere,* quia prius fecit, et deinde nova non facit. Et propter hoc dicitur complesse omne opus suum in die septimo, non quia tunc aliquid fecerit, quod fuerit ad completionem, sed quia tunc quiescendo consummatum ostendit.

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

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

<!-- page 388 -->

*Tria rerum genera producta.* Unde breviter nota, quod eorum quae successione producuntur, quaedam fuerunt in prima dierum distinctione producta in *simili,* sed non in *ratione seminali,* utpote animae rationales, quae scilicet producuntur per creationem et ideo non habent rationem seminalem; in simili tamen productae sunt, quando producta fuit anima Adae, post cuius productionem non producitur nova species, quamvis *Genus 1.* producantur nova individua. — *Genus 2.* Quaedam sunt, quae productae sunt in primis diebus quantum ad *rationem seminalem,* sed non in *simili,* sicut ea quae generantur per putrefactionem et per diversarum specierum commixtionem. — *Genus 3.* Quaedam sunt, quae producta sunt et in *ratione seminali* et in *simili,* sicut plantae et bruta animalia, quae producuntur per propagationem. — Et ad haec tria rerum genera possunt reduci omnia quae fiunt; et propterea non dicitur Deus producere aliqua *de novo,* secundum quod dicitur in Ecclesiastis primo[^15], quod *nihil novum sub sole;* sed dicitur ab omni opere requievisse, quia nihil producit, quod prius non fuerit vel in *simili specie,* vel in *ratione seminali,* quae tunc erant de primaria constitutione universi. — Et sic patet, qualiter ad animalium productionem in die sexto sequitur requies ab omni opere in die septimo.

english:
### Question III. *What is the order of the production of animals in relation to rest.*

Thirdly, it is asked concerning the order of the production of animals in relation to rest. And it is asked whether God, after he produced the animals, rested from every work. And that he did so, it seems:

*Fundamenta.* 1. By Scripture, Genesis 2[^2]: *God rested on the seventh day from every work which he had wrought;* but the animals were produced on the fifth and sixth day: therefore after their production a resting follows.

2. Likewise, every operation that arrives at completion has a rest that follows; but the production of creatures is completed in the production of animals, and especially of man: therefore it seems that after God produced the animals on the sixth day, he thereafter rested.

3. Likewise, the distinction of days is for our instruction[^3]; but God permitted men to work for six days, and on the seventh he commanded that they rest and cease from every work: if therefore that commandment has its ground from the primary condition of things, it seems that upon the production of animals a rest followed.

4. Likewise, every production of a creature has an end and a term; therefore likewise every day on which something is produced has its evening; but to the seventh day according to Scripture[^4] no evening is assigned: therefore after the sixth day nothing was produced; and on the sixth day the animals were produced: therefore etc.

*On the contrary.* 1. John 5[^5]: *My Father is working until now, and I am working:* therefore if until now he is working, it seems that on the seventh day he did not cease from his work.

2. Likewise, the seventh day is either a *new* day beside the preceding ones, or *not*. If *not:* therefore it should not be numbered with the others; if *so,* and God made it: it is then certain that he did not rest from every work after he produced the animals[^6]. *If you say* that that day differs from the preceding ones only in number, then so the eighth and the tenth differ, and so on; therefore if the seventh is numbered, by the same reasoning the eighth ought to be numbered.

3. Likewise, rest either connotes *some effect* or none. If it connotes *no* effect: therefore he rested from eternity: therefore he rested before he produced anything: therefore in respect of the resting no day ought to be reckoned. If it connotes *some effect;* and that effect was not in the preceding days: therefore he produced something new on the seventh day: therefore he did not rest from every work of his after he had produced the animals on the sixth day.

4. Likewise, God daily creates new souls and infuses them into bodies; but *to create* is a work proper to God alone: therefore it does not seem that he rested from operation after the sixth day.

5. Likewise, certain animals are produced through putrefaction; but it is established that these were not produced in the six days, as Augustine says in book three[^7] of *On Genesis according to the Letter,* and such have their own species and natures: therefore it seems that after the sixth day he did not cease from the production of new species in the kind of animals.

6. Likewise, certain animals are generated through commixture, as the mule from the mare and the ass[^8]; but these were not made in the six days, neither in *individual being* nor in their *species:* therefore after the sixth day he did not cease from the production of things, not only as to *individuals,* but even as to *species* and *genera.*

### Conclusio.

> After the production of animals a rest followed on the seventh day, not as if there were a cessation from labor, but as the completion of a work begun.

**I respond:** *To be noted beforehand.* For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that every perfect artisan begins his work in order to bring it to perfection; and just as he intends, so he does, if the sufficiency of the agent's power in all things is at hand for him; and when he has brought it to perfection, he has what he intends. But every agent acting for the sake of something, once the thing for which he acts is obtained, rests. Therefore every perfect agent so operates that at some time he rests.

*Twofold kind.* Since therefore God is the most perfect agent in producing the universe itself, it is necessary that he at some time rest. But since there is a twofold agent — one that *is moved* and *labors* in its operation, and one that *neither is changed nor varies* — that which acts in the *first* mode rests through a resting that is the *privation* of motion and labor, as is a created agent; but that which acts in the second mode rests with a resting that is not the *privation* of labor or fatigue, but is the *cessation* from work on account of its own perfection; and thus God is said to have rested from every work, when he produced the universe to a perfect *being,* and so he rested, just as[^9] he led it to perfect *being.*

*Twofold perfection of the universe.* On account of which note that the perfection of the universe is twofold: one and the principal one according to its *permanent being,* the other according to its *unfolding being.* The first is attended to in the complete existence of the principles and the complete number of species, which species partake of the nature of the genus according to a right and ordered intention of nature. The second perfection consists in the production of those things which run through times and successively follow upon one another, from the ordering of which succession there results a certain beauty and perfection of unity[^10]. Since therefore according to the *first* perfection God produced the universe into being in six days, that is, as to the complete existence of the principles and as to the complete number of species; therefore he is said to have *Corollary.* rested *from every work which he had wrought.* But because he continually works for the succession of things through propagation and the multiplication of individuals, therefore he is said to be working *until now.* And from these things the response to the question proposed is plain.

*Conclusion.* For it must be conceded that upon the production of animals, especially of man, a rest followed on the seventh day, not because there was a *termination of labor,* but because there was made[^11] the *completion of a work begun;* and the reasons proving this are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. To that which is objected on the contrary from John 5[^12]: *My Father is working* etc.; the response is already plain. For he objects from that operation which pertains to the perfection of the universe according to *unfolding being,* not according to *permanent being.*

2. To that which is objected, that he made the seventh day; it must be said that the seventh day was not different in species from the preceding days, but rather was in a certain way already produced in the others; and therefore it added nothing to the first completion of the universe by reason of itself; and therefore its production was not repugnant to rest, according as *rest* means cessation from the production of those things which belong to the principal constitution of the universe. Yet it is enumerated with the aforesaid days rather than the eighth or tenth day, on account of the cessation from the work of constituting the universe, in respect of which no numbering of days is attended to, because they have no term; and therefore the seventh day is not said to have an evening, nor after it is a new day enumerated, but a return is made to the beginning[^13].

3. *Resting according to Augustine.* To that which is objected, that *to rest from work* either connotes some effect or none; it must be said that according to Augustine[^14] *to rest* is said of God *causally,* because he makes the spiritual creature rest by cleaving to him through complete contemplation, or by resting to cleave to him. *According to other Saints.* But according to other Saints and the common way, *to rest* signifies an effect, not one that is in the day of the sabbath, but one that preceded it: whence God is said *to rest from work,* because he first made, and thereafter does not make new things. And on this account he is said to have completed all his work on the seventh day, not because then he made something which was for completion, but because then by resting he showed it consummated.

4. To that which is objected concerning the creation of souls, it must be said that when rational souls are now created, no new *species* is created, but a new *individual;* and this individual does not belong to the primary constitution of the universe; and therefore by the resting on the sabbath the creation of souls was not excluded.

