Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 13
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum processio Spiritus sancti sit generatio.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum processio Spiritus sancti sit generatio. Et quod non, videtur:
1. Augustinus de Trinitate decimo quinto1: «Sicut Filio praestat essentiam sine ullo initio temporis et sine ulla mutatione generatio, ita Spiritui sancto processio»: ergo si non est idem quod praestat essentiam duabus personis etc.
2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia generatio est emanatio secundum modum fecunditatis naturae; sed, sicut supra probatum est2, Spiritus sanctus procedit per modum liberalitatis et amoris: ergo non generatur: ergo generatio non est processio.
3. Item, nihil unum exit a duobus similibus per viam generationis3, nisi alter sit ut pater, alter ut mater, alter ut principium activum, alter ut principium passivum; sed Spiritus sanctus procedit a duobus similibus: ergo si per viam generationis, alter est ei ut pater, alter ut mater; quod omnino absurdum est.
4. Item, Filius est sua generatio et Spiritus sanctus est sua processio4: ergo si procedere esset generari, Spiritus sanctus esset Filius5; sed Spiritus sanctus procedit a Filio et dicitur Spiritus Filii, sicut Filius dicitur Patris: ergo si Filius non est Pater, nec Spiritus sanctus est Filius: ergo nec processio est generatio.
Contra:6
1. In his inferioribus generatio est motus ad oppositum ad substantiam, unde generatio est substantiae productio; sed processio Spiritus sancti est substantiae sive hypostasis productio7: ergo est generatio.
2. Item, generare sic definitur a Damasceno8: «generare est sibi similem in substantia producere»;
sed spiratione vel processione producitur Spiritus similis in natura: ergo et processio est generatio.
3. Item, actiones et mutationes denominantur a termino9: ergo quaecumque conveniunt in eo quod habetur per emanationem, conveniunt in modo emanandi; sed Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt in substantia, quam habent per emanationem: ergo conveniunt in emanatione: ergo si modus emanandi Filii est generatio, et Spiritus sancti similiter.
4. Item, productio est superius ad generationem10; sed quaecumque producuntur, procedunt: ergo processio est superius ad generationem: ergo generatio est processio: ergo pari ratione processio est generatio.
[Quaestio incidens.] Si dicas, quod processio appropriatur Spiritui sancto: quaero rationem; et videtur, quod magis debeat appropriari Filio, quia, si ratio procedendi secundum rationem intelligendi per prius est in Filio, ergo processio magis debet ei appropriari.
5. Item, si generans est spirans, ergo genitus est spiratus, et e converso; sed spiratio passiva est processio: ergo etc.
CONCLUSIO.
Spiritus sancti processio non est generatio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut Spiritus sanctus non est Filius, ita nec processio Spiritus sancti est generatio.
Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod generatio est productio substantiae; dicendum, quod est producere substantiam dissimilem, et est producere substantiam similem secundum voluntatem, et est producere substantiam similem per modum naturae11. Isti tres modi distinguuntur et diversi et separabiles sunt, quantum est de se. Quod patet, quia in productione Adam12 fuit substantiae productio, et tamen non fuit generatio; Deus enim non generavit Adam, sed creavit; in productione Evae de Adam fuit similis substantiae productio, non tamen generatio, quia Adam non genuit Evam; sed in productione Abel fuit substantiae productio secundum viam naturae, et ideo fuit ibi generatio. Secundum rem igitur isti tres modi distinguuntur13, tamen in actione creaturae non distinguuntur, quia creatura non potest substantiam producere nisi similem, et hoc per virtutem naturalem. Et ratio huius est imperfectio potentiae et limitatio14 in creatura; sed in Deo est summa potentia, et ideo in eius operatione isti tres modi habent distinctionem.
Ideo quamvis in istis inferioribus gratia materiae sit completa ratio generationis15: productio substantiae similis, vel productio substantiae, non tamen in divinis, immo oportet addi: per modum fecunditatis naturae. Et quia ista conditio deficit16 in productione Spiritus sancti, patet, quod non sequitur.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod similem habet uterque emanationem; dicendum, quod differt emanatio in his inferioribus et in Deo; quia in his inferioribus terminatur ad essentiam vel substantiam, quae multiplicatur; sed in divinis terminatur ad hypostases. Quoniam igitur hypostasis, ad quam terminatur processio, est amor, hypostasis, ad quam terminatur generatio, est imago — et amoris et nexus est spirari, non generari, e converso imaginis generari, non spirari — cum non sit consimilis ratio propria hypostasum secundum se, nec erit consimilis emanatio. Ipse vero procedit, ac si ad substantiam proprie terminaretur.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod processio est commune generationi; dicendum, quod17 est commune generationi et processioni proprie dictae; et nos hic loquimur de processione, prout tantum Spiritui sancto convenit; sic autem non est communis nec hoc modo praedicatur nec18 subiicitur; nec est intelligenda ibi communitas rei, sed solum proportionis, sive modi loquendi.