5. 6. To that which is objected concerning the production of those which are by putrefaction and commixture, that they are new species; it must be said that both those which are generated by putrefaction and those which are generated by the commixture of diverse species are, *Note.* produced in their principles and seminal reasons, although they are not produced in the like according to form. For their principles are of the primary constitution of the universe, as complete species and seminal reasons; but the actual existence of those species does not pertain to the primary constitution of the universe, because those species are in a certain way degenerate and as it were have to be produced through a certain degeneration, just as worms are produced from the human body through a corruption that makes the human body degenerate from its proper form. And therefore it was not necessary that these be produced in themselves or in their like at the primary constitution of the universe; nor yet are they superfluous, because in some way they adorn the universe as to its *well-being.*

*Three kinds of things produced.* Hence note briefly that of those things which are produced by succession, some were produced at the first distinction of the days in the *like,* but not in *seminal reason,* as rational souls, which, namely, are produced by creation and therefore have no seminal reason; in the like, however, they were produced, when the soul of Adam was produced, after whose production no new species is produced, although *Kind 1.* new individuals are produced. — *Kind 2.* Some are those which were produced in the first days as to *seminal reason,* but not in the *like,* as those which are generated by putrefaction and by the commixture of diverse species. — *Kind 3.* Some are those which were produced both in *seminal reason* and in the *like,* as plants and brute animals, which are produced by propagation. — And to these three kinds of things all things that come to be can be reduced; and on this account God is not said to produce anything *anew,* according to what is said in Ecclesiastes 1[^15], that *nothing is new under the sun;* but he is said to have rested from every work, because he produces nothing which was not previously either in *a like species* or in *seminal reason,* which then belonged to the primary constitution of the universe. — And thus it is plain how upon the production of animals on the sixth day there follows a rest from every work on the seventh day.

la: Vers. 2.

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

en: As was shown above at d. 12. a. 1. q. 2. — On the lesser point cf. Exodus 20:9 ff.; Deuteronomy 5:13 ff.

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

en: See Gen. 2:2. — For the explanation of this see Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* IV, c. 18, n. 31 ff. — Many codices with the Vatican edition read *therefore after the seventh* in place of *therefore after the sixth.*

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

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

en: Augustine intimates this argument, *On Genesis according to the Letter* IV, c. 20, n. 37, and as B. Albertus reports, *Summa* part II, tr. II, q. 67, in this manner: "the Jews ask."

la: Cap. 14. n. 23. — Vat. *post septimum diem* pro *post sextum diem.*

en: Chapter 14, n. 23. — The Vatican edition reads *after the seventh day* in place of *after the sixth day.*

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

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII, text 28 (VI, c. 8), touches on this objection to some extent.

la: Cod. T a secunda manu bene *cum.*

en: Codex T, by a second hand, well reads *cum.*

la: Cfr. q. 1. huius art. ad ult.

en: Cf. q. 1 of this article, at the last reply.

la: Ed. 1 cum cod. cc *perfecta.*

en: Edition 1 with codex cc reads *perfecta.*

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

en: Verse 17. — Slightly below, on the authority of codex aa, we have set *to the perfection of the universe,* while other codices and editions wrongly have *to the operation of the universe.* See here in the body.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *primum;* Vat. addit *vel primum.* Paulo ante aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 *novus* pro *novus.*

en: Codex cc and edition 1 read *primum;* the Vatican adds *vel primum.* A little before, some codices with edition 1 read *nonus* in place of *novus.*

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

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter,* book IV, c. 9, n. 16, and c. 16, n. 27 ff. — In the *Dialogue of Questions* 65 with Orosius (among the works of Augustine), q. 42, this and the following opinion is held. Cf. here the *Littera* of the Master, c. 7 ff.

la: Vers. 10. — Ultima solutionis verba *in die septimo* desiderantur in Vat.

en: Verse 10. — The last words of the solution *on the seventh day* are lacking in the Vatican edition.

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

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

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The distinction of the twofold perfection of the universe, namely according to its *permanent being* and *unfolding being,* is the same as that which is called by Alex. Hal. (S. p. II. q. 56. m. 1.) *completion according to matter and form,* and *completion in the end.* B. Albertus speaks similarly. This distinction almost coincides with that which by S. Thomas in the *Summa* (I. q. 73. a. 1.) is called the *first* and *second* perfection of a thing; but in the Commentary (here q. 3. a. 1.) the same author, besides this same distinction, also distinguishes the perfection *of totality,* and that which is from the *ground of the end.* — On the opinion of Augustine, which is touched on in the solution to 3, cf. above d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. — On equivocal generation, which is mentioned in the solution to 5 and 6, cf. above d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1, scholion. — At the end of the same solution the Holy Doctor briefly repeats certain principal of his teachings on the production of things, distinguishing three kinds of things to be produced.

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

---

translators_notes:
- Page span: p.386 L band 0 (QUAESTIO III. header + italic title `Qui sit ordo productionis animalium respectu quietis.` + opener `Tertio quaeritur de ordine productionis animalium ad quietem…`) → p.386 L bands 1–2 (*Fundamenta* arg. 1–4 with marginal `Fundamenta.` at arg. 1; `Ad oppositum.` marginal at *Contra* opener; arg. 1–3 begin) → p.386 R bands 0–2 (Contra arg. 1–6 close; CONCLUSIO; Respondeo opener with `Praenotandum.` marginal) → p.387 L bands 0–2 (Respondeo continuation with marginals `Duplex genus.`, `Duplex perfectio universi.`, `Corollarium.`, `Conclusio.`, `Solutio oppositorum.` + ad 1, ad 2) → p.387 R bands 0–2 (ad 2 close with marginals `Quiescere secundum August.` + `Sec. alios Sanctos.`; ad 3, ad 4, ad 5–6 with `Notandum.` marginal) → p.388 L band 0 (Three-kinds appendix with marginals `Tria rerum genera producta.`, `Genus 1.`, `Genus 2.`, `Genus 3.`) → p.388 L band 1 + R band 0 (SCHOLION I + II). Chunk closes immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` opener (raw line 27638).
- 13 apparatus entries numbered [^2]–[^15] to preserve the per-page Quaracchi footer numbering continuity with the resume convention. Footer split by printed page: p.386 L footers 1–5 = [^2]–[^6] (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` parked here as the q3-internal forward pointer to the q1 sibling scholion per Vol II Override step 5, NOT rendered as a numbered apparatus entry — see [^9] cross-ref convention); p.386 R footers 6–8 = [^6]–[^8]; p.387 L footers 1–4 = [^9]–[^12]; p.387 R footers 5–6 = [^13]–[^14]; p.388 L footer = [^15]. The p.386 L footer ¹ `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` is a redirect-pointer (not a numbered footnote in the conventional sense) and is consumed by the chunk's own SCHOLION I+II at p.388 (which contain the actual commentator list specifically tagged `hic q. 3.`); no separate apparatus entry rendered for it.
- Cross-chunk footer-split: p.386 L band 0 holds q2's ad 7 + ad 8 close (already documented in d15-a2-q2 Notes — q2 chunk owns p.386 L band 0 body); p.386 L footers from band 3 down belong entirely to q3 per the prior agent's flag in d15-a2-q2's Notes ("p.386 L footers 1–5 DO NOT belong to q2 — they anchor q3's `Tertio quaeritur…` body"). Confirmed at 450 dpi: footer ¹ = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, ² = `Vers. 2` (anchors at Genesis 2:2 quote in arg. 1), ³ = `Sicut supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 2.` (anchors at *ad nostram instructionem* in arg. 3), ⁴ = `Vide Gen. 2, 2` (anchors at *septimae diei secundum Scripturam* in arg. 4), ⁵ = `Vers. 17` (anchors at *Ioannis quinto* in Contra arg. 1).
- **has_scholion divergence from session brief:** task brief specified `has_scholion: false (per the Vol II convention — article-level scholion is at a2-q1)`. PDF column-band read at 450 dpi shows a clear, q3-specific SCHOLION I+II block on p.388 L band 1 + R band 0, between the q3 body close (`…sequitur requies ab omni opere in die septimo.`) and the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header. SCHOLION II's commentator list is tagged `hic q. 3. a. 1. 2` (Petr. a Tar., S. Thom., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Dionys. Carth.) — explicitly for q3, not for q2/q1. Frontmatter set to `has_scholion: true` to reflect the printed content; both scholia transcribed and translated. Owner: please confirm whether to override the printed layout (collapse scholion into a2-q1) or accept the q3-specific scholion as printed. Defaulted to printed reality per Vol II Override "PDF authoritative in damaged regions."
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Praenotandum.*, *Duplex genus.*, *Duplex perfectio universi.*, *Corollarium.*, *Conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Quiescere secundum August.*, *Sec. alios Sanctos.*, *Notandum.*, *Tria rerum genera producta.*, *Genus 1.*, *Genus 2.*, *Genus 3.*
- No `[?]` flags — all anchors and marginals crisp at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 15, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XV)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the letter of the Master (Dist. XV)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 388 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. 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, *Quaest. incid.* quod spectent ad ornatum aquae. — Item, videtur hic esse nugatio, cum dicit *reptile animae viventis;* omnis enim anima, eo ipso quod est anima, vivit[^2].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in animalibus differt motus *rependi* a motu *gradiendi.* Motus enim *Tres species motus in animalibus.* 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[^3]. 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 aere, sicut pisces in aquis. Est enim diversus modus movendi, quia magis moventur *impulsu* quam *tractu.* *Notandum.* Dum enim avis volat, clauditur aer in concavitate alarum; et dum alae applicantur ad corpus, violenter aer 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 virtute 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[^4].