Quod ergo quaeritur, quare magis Spiritui sancto appropriatur, quidam voluerunt dicere, quod sicut nomen proprii19 commune est definitioni et propriae passioni, tamen quia definitio addit supra nomen proprii, propria passio non20: ideo definitio habet nomen, propria passio non; sed nomen com-
mune retinuit21; sic in proposito. — Sed hoc est absurdum dicere, quod Spiritus non habeat22 proprium et singularem modum emanandi, sicut Filius.
Ideo voluerunt23 alii, quod addit alium modum: sed quia ille modus in creaturis non est, quia aut raro aut nunquam procedit aliqua hypostasis aliter quam per generationem, ideo sacri doctores noluerunt nomen proprium vel novum fingere, sed magis commune appropriare. — Sed illud adhuc non videtur, quia sicut emanatio Filii recte exprimitur verbo generandi, ita emanatio Spiritus verbo spirandi24.
Et propter hoc aliter dicendum, quod25 sicut Pater dicitur ingenitus, quia ab eo removetur omnino generatio: quia nec generatur nec est a generato; similiter e converso processio proprie26 de eo dicitur, in quo est omnino ratio procedendi; et talis est Spiritus sanctus, quia procedit et est a procedente, non sic autem Filius: ideo Spiritui sancto attribuitur.
Aliter potest dici, quod completa ratio processionis consistit in comparatione ad principium a quo et ad terminum ad quem; et quia Spiritus in sua emanatione, quia nexus est, utrumque respicit, Filius alterum; ideo completissima ratio huius nominis reperitur in Spiritu sancto, quamvis aliquo modo reperiatur in Filio27; et ideo Spiritui sancto appropriatur.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod generans est spirans; dicendum, quod illa praedicatio non est formalis, sed solum ratione suppositi28; et quia una persona sive unum suppositum potest generare et spirare, ideo haec est vera: generans est spirans; sed nulla persona unica potest simul pluribus modis emanare; ideo non sequitur, quod genitus sit spiratus.
SCHOLION.
I. Quod in Deo sint duae emanationes, scilicet generatio et processio, iam supra d. 9. q. I, et d. 10. q. I probatum est. Hic quaeritur, utrum hae duae emanationes differant, et in sequenti quaestione, cuius naturae sit haec differentia. Et agitur de generatione et processione, quatenus sunt actus notionales, sive in sensu activo. Generatio enim et processio in sensu passivo sunt secunda et tertia Trinitatis persona. — Conclusio est de fide, cum Symbolum Athanasianum de Spiritu sancto dicat: «Non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens».
II. Ut solut. ad 1. facilius intelligatur, notandum est, quod in divinis vocabulum processio dupliciter accipitur, vel ut nomen commune, cuius species sunt generatio et spiratio, vel ut nomen speciale secundae emanationis. Nam «frequenter invenimus, quod aliquod proprium denominatur nomine communi» (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. ad 2.). Hinc oritur quaestio hic proposita, quare potius Spiritui sancto quam Filio nomen processionis approprietur. Primam solutionem S. Doctor reprobat, consentiente S. Thoma. Hanc tuetur Uldaricus, teste Dionysio Carth., et asserit, quod processio Spiritus sancti sit simpliciter processio, et quod generatio huic communi rationi addat differentiam specificam. Hanc assertionem eius defensores exemplo ipsius vocabuli proprium illustrant. Hoc enim nomen est commune tum definitioni, quae per genus et differentiam essentialiter speciem exprimit, tum propriae passioni, i. e. illi accidentali conditioni alicuius entis, quae inseparabiliter subiecto inhaeret, ut risibilitas homini. Nam iuxta Aristotelem proprium definitur: «Id quod non indicat, quid est esse rei, soli autem inest et conversim praedicatur» (v. g. omnis homo est risibilis, et omne risibile est homo). Haec igitur species proprii retinuit nomen commune et iuxta Porphyrium (c. 5.) est quartum praedicabile, dum «genus, species, differentia sunt tria prima praedicabilia». Hoc confirmat B. Albert. (1. Sent. d. 11. a. 2.): «Proprium dicitur praedicatum convertibile; tamen cum duplex sit praedicatum convertibile, scil. essentiale, ut definitio, et accidentale convertibile, accidentale nomen proprii retinet, et sic in multis fit». Similia docet S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.). De multiplici sensu proprii cfr. S. Bonav. II. Sent. d. 16. a. 1. q. 3. — Secunda opinio docens, quod propter defectum nominis, hanc specialem processionem exprimentis, nomen commune secundae emanationi appropriatum sit, iterum Seraphico non placet, propter hanc rationem, quod revera habeatur tale nomen, scil. spirare et spiratio. Nihilominus S. Thomas in Summa (I. q. 27. a. 4. ad 3.) dictam opinionem retinet dicendo: «Unde processio, quae non est generatio, remansit sine speciali nomine, sed potest nominari spiratio, quia est processio spiritus». Sed in Comment. (loc. cit.) praeter hanc rationem, de qua dicit, «et credo quod melior est», etiam alias duas affert rationes, hic a S. Bonaventura approbatas.