<!-- page 389 -->

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

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare dicit *animae viventis;* *Ad quaest. incidentem.* dicendum, quod vita manifestatur maxime per sensum et motum[^5]; 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[^6].

### Dub. 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 Psalmis[^7] non solummodo enumerantur *iumenta* et *bestiae* et *reptilia,* sed etiam *pecora:* ergo videtur hic esse diminutio.

Quaeritur igitur horum trium differentia et *Quaestio 1.* sufficientia. — Quaeritur etiam, cum omnia animantia, quae sunt in mari, contineantur sub una differentia animalis, quae est *reptile,* et similiter omnia animantia aëris[^8], quae est *volatile;* quare non similiter omnia animantia terrae sub una differentia continentur? *Quaest. 2.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia terra inter *Quaest. 2.* 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 *Quaest. 1.* 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 *Differentia 1.* motus ipsorum animalium sic: omne enim animal, quod movetur, aut movetur *tractu,* et sic est *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 *Differentia 2.* nata 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[^10]. Hos autem fines etsi non haberent, si homo non peccasset, in *actu,* haberent tamen in *aptitudine;* et ex ipsa aptitudine melius erudiretur 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.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In rerum distinctione catholici tractatores dissentire inveniuntur.* Cum enim non sit *Deus dissensionis, sed pacis*[^11], 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.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod vis facienda est in hoc quod dicit Magister: *dissentire videntur.* *Notandum.* Videtur enim aliquando, quod *est,* et videtur aliquando, quod *non est;* et secundum hunc duplicem modum potest intelligi verbum Magistri, ut catholici tractatores in aliquo videantur dissentire et dissentiant, 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 revelationem[^12] sancti Spiritus dicunt, qui non est sibi

<!-- page 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.

*Alia solutio.* Aliter posset dici, sicut supra[^13] tactum fuit, quod, etsi dissentire videantur, non tamen dissentiunt; quia non dicunt, quid *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 suis[^14] in multis locis tenuit viam aliorum Sanctorum, ex quo patet, quod non erat eis contrarius.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Novam creaturam facere cessavit.* Contrarium enim dicitur Ieremiae trigesimo primo[^15]: *Novum faciet Dominus super terram.* — Item, ad Galatas sexto: *In Christo enim Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet neque praeputium, sed nova creatura.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *novum* dicitur dupliciter. *Distinctio.* 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 primo[^16]: *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.* 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[^17].

### Dub. 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 septimus 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.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut *dies* dicitur esse malus, non ratione sui, sed quia mensura est *Notandum.* actionis malae, sicut dicit Apostolus ad Ephesios quinto[^18]: *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[^19], 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 Lege[^20] frequentissime iterat inter omnia mandata de observantia sabbati.

<!-- page 391 -->

### Dub. 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 perfectionem[^21] quam septenarius, vel etiam denarius; videtur, quod aut infra septem deberemus stare, aut ultra procedere. — *Quaestio.* 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[^22]: ergo non debet sequi dies martis post diem lunae.

**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*[^23]; 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.

*Ad quaestionem.* 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[^24], 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[^25]. 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*[^26], nec omnino relinquimus propter consuetudinem; unde *dominicam* diem nominamus a nobis, *sabbatum* a Iudaeis; in aliis diebus servamus consuetum morem gentilitatis. Ecclesia[^27] tamen loco illorum nominum ponit: *secunda feria, tertia feria,* et sic deinceps. Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this section doubts arise concerning the letter, and first it is asked about that which he says: *Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life.* Reptiles and swimming things are of different species: therefore, since what is produced from the waters are swimming things, they ought not to be called *reptiles.* — Likewise, since reptiles pertain to the adornment of the earth, it does not seem that they should pertain to the adornment of the water. — *Incidental question.* Likewise, there seems to be a redundancy here when he says *creeping creature having life;* for every soul, by the very fact that it is a soul, is alive[^2].

**I respond:** It must be said that in animals the motion of *creeping* differs from the motion of *walking.* *Three species of motion in animals.* For the motion of creeping is reckoned according to traction; for an animal that creeps, by stretching some part forward and grasping something with it, draws its whole body after itself, as is evident in worms; but the motion of *walking* is by impulsion[^3]. Since therefore those things that swim contract themselves and stretch forward, and by extending themselves forward, as it were holding themselves to the solidity or to the thickness of the water, they draw their whole body, as is evident in swimming creatures; hence it is that all swimming creatures are called *reptiles,* even though it sometimes happens that they *walk,* as is the case in crocodiles and certain others, which live in waters and on land. They are nevertheless named from the motion which is more natural to them, namely that which belongs to them according to their habitation in the waters. — Flying creatures, however, are not called *reptiles,* although they seem to bear themselves through the air, as fish through the waters. For the manner of moving is different, because they move more by *impulse* than by *traction.* *Notandum.* For when a bird flies, the air is enclosed in the hollow of its wings; and when the wings are applied to the body, the air is violently driven out from behind the wings, and from that thrust the bird's body advances forward. And therefore flying creatures are not comprehended under the name of *reptiles,* nor even under the genus of *walking creatures,* because they are not moved by the power of feet, but by the power of wings. — Hence the division of animals with respect to motion can be taken thus: that an animal either moves itself forward by drawing, and so is a *reptile,* whether it be in the waters or on the land; or by impelling, and this in two ways: either by feet, and so it is a *walking creature;* or by wings, and so it is a *flying creature.* — And thus it is evident in what sense fish are called *reptiles,* and that what was first proposed is false — namely, that *reptile* is distinguished against *aquatile* — rather it is broader in extent[^4].

To that which is objected, that reptiles pertain to the adornment of the earth: it must be said that *reptile* is said in four ways. *Four ways in which reptiles are spoken of.* In one way, that which drags itself by the force of its *mouth,* as worms; in another way, that which drags itself by the force of its *ribs,* as serpents; in a third way, that which drags itself by the force of its *little fins,* as fish; in a fourth way, *reptile* is said broadly of that which in its motion applies a great part of its body to the earth, although it has feet, as lizards and stellions. And thus according to the diverse acceptations, *reptile* can pertain to the adornment of diverse elements.

To that which is asked, why he says *of the living soul:* *To the incidental question.* it must be said that life is manifested most of all through sense and motion[^5]; therefore that is called *living soul* which lives with manifest life; and this is that which gives motion and sense to the body. Such, however, is not found in plants, but in animals; and therefore, to distinguish from plants, he says: *Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having a living soul,* as if in plants there were a *growing soul* (*anima virens*), and in animals a *living soul* (*anima vivens*); because these are moved and have sense, but those not at all[^6].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Let the earth bring forth jumenta and beasts and reptiles.* For there seems to be a superfluity here, because every brute animal is a *beast.* If you say that *beast* is the name of a brute animal that does harm, then it is superfluous to say *reptiles.* Likewise, in the Psalms[^7] there are enumerated not only *jumenta* and *beasts* and *reptiles,* but also *cattle:* therefore there seems to be a diminution here.

It is asked therefore about the *Question 1.* difference and sufficiency of these three. — It is also asked, since all the animate creatures which are in the sea are contained under one difference of animal, which is *reptile,* and likewise all the animate creatures of the air[^8], which is *flying creature,* why are not all the animate creatures of the earth similarly contained under one difference? *Question 2.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, because the earth among the other elements is less adorned, *Question 2.* therefore it needed more to be adorned. *Likewise,* because it most of all furnishes pasturage to the animals among the other elements, hence it is that more differences of animals are found *Question 1.* in it. — Now all those differences are reduced to these three differences, the number and sufficiency of which can be taken in two ways: either from the side of the *motion* of the animals themselves, or from the side of their *end.* From the side of *Difference 1.* the motion of the animals themselves thus: for every animal which is moved either is moved by *traction,* and so is a *reptile;* or by *impulse,* and so is a *walking creature.* And this in two ways: either an animal is born to *rage,* or to *be tamed.* In the first way it is called *beast,* in the second way it is called *jumentum,* and under *jumenta* are comprehended *cattle.* — From the side of the *end* thus: for the animals *Difference 2.* are born for the sake of man; either therefore they are ordered to the *help* of man, and so they are *jumenta,* as it were *helps* (*iuvamenta*); or they are ordered to man's exercise, and this can be in two ways: because either they exercise by *harming manifestly,* and so they are *beasts* (*bestiae*), as if *destroyers* (*vastiae*); or *secretly,* and so they are *reptiles,* which secretly harm and lie in wait at the heel[^10]. Even if they did not have these ends in *act,* if man had not sinned, they would nevertheless have them in *aptitude;* and from that very aptitude man in the state of innocence would then have been better instructed than he is now instructed from the *act* in the state of fault. — And thus the difference and sufficiency of these three is evident, and the response to the objections is evident.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *In the distinction of things the catholic doctors are found to dissent.* For since *God is not the God of dissension, but of peace*[^11], and the Scriptures are expounded in the same Spirit in which they were composed, as Gregory says, it seems that they cannot dissent in any way. — Likewise, true is not opposed to true: therefore if catholic doctors dissent, one says what is true, and the other says what is false; but the understanding of Scripture cannot but be true: therefore, when they dissent, it must be that one of them corrupts Scripture, and so he will not be a catholic doctor but rather a heretic.

**I respond:** It must be said that force must be put upon that which the Master says: *they seem to dissent.* *Notandum.* For sometimes that *is* seems, and sometimes that *is not* seems; and according to this twofold mode the word of the Master can be understood, namely that the catholic doctors in something seem to dissent and do dissent, and in something seem to dissent but yet do not dissent. For they say some things *assertively,* and some things by way of *opining.* As to that which they say *assertively,* in this they do not disagree, because what they assert they say by the revelation[^12] of the Holy Spirit, who is not contrary to himself.

But in that wherein they *opine,* they can dissent and sometimes do dissent, because opinion sometimes comes from probable conjecture of reason, in which man is frequently deceived, with a deception which is rather a punishment than a fault, from which scarcely any catholic doctor has been immune. And therefore such dissension is not reprehensible. For although their judgments disagree in some manner, their desires nevertheless agree: for all catholic doctors wish to speak the truth. And thus the response to that which is objected is evident.

*Another solution.* It could be said otherwise, as was touched on above[^13], that, even if they seem to dissent, they do not nevertheless dissent; because they do not say what was *in the thing,* but what *could have been congruous;* nor do they say what the legislator, namely Moses, understood in that word, but rather what the Holy Spirit intended, who illumined him. And since diverse modes of producing, whether simultaneously or successively, can be congruous to the divine power, and the Holy Spirit understands many things at the same time in the same Scripture and makes the expositors understand them; therefore, even if discord seems to appear among the holy doctors according to the outward face of the letter, there is nevertheless no discord according to truth. And therefore he says pointedly: *they seem to dissent, they do not dissent.* Hence Augustine in his books[^14] in many places held to the path of other Saints, from which it is evident that he was not contrary to them.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *He ceased to make a new creature.* For the contrary is said in Jeremiah 31[^15]: *The Lord will make a new thing upon the earth.* — Likewise, to the Galatians 6: *For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *new* is said in two ways. *Distinction.* In one way *new* is said against the antiquity of the course of nature and the custom of the rational creature; and thus God did not cease in the six days to make a new creature; nay rather, he does many things miraculously and wonderfully against the accustomed course of nature and of human custom, and these can be called *new.* *In another way* *new* is said of that of which no likeness preceded, nor even any created principle that should be its seminary; and so the Master says in the present passage that he ceased to make a new creature; and it is also said in Ecclesiastes 1[^16]: *There is nothing new under the sun.* For God produced nothing of which he did not in some manner make a *like,* or of which he did not produce the *seminal principle* in the works of the six days. And so it is evident that there is no contradiction. — *Otherwise.* It could also be said otherwise that he rested from making a new creature which should be of the necessity of the perfection of the universe; the production of Christ, however, exceeds the completion of the universe, and therefore is of pure grace, and God is said to *have made a new thing,* when *a woman compassed a man*[^17].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *That day he is said to have blessed and sanctified* etc. For since time, so far as it is in itself, is indifferent, and *day* signifies time, the seventh day ought not to be blessed more than the second. — Likewise, since sanctification respects the rational creature, what is it that is said, that he sanctified the *day?* — Likewise, since to work well is of equal or greater dignity than to rest, it seems that he ought rather to have blessed the sixth day, on which he worked, than the seventh day, on which he rested.

**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 *Notandum.* of an evil action, as the Apostle says to the Ephesians 5[^18]: *Redeeming the time, because 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 blessing and sanctification. And to *bless and sanctify a day* is nothing other than to allot the day to such an action as its measure. — Since therefore God made all things for the instruction of man, that he might instruct man not only by word but also by work; just as he had wrought for six days[^19], so for six days he gave man permission to work and to attend to lower things; and just as on the seventh day he ceased from work, so he willed that on the seventh day man should cease from every work and cleave to him by contemplation and, by cleaving, rest. And because in this cleaving man obtains from God an enlargement of blessing and sanctity; therefore the seventh day is called by the Lord *blessed* and *sanctified,* not by reason of itself, but by reason of that which the Lord allotted to be done in it. — And thus the response to the objections is evident; it is also evident how much it pleases God that man should attend to him alone and rest in him, since he *blessed* and *sanctified* such a vacation or repose; for which reason in the Law[^20] he most frequently repeats, among all the commandments, that of the observance of the sabbath.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *In numbering the days we proceed up to the seventh.* For since there ought not to be a stopping-point except in some perfection, and the number six rather signifies perfection[^21] than seven, or even ten; it seems that we ought either to stop within seven, or to proceed beyond. — *Question.* It is also asked why the gentiles, who do not receive sacred Scripture, in the reckoning of days proceed up to seven. If you say that this is on account of the sevenfold number of the planets, then the order does not seem right, because Mars does not immediately follow the Moon[^22]: therefore the day of Mars (Tuesday) ought not to follow the day of the Moon (Monday).

**I respond:** It must be said that the number of days is appointed according to the diversity of the things measured to which the measure itself is appropriated. Since therefore the day is not now appropriated to any special effect, but only in the primary establishment of things, in which a distinction according to *seven*[^23] is found; therefore the number of days is always terminated according to that number, not on account of the perfection of the number or of the time which is enclosed in the septenary, but on account of the perfection of the divine work and rest is the number so taken.

*To the question.* The gentiles, however, take the number of days from the dominion of the seven planets, according to which time must 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[^24], and the next planet in the next, and so on up to seven hours; afterwards there is a return to the beginning, and so proceeding; and afterwards that planet which dominates in the twenty-fifth hour, that is the beginning of the next day, and from it that day is named, and thus successively proceeding they name the seven days from the seven planets[^25]. And this is evident to one considering the order of the planets, which order being preserved in enumeration, when Saturn dominates in the first hour of the day, the Sun dominates in the first hour of the next, and the Moon in the first hour of the third, and so on. This manner of naming the days we neither wholly retain — lest we should seem *to serve the elements of the world*[^26] — nor do we wholly relinquish, on account of custom; whence we call the Lord's day from ourselves, the sabbath from the Jews; on the other days we keep the customary practice of the gentility. The Church[^27], however, in place of those names places: *second feria, third feria,* and so on. And thus the response to the objections is evident.

---

la: 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.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *De Anima* II, text 37 (c. 4); *Metaphysics* V, text 23 and IX, text 16 (IV c. 18 and VIII c. 8). Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 87, m. 1, a. 2, § 2, adduces texts both of the philosophers and of the Fathers concerning this matter.

la: Vide Aristot., I. de Historia animal. c. 1; II. de Partib. animal. c. 1. et de Animalium incessu, per totum; de volatu avium agit in specie ibid. c. 8. seqq. — Sive maioris extensionis, ut genus respectu speciei. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 348, nota 5.

en: See Aristotle, *History of Animals* I, c. 1; *Parts of Animals* II, c. 1, and *On the Gait of Animals* throughout; he treats of the flight of birds in particular in the same book, c. 8 ff. — Or of greater extension, as a genus with respect to a species. Cf. tome I, p. 348, note 5.

la: Ut dicit Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 19. (c. 2.); II. text. 130. (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.*

en: As Aristotle says, *De Anima* I, text 19 (c. 2); II, text 130 (III c. 3); III, text 40 (c. 9). *De Plantis* I, c. 1, says: *Life has been apprehended both in animals and in plants; in animals indeed patent and manifest, but in plants more hidden and not so evident.*

la: Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 53. m. 1. § 1. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. II. 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.

en: Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 53, m. 1, § 1 seq.; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; *Summa* p. II, tr. II, q. 60; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, ad 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the letter, and Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the letter 3 seq.

la: Supple cum Vat. *sub una differentia animalis.*

en: Supply with the Vatican edition *under one difference of animal.*

la: Cfr. de his Isidor., XII. Etymolog. c. 1. seqq. Lyranus in Genes. 1, 3: *Bestia namque dicitur quasi vastia a vastando.*

en: Cf. on these matters Isidore, *Etymologies* XII, c. 1 ff. Lyranus on Genesis 1:3: *For "bestia" (beast) is said as it were "vastia" (destroyer), from "vastando" (destroying).*

la: 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 successive sit tradita. De sanctis Patribus autem dicit: «Nam quod illi [Apostoli] sub brevitate locuti sunt, hoc exponendo isti multipliciter auxerunt». Cap. 9. n. 13: *Si ex sanctis Apostolis vis intelligentiae non inciperet, nequaquam per doctorum ora largior manaret.* — 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. II. q. 61; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.

en: Epistle I Corinthians 14:33. — On the saying of Gregory cf. *Moralia* XXVII, c. 8, n. 12 ff., where he teaches that sacred doctrine was successively delivered through the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and holy Fathers. But concerning the holy Fathers he says: «For what they [the Apostles] said in brief, these in expounding have manifoldly amplified». Cap. 9, n. 13: *If the power of understanding did not begin from the holy Apostles, it would by no means flow more abundantly through the mouths of the doctors.* — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 54, m. 1, ad 3 and 4; Blessed Albert, here a. 7; *Summa* p. II, tr. II, q. 61; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the letter; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the letter 5.

la: In sensu largiore acceptam. — De seqq. cfr. August., XII. Confess. c. 30. n. 41.

en: Taken in the broader sense. — On what follows, cf. Augustine, *Confessions* XII, c. 30, n. 41.

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

en: Distinction 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body, near the end.

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

en: Especially in *De Genesi contra Manichaeos* I throughout; *Confessions* XII and XIII.

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

en: Verse 22: *The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth.* — The following text is in the place cited, v. 15.

la: Vers. 10.

en: Verse 10.

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

en: Jeremiah 31:22: *A woman shall compass a man.* — On this second solution see I *Sentences* d. 44, doubt 3.

la: Vers. 16.

en: Verse 16.

la: In nonnullis codd. et Vat. desideratur *sex dies operatus fuerat, sic.* Non pauci codd. *sex diebus* pro *sex dies.*

en: In some codices and in the Vatican edition, *he had wrought for six days, thus* is lacking. Not a few codices read *for six days (sex diebus)* instead of *six days (sex dies).*

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

en: Exodus 20:8 ff.; 31:13 ff.; Deuteronomy 5:12 ff. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 56, m. 2; Blessed Albert, *Summa* p. II, tr. II, q. 67, incidental q. 4; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 2; Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 3.

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

en: Cf. above d. 12, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — A little below, several codices with edition 1 read *infra septenarium* instead of *infra septem.*

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

en: The planets in the Ptolemaic system are ordered thus: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. — Then some codices with edition 1, after *to follow,* add *immediately.*

la: Cod. cc cum ed. 1 *septenarium,* et aliquanto inferius post *accipitur* subiungit *hic.*

en: Codex *cc* with edition 1 reads *septenarium,* and somewhat further below, after *is taken,* adds *here.*

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

en: In the Vatican edition is added *of the sabbath,* which also, with several manuscripts and other editions, substitutes *procedendum* for *procedendo.*

la: Vat. *septem dies quasi septem planetas.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *seven days as if seven planets.*

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

en: Galatians 4:3: *So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.*

la: Ex constitutione Silvestri Papae I.

en: From the constitution of Pope Sylvester I.

translators_notes:
- **Page span / page-split.** d.15-dubia spans printed **pp. 388–391** (4 pages). Page-break boundaries in the OCR: raw 27453 (`DIST. XV. DUBIA. 389` = end p.388), raw 27526 (`390 SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` = end p.389), raw 27589 (`DISTINCTIO XVI. 391` = end p.390), and raw 27615 (chunk end, immediately before `DISTINCTIO XVI.` page-header for p.392 at raw 27616 which actually marks the start of d.16-littera). Body splits: p.388 = DUB I head + body L+R bands 1–2; p.389 = DUB I tail + DUB II + DUB III opener; p.390 = DUB III tail + DUB IV + DUB V; p.391 = DUB V tail block already consumed on p.390 → DUB VI head + body + close.
- **Dub count: 6** (DUB. I, II, III, IV, V, VI). All headers crisp at 450 dpi.
- **Apparatus 27 entries across pp.388–391** (numbered [^2]–[^27] continuously). Page split:
  - p.388: L footer 1 = (Val. *rerum.*) anchors the *vivit* line; L footers 2–3 = [^2]–[^3]; R footers 4–5 = [^4]. Note: footer 4 here is a composite of the printed pp.388 R footers 4 + 5 (Aristot. *de Historia animal.* + *Sive maioris extensionis*).
  - p.389: L footers 1–5 = [^5]–[^8] (text combined where one ed. note bridges) + [^10]; R footers 6–7 = [^11]–[^12]. (Numbering preserves printed sequence; [^9] omitted — the Vat. *sub una* note collapses into [^8].)
  - p.390: L footers 1–5 = [^13]–[^17]; R footers 6–8 = [^18]–[^20].
  - p.391: L footers 1–7 = [^21]–[^27]; R footers: none.
- **`[?]` flags: none** — body, marginal labels, and all 27 anchors crisp at 450 dpi.
- **Marginal labels preserved inline:** *Quaest. incid.,* *Tres species motus in animalibus.,* *Notandum.* (×3 — DUB I, DUB III, DUB V), *Quadruplices modi quibus reptilia.,* *Ad quaest. incidentem.,* *Quaestio 1.* / *Quaestio 2.* (DUB II body marginal numbering), *Differentia 1.* / *Differentia 2.,* *Alia solutio.,* *Distinctio.,* *Aliter.,* *Quaestio.* (DUB VI), *Ad quaestionem.* (DUB VI).
- **Cross-chunk footer-split check:** p.388 footer 1 (Val. *rerum.*) anchors at the *vivit* line in DUB I — this is intra-chunk (not migrated from d15-a2-q3). p.388 commentator-list block (footer ¹ of the prior article side: `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) already consumed by d15-a2-q3 per that chunk's Notes. No d15-a2-q3 footer migrates here. d16-littera opens fresh on p.392 with its own NOTAE block — no footer migrates from this chunk.
- **`has_scholion: false`** — DUBIA blocks in Vol II d.15 carry no SCHOLION (the d.15-a2 scholion sits in d15-a2-q1; the d15-a1 scholion in d15-a1-q1).
- **Owner audit residual:** apparatus-count audit may show diff ≈ −1 vs raw heuristic because the prior heuristic miscounted footer 1 (Val. *rerum*) as a separate apparatus number; here it sits as a *parked* prelude rather than rendering. Within Vol II's audit ±10–18 tolerance.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 16

title_alt:
Distinctio XVI — Littera Magistri
Distinction XVI — Lombard's text

source_text:
<!-- page 391 -->

### DISTINCTIO XVI.

### Cap. I.
### *De hominis creatione.*

His excursis, quae supra[^1] de hominis creatione praemisimus effectui mancipare atque ordine explanare nunc suscipimus, ubi haec consideranda videntur, scilicet, *quare creatus sit homo, et qualiter institutus, et qualis vel quomodo factus, deinde qualiter sit lapsus, postremo, qualiter et per quae sit reparatus.* Horum autem primo et secundo posita, id est causam creationis humanae et modum institutionis, superius[^2] pro modulo nostrae facultatis tractavimus.

### Cap. II.
### *Qualis factus sit homo.*

Ideoque superest, ut qualis vel quomodo factus sit, discutiamus. In Genesi legitur: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram* etc. In eo quod dicit *faciamus,* una operatio trium personarum ostenditur; *Dubium 1.* in hoc vero, quod dicit *ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram,* una et aequalis substantia trium personarum monstratur. Ex persona enim Patris hoc dicitur ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum, non, ut quidam putant, Angelis, quia Dei et Angelorum non est eadem *Dubium 2.* imago et similitudo[^3].

### Cap. III.
### *De imagine et similitudine, ad quam factus est homo.*

Imago autem et similitudo in hoc loco vel increata intelligitur, id est Trinitatis essentia, ad quam factus est homo, vel creata, in qua factus est homo, et ipsa homini concreata. Increatam enim imaginem, quae Deus est, intellexisse videtur Beda[^4], cum dicit, « non esse unam imaginem Dei et Angelorum, sed trium personarum »; et ideo personis, non
<!-- page 392 -->
Angelis fit ibi sermo. *Improprie* tamen *imago* dicitur, *Imago proprie.* quia *imago* relative ad aliud dicitur, cuius similitudinem gerit et ad quod repraesentandum facta est, sicut imago Caesaris, quae ipsius similitudinem praeferebat ipsumque quodammodo repraesentabat; *Improprie.* improprie autem imago dicitur id ad quod aliud fit; sicut *exemplum* proprie dicitur quod sumitur ex aliquo, et *exemplar,* ex quo sumitur aliquid. Ponitur tamen aliquando abusive alterum pro altero; ita et *minus proprie* accipitur *imago* essentia Trinitatis, si tamen ea nomine imaginis in hoc loco intelligitur.

Filius vero *proprie* imago Patris dicitur, sicut supra[^5] in tractatu de Trinitate diximus. Unde fuerunt *Dubium 3. et opinio 1.* nonnulli, qui ita distinxerunt, ut imaginem in hoc loco intelligerent Filium; hominem vero non *imaginem,* sed *ad imaginem* factum dicerent; quos refellit Apostolus[^6] dicens: *Vir quidem est imago et gloria Dei.* Haec namque imago, id est homo, cum dicitur *fieri ad imaginem,* non quasi ad Filium dicitur fieri, alioquin non diceretur: *Ad imaginem nostram.* Quomodo enim *nostram* diceret, cum Filius solius Patris imago sit? — *Opinio 2.* Fuerunt autem et alii, perspicacius haec tractantes, qui per *imaginem* Filium, et per *similitudinem* Spiritum sanctum intelligerent, qui similitudo est Patris et Filii. Et ideo pluraliter putaverunt dici *nostram,* id referentes ad *similitudinem* tantum, ad imaginem vero subintelligendum esse *meam.* Hominem vero et imaginem esse et *ad imaginem* et similitudinem factum esse, tradiderunt, et imaginem imaginis esse et similitudinis.

Verumtamen haec distinctio licet reprobabilis penitus non videatur, quia tamen *de medio montium,*[^7] id est auctoritatibus Sanctorum non manat, congruen *Opinio 3.* tius in ipso homine imago et similitudo Dei quaerenda est et consideranda. Factus est ergo homo ad imaginem Dei et similitudinem secundum *mentem,* qua irrationalibus antecellit; sed *ad imaginem* secundum memoriam, intelligentiam et dilectionem, ad *similitudinem* secundum innocentiam et iustitiam, quae in mente rationali naturaliter sunt. — Vel *imago* consideratur in cognitione veritatis, *similitudo* in amore virtutis; vel *imago* in aliis omnibus, *similitudo* in essentia, quia immortalis et indivisibilis est. Unde Augustinus in libro de Quantitate animae[^8]: *Anima facta est similis Deo, quia immortalem et indissolubilem fecit eam Deus.* Imago ergo pertinet ad formam, similitudo ad naturam. Factus est ergo homo secundum animam ad *imaginem et similitudinem* non Patris, vel Filii, vel Spiritus sancti, sed totius Trinitatis; ita et secundum animam dicitur homo esse imago Dei, quia imago Dei in eo est. Sicut imago dicitur et *tabula* et *pictura,*[^9] quae in ea *Exemplum.* est; sed propter picturam, quae in ea est, simul et tabula imago appellatur: ita propter imaginem Trinitatis etiam illud, in quo est haec imago, nomine imaginis vocatur.

### Cap. IV.
### *Quare homo dicitur imago et ad imaginem, Filius non ad imaginem.*

Quocirca homo et imago dicitur et ad imaginem, Filius autem imago, non ad imaginem, quia natus, non creatus, aequalis et in nullo dissimilis; homo creatus est a Deo, non genitus, non parilitate aequalis, sed quadam similitudine accedens ei. Unde Augustinus in *Augustinus.* libro septimo de Trinitate[^10]: « In Genesi legitur: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Faciamus* et *nostram* pluraliter dixit, et nisi ex relativis accipi non oportet, ut facere intelligantur Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus ad imaginem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ut subsisteret homo imago Dei. Sed quia non omnino aequalis fiebat illa imago, tan *Dubium 4.* quam non ab illo nata, sed ab eo creata; ideo ita imago dicitur, quod *et* ad imaginem, quia non aequatur parilitate, sed accedit quadam similitudine. Filius autem est imago, sed non *ad imaginem,* quia aequalis Patri. Dictus est ergo homo *ad imaginem* propter imparem similitudinem; et ideo[^11] *nostram,* ut imago Trinitatis esse homo intelligatur, non Trinitati aequalis, sicut Filius Patri ». — Ecce ostensum est, secundum quid sit homo similis Deo, scilicet secundum animam. Sed et « in corpore quandam proprietatem habet, quae hoc indicat, quia est erecta statura, secundum quam corpus animae rationali congruit, quia in caelum erectum est ».

---

english:
<!-- page 391 -->

### DISTINCTION XVI.

### Chapter I.
### *On the creation of man.*

Having gone through these matters which we set out above[^1] on man's creation, we now undertake to put them into effect and to expound them in order, where the following points seem to need consideration, namely, *why man was created, and how he was constituted, and of what sort or in what manner he was made; then how he fell; and lastly, in what way and by what means he was repaired.* The first and second of these — that is, the cause of human creation and the manner of his institution — we have treated above[^2] according to the measure of our ability.

### Chapter II.
### *Of what sort man was made.*

It remains, then, that we should discuss of what sort or in what manner he was made. In Genesis we read: *Let us make man to our image and likeness* etc. In that he says *let us make,* one operation of the three persons is shown; *Dubium 1.* whereas in that he says *to our image and likeness,* one and equal substance of the three persons is shown. For this is said from the person of the Father to the Son and the Holy Spirit, not, as some think, to the Angels, because the image and likeness of God and of the Angels is not the same *Dubium 2.*[^3].

### Chapter III.
### *On the image and likeness, to which man was made.*

The "image" and "likeness" in this place is understood either as uncreated — that is, the essence of the Trinity, to which man was made — or as created, in which man was made, and which is itself con-created with man. For Bede[^4] seems to have understood the uncreated image, which is God, when he says, "the image of God and of the Angels is not one, but of the three persons"; and therefore the discourse is addressed to the persons, not
<!-- page 392 -->
to the Angels. Yet *image* is said *improperly,* *Image properly.* because *image* is named relatively to another, whose likeness it bears and to represent which it has been made, like the image of Caesar, which carried Caesar's likeness and in a certain manner represented him; *Improperly.* improperly, however, *image* is said of that to which something else is made; just as an *exemplum* is properly that which is taken from something, and *exemplar* that from which something is taken. Yet sometimes the one is used loosely for the other; and so the essence of the Trinity is called *image* in a *less proper* sense, if indeed under the name of image it is understood in this place.

But the Son is properly called the image of the Father, as we said above[^5] in the treatise on the Trinity. Hence there have been some *Dubium 3. and opinion 1.* who so distinguished as to understand the *image* in this place as the Son; but to say that man was not made as the *image* but *to the image.* The Apostle refutes them[^6] when he says: *The man indeed is the image and glory of God.* For this image — that is, man — when he is said *to be made to the image,* is not said to be made as it were to the Son; otherwise it would not say: *To our image.* For how would he say *our,* since the Son is the image of the Father alone? — *Opinion 2.* But there have been others, treating these matters more acutely, who by *image* understood the Son, and by *likeness* the Holy Spirit, who is the likeness of the Father and the Son. And so they thought that *our* was said in the plural, referring it to *likeness* alone, while in *image* one must understand *my.* They handed down that man both is image and is made *to image* and likeness, and is the image of the image and of the likeness.

Yet although this distinction may not appear altogether to be rejected, since nevertheless it does not flow *from the midst of the mountains,*[^7] that is, from the authorities of the Saints, it is more fitting *Opinion 3.* that image and likeness of God should be sought and considered in man himself. Man therefore was made to the image and likeness of God according to *mind,* by which he surpasses the irrational creatures; but *to image* according to memory, understanding and love; to *likeness* according to innocence and justice, which are naturally in the rational mind. — Or *image* is considered in the knowledge of truth, *likeness* in the love of virtue; or *image* in all the rest, *likeness* in essence, because it is immortal and indivisible. Hence Augustine in his book *On the Quantity of the Soul*[^8]: *The soul has been made like to God, because God made it immortal and indissoluble.* The image, then, pertains to form, the likeness to nature. Therefore man was made, according to the soul, to the *image and likeness* not of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, but of the whole Trinity; and thus also according to the soul man is said to be the image of God, because the image of God is in him. Just as an image is said to be both the *tabula* (the panel) and the *pictura*[^9] (the painting) which is on it; *Example.* but on account of the picture, which is in it, the panel also together is called an image: so on account of the image of the Trinity, that also in which this image is, is called by the name of image.

### Chapter IV.
### *Why man is called image and to the image, but the Son not to the image.*

Wherefore man is called both image and *to the image,* but the Son image, not *to the image,* because he is born, not created, equal and in no way dissimilar; man was created by God, not begotten, not equal by parity, but approaching him by a certain likeness. Hence Augustine in *Augustine.* the seventh book of *On the Trinity*[^10]: "In Genesis we read: *Let us make man to our image and likeness. Let us make* and *our* he said in the plural, and these cannot be taken except from relatives, so that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are understood to make to the image of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in order that man might subsist as the image of God. But because that image was not made altogether equal, *Dubium 4.* as not born from him but created by him; therefore he is called image in such a way that also *to the image,* because he is not equalled in parity, but approaches by a certain likeness. The Son, however, is image, but not *to the image,* because he is equal to the Father. Man therefore was said to be *to the image* on account of the unequal likeness; and for this reason[^11] *our,* so that man might be understood as the image of the Trinity, not equal to the Trinity, as the Son is to the Father". — Behold it has been shown according to what man is like to God, namely according to the soul. But also "in the body he has a certain property which indicates this, in that he is of erect stature, according to which the body is fitting to the rational soul, because it is erect toward heaven".

---

la: Dist. praec. c. 5. — Quoad hanc dist. cfr. Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 2, et l. de Sacram. p. 6. c. 1. Cod. Erf. relegat ad Gandolph. Sent. II. c. 72. Paulo inferius pro *per quae* codd. et B E edd. 1, 8 *per quem.*

en: Preceding distinction, c. 5. — On this distinction see Hugh, *Sum. Sent.* tr. 3 c. 2, and *On the Sacraments* p. 6 c. 1. The Erfurt codex refers it to Gandulph, *Sent.* II c. 72. A little below, for *per quae* the codices and B E editions 1, 8 read *per quem.*

la: Dist. I. c. 4. § 6. — Locus Gen. mox cit. est I, 26.

en: Distinction I c. 4 § 6. — The Genesis passage cited immediately below is Gen. 1, 26.

la: August., III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 29; et Glossa ord., sumta ex Beda.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter,* III c. 19 n. 29; and the Ordinary Gloss, taken from Bede.

la: Hexaëm. ad Gen. 1, 26; est etiam in Glossa ord. — Aliquanto inferius pro *Improprie autem* Vat. cum ceteris edd., exceptis 1, 8, inepte repetit *Proprie autem imago dicitur id quod ad aliud.* (cf. S. Bonav., I. Sent. d. 31. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.).

en: *Hexaëmeron* on Gen. 1, 26; it is also in the Ordinary Gloss. — A little further down, in place of *Improprie autem* the Vatican edition with the others (except 1, 8) ineptly repeats *Proprie autem imago dicitur id quod ad aliud.* (cf. St. Bonaventure, I Sent. d. 31 p. II a. 1 q. 1).

la: Lib. I. Sent. d. XXVII. c. 3, et d. XXVIII. c. 6. — Quae sequuntur sunt ex August., VII. de Trin. c. 6. n. 12.

en: Book I of the Sentences, dist. XXVII c. 3, and d. XXVIII c. 6. — What follows is from Augustine, *On the Trinity* VII c. 6 n. 12.

la: I. Cor. 11, 7: *Vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria Dei est.*

en: 1 Cor. 11, 7: *A man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.*

la: Haec verba respiciunt Zach. 6, 1: *Egredientes de medio duorum montium,* vel Ps. 103, 10: *Inter medium montium pertransibunt aquae.* — Immediate ante cum Vat. et cod. B nec non ed. 1 retinuimus tamen, quod a ceteris codd. et edd. abest.

en: These words refer to Zach. 6, 1: *Going forth from the midst of two mountains,* or Ps. 103, 10: *Through the midst of the mountains the waters will pass.* — Immediately before, with the Vatican edition and codex B and also edition 1, we have retained *tamen,* which is missing from the other codices and editions.

la: Cap. 2. n. 3. (cfr. de Spiritu et anima, c. 10), August. XII. de Trin. c. 6, et Serm. 52. c. 6. n. 17.

en: Chapter 2 n. 3 (cf. *On the Spirit and the Soul* c. 10), Augustine *On the Trinity* XII c. 6, and Sermon 52 c. 6 n. 17.

la: Cfr. August., XV. de Trin. c. 22. n. 43. Videsis ipsa August. verba apud Magistrum, I. Sent. d. III. c. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV c. 22 n. 43. See Augustine's own words in the Master [Lombard], I Sent. d. III c. 3.

la: Cap. 6. n. 12. — Paulo inferius post *ex relativis* edd. 1, 8 interserunt *i. e. personis.*

en: Chapter 6 n. 12. — A little below, after *ex relativis,* editions 1 and 8 insert *i. e. personis* ("that is, persons").

la: Cod. D hic bene subiicit *dicit.* — Ultima huius cap. propositio est ex Beda, Hexaëm. ad Gen. 1, 26, et habetur in Glossa ord. ad hunc locum.

en: Codex D here rightly adds *dicit.* — The last proposition of this chapter is from Bede, *Hexaëmeron* on Gen. 1, 26, and is found in the Ordinary Gloss on this passage. ---

translators_notes:
- **Page span.** d.16 Cap. I–IV. Cap. I + Cap. II opener sit on p. 391 L band 2 (immediately after the d.15-dubia tail `Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.` close); Cap. II continues through p. 391 R band 1 into the bottom of R band 2; Cap. III opens on p. 391 R band 2 and spills onto p. 392 L bands 0–2; Cap. IV runs p. 392 R bands 0–1. Cap. IV closes at *...in caelum erectum est.* immediately before the *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.* opener at raw line 27717.
- **Capitula count: 4** (Cap. I *De hominis creatione* / Cap. II *Qualis factus sit homo* / Cap. III *De imagine et similitudine, ad quam factus est homo* / Cap. IV *Quare homo dicitur imago et ad imaginem, Filius non ad imaginem*).
- **Apparatus count: 11.** Page-split map: **p. 391** NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM block on R band 2 footers 1–4 = `[^1]`–`[^4]`. **p. 392** L band 2 footers 1–3 = `[^5]`–`[^7]`; **p. 392** R band 2 footers 4–7 = `[^8]`–`[^11]`. p. 391 L band 2 footers 1–7 belong to d.15-dubia (already consumed in that chunk per its Notes block).
- **Marginal labels preserved inline** per locked Vol II convention: *Dubium 1.* (Cap. II), *Dubium 2.* (Cap. II tail), *Imago proprie.* + *Improprie.* (Cap. III opener), *Dubium 3. et opinio 1.* (Cap. III mid), *Opinio 2.*, *Opinio 3.*, *Exemplum.* (Cap. III tail), *Augustinus.* (Cap. IV opener), *Dubium 4.* (Cap. IV mid).
- **No scholion** — littera chunks by design carry no SCHOLION; commentary's SCHOLION blocks live in each quaestio chunk.
- **Cross-chunk hand-off forward to d16-divisio.** d.16 has **no pars split** (running heads read `DIST. XVI. ART. I/II.` only — no `P. I.` / `P. II.` anywhere in the d.16 commentary). The *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.* on p. 392 R column bottom + p. 393 opens with DIVISIO TEXTUS — its footer share will be picked up by `d16-divisio`. No littera-side footer migrates forward from d16-littera to d16-divisio.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all 11 anchors + 9 marginal labels crisp at 450 dpi from p. 391 R band 2 and p. 392 L+R bands.


title: Dist. 16, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XVI — Qualiter Deus produxerit hominem ad suam imaginem

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XVI — How God produced man unto his own image

source_text:
<!-- page 392 -->

# COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.

### *Qualiter Deus produxerit hominem ad suam imaginem.*

*His excursis, quae supra de hominis creatione etc.*

<!-- page 393 -->

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Terminatis duabus primis partibus, in quibus Magister determinavit de conditione creaturae spiritualis et corporalis divisim, hic sequitur tertia pars, in qua determinat de productione creaturae compositae ex utraque, scilicet de homine. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In prima namque determinat de homine quantum ad ipsius productionem; secundo, quantum ad permanentiam et durationem, infra distinctione decima nona: *Solent plura quaeri de statu primi*[^1] *hominis.* Prima pars habet duas. In prima agit de productione hominis in comparatione ad principium effectivum. In secunda vero parte in comparatione ad principia constitutiva, infra distinctione decima septima: *Hic de origine animae plura quaeri solent.*

Prima pars spectat ad praesentem distinctionem et dividitur in partes duas. In prima parte Magister veritatem narrat, scilicet qualiter Deus produxerit hominem ad suam imaginem, in qua similitudinem habet ad suum principium efficiens. In secunda vero parte veritatem explanat, ibi: *Filius vero proprie imago dicitur.*

Prima pars habet tres particulas. In prima continuat Magister dicta dicendis. In secunda vero auctoritatem sacrae Scripturae inducit, in qua ostenditur, per quem modum homo productus ad suum effectivum principium comparetur, ibi: *In Genesi legitur: Faciamus* etc. In tertia parte subdit illius auctoritatis expositionem, ibi: *Imago autem et similitudo in hoc loco* etc.

Similiter secunda pars principalis habet tres partes. In prima enim ponit explanationem inductae auctoritatis secundum aliorum opinionem. In secunda parte secundum opinionem propriam, ibi: *Verumtamen haec distinctio* etc. In tertia vero ex veritate explanata concludit quandam conclusionem corollariam, ibi: *Quocirca homo et imago dicitur et ad imaginem* etc. Et sic summa totius partis huius consistit in hoc, scilicet ostendendo, quod homo factus est ad Dei imaginem et similitudinem.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic quaestio.

Primo quaeritur, qualiter homo sit imago secundum considerationem absolutam.

Secundo, qualiter sit imago secundum considerationem relatam[^2].

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum sit imago Dei vere.

Secundo, utrum sit imago Dei naturaliter.

Tertio, utrum sit imago Dei proprie.

---

english:
<!-- page 392 -->

# COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVI.

### *How God produced man unto his own image.*

*These things having been gone through, which were said above concerning the creation of man, etc.*

<!-- page 393 -->

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

The two first parts having been concluded, in which the Master determined separately concerning the condition of the spiritual and the corporeal creature, here there follows the third part, in which he determines concerning the production of the creature composed from both, namely concerning man. Now this part is divided into two parts. For in the first he determines concerning man as regards his production; second, as regards his permanence and duration, below in distinction nineteen: *Many things are wont to be asked concerning the state of the first*[^1] *man.* The first part has two [sub-parts]. In the first he treats of the production of man in comparison to the effective principle. In the second part [he treats] in comparison to the constitutive principles, below in distinction seventeen: *Here many things are wont to be asked concerning the origin of the soul.*

The first part pertains to the present distinction and is divided into two parts. In the first part the Master narrates the truth, namely how God produced man unto his own image, in which [man] has a likeness to his efficient principle. But in the second part he explains the truth, there: *But the Son is properly called image.*

The first part has three particles. In the first the Master joins what has been said to what is to be said. In the second, however, he adduces the authority of sacred Scripture, in which it is shown by what mode man as produced is compared to his effective principle, there: *In Genesis it is read: Let us make,* etc. In the third part he subjoins the exposition of that authority, there: *Image, moreover, and likeness in this place,* etc.

Likewise the second principal part has three parts. For in the first he sets forth the explanation of the adduced authority according to the opinion of others. In the second part [he sets it forth] according to his own opinion, there: *Yet this distinction,* etc. But in the third, from the truth thus explained, he concludes a certain corollary conclusion, there: *Wherefore man is called both image and unto the image,* etc. And thus the sum of this whole part consists in this, namely in showing that man was made unto the image and likeness of God.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part the question here falls into two [heads].

First it is asked how man is image according to absolute consideration.

Second, how he is image according to relative[^2] consideration.

Concerning the first three [points] are asked.

First it is asked whether he is image of God truly.

Second, whether he is image of God naturally.

Third, whether he is image of God properly.

---

la: Ita codd. et edd.; textus Magistri melius *primo.*

en: Thus the codices and editions; the Master's text reads, better, *primo* ("first" [adverbial]).

la: Codd. W an *relativam.*

en: Codices W [read] perhaps *relativam* ("relative" [accusative feminine]).

translators_notes:
- **Span:** p.392 R band 2 bottom (COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI. header + epigraph *His excursis...* immediately after the d16-littera Cap. IV close at raw 27716) → p.393 L bands 0–1 + R bands 0–1 (DIVISIO TEXTUS in two-column flow + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + Articulus I sub-divisio fold-in). Closes at *Tertio, utrum sit imago Dei proprie.* (raw 27734) immediately before `ARTICULUS I.` at raw 27736.
- **Page-split / footer map (p.393):** L band 2 carries footnotes ¹–⁴ of p.393. Footnotes ¹ (*Ita codd. et edd.; textus Magistri melius primo.*) and ² (*Codd. W an relativam.*) anchor in this chunk (*statu primi¹ hominis* in para 1, *considerationem relatam²* in TRACTATIO). Footnotes ³ (Vers. 26) and ⁴ (Vers. 1) anchor in d16-a1-q1 (Genesis 1, 26 and Ecclesiastici 17, 1 citations in q1's affirmative arguments 1–2). Footnote ⁵ (Hugo *de Arrha animae*) on p.393 L band 2 also anchors in d16-a1-q1 arg 3. p.392 R band 2 footer (notes ⁴–⁷) belongs entirely to d16-littera and is already consumed there as [^8]–[^11] (per d16-littera Notes block).
- **Vol II Override step 5 — Articulus I sub-divisio fold-in:** the short three-question sub-divisio (*Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum sit imago Dei vere…*) is folded into this divisio chunk per the locked Vol II convention, NOT split off into a standalone `d16-a1-divisio`. d16-a1-q1 will open at `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 27737+).
- **No scholion** — divisio chunks carry no SCHOLION by design.
- **No `[?]` flags** — both anchors crisp at 450 dpi. The OCR cascade-shattered the two-column DIVISIO into diagonal fragments (visible in the raw OCR around lines 27720–27732 where left-column and right-column lines splice together one token at a time); the PDF column-band read is authoritative per Vol II Override step 1.
- **OCR garbles silently corrected from PDF:** `partibns→partibus`, `qnibiis→quibus`, `iMagister→Magister`, `secjuitur→sequitur`, `productionc→productione`, `ntraque→utraque`, `Soleiit phuxL→Solent plura`, `slatu→statu`, `seplima→septima`, `phira→plura`, `sciUcet→scilicet`, `Simihter→Similiter`, `p:irs→pars`, `haliet→habet`, `dislinctio→distinctio`, `conchisio-nem→conclusionem`, `similitudinera→similitudinem`, `intelhgentiam→intelligentiam`, `conchisio→conclusio`.