III. De conclusione: cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 42. m. 2. § 1, et q. 43. m. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2, et q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. et 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. hic q. unic.
---
Question II.
Whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is generation.
Secondly, it is asked whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is generation. And that it is not, is shown:
1. Augustine, On the Trinity, book fifteen1: "As generation bestows essence on the Son without any beginning of time and without any change, so does procession on the Holy Spirit": therefore, if it is not the same thing that bestows essence on the two persons, etc.
2. Likewise, the same point appears by reason: for generation is an emanation according to the mode of nature's fecundity; but, as was proved above2, the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of liberality and love: therefore he is not generated: therefore generation is not procession.
3. Likewise, no one thing comes forth from two like things by the way of generation3 unless one is as father, the other as mother — one as active principle, the other as passive principle; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from two like things: therefore if [he proceeds] by way of generation, one is to him as father, the other as mother; which is altogether absurd.
4. Likewise, the Son is his own generation and the Holy Spirit is his own procession4: therefore if to proceed were to be generated, the Holy Spirit would be the Son5; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and is called the Spirit of the Son, just as the Son is called [the Son] of the Father: therefore, if the Son is not the Father, neither is the Holy Spirit the Son: therefore neither is procession generation.
On the contrary:6
1. In these lower things generation is motion to the opposite with respect to substance, hence generation is the production of substance; but the procession of the Holy Spirit is the production of substance or hypostasis7: therefore it is generation.
2. Likewise, to generate is thus defined by Damascene8: "to generate is to produce one like oneself in substance";
but by spiration or procession the Spirit, like in nature, is produced: therefore procession too is generation.
3. Likewise, actions and changes take their name from their term9: therefore whatever things agree in that which is had through emanation, agree in the mode of emanating; but the Son and the Holy Spirit agree in the substance which they have through emanation: therefore they agree in emanation: therefore if the mode of emanating of the Son is generation, then likewise the mode of the Holy Spirit.
4. Likewise, production is superior [as a wider category] to generation10; but whatever things are produced, proceed: therefore procession is superior to generation: therefore generation is procession: therefore by parity of reasoning procession is generation.
[An incidental question.] If you say that procession is appropriated to the Holy Spirit: I ask the reason; and it appears that it ought rather to be appropriated to the Son, since, if the account of proceeding according to the mode of understanding is prior in the Son, then procession ought rather to be appropriated to him.
5. Likewise, if "the one who generates" is "the one who spirates," then "the one generated" is "the one spirated," and conversely; but passive spiration is procession: therefore etc.
Conclusion.
The procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation.
I respond: It must be said that, just as the Holy Spirit is not the Son, so neither is the procession of the Holy Spirit generation.
To 1 and 2. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary — that generation is the production of substance — it must be said that there is to produce a dissimilar substance, and there is to produce a similar substance by will, and there is to produce a substance similar by way of nature11. These three modes are distinguished, and are distinct and separable, so far as concerns themselves. Which is plain, since in the production of Adam12 there was production of substance, and yet there was no generation; for God did not generate Adam but created him; in the production of Eve from Adam there was production of like substance, yet not generation, since Adam did not generate Eve; but in the production of Abel there was production of substance by way of nature, and therefore there was generation. According to the matter [secundum rem] therefore these three modes are distinguished13, yet in the action of a creature they are not distinguished, since a creature cannot produce substance except [substance which is] like, and this by natural power. And the reason of this is the imperfection of potency and limitation14 in the creature; but in God there is supreme power, and therefore in his operation these three modes have a distinction.
Hence although in these lower things, by reason of matter, the complete account of generation15 is the production of like substance, or [simply] the production of substance, it is not so in divine things; rather one must add: by way of nature's fecundity. And because that condition is lacking16 in the production of the Holy Spirit, it is plain that the [objection] does not follow.
To 3. To that which is objected — that each [Son and Spirit] has a like emanation — it must be said that emanation differs in these lower things and in God; for in these lower things it terminates at an essence or substance which is multiplied; but in divine things it terminates at hypostases. Since therefore the hypostasis at which procession terminates is love, and the hypostasis at which generation terminates is image — and to the love and bond it belongs to be spirated, not generated, conversely to the image to be generated, not spirated — since the proper account of the hypostases in themselves is not alike, neither will the emanation be alike. He, however, proceeds as if it terminated properly at substance.
To 4. To that which is objected — that procession is common [as a higher category] to generation — it must be said that17 [the term] is common to generation and to procession properly so called; and we are speaking here of procession as it belongs to the Holy Spirit alone; in this sense, however, it is not common, nor is it predicated nor18 subjected in this manner; nor is the community there to be understood as a community of the thing, but only of proportion, or of mode of speaking.
As to the question why [procession] is rather appropriated to the Holy Spirit, certain ones wished to say that, just as the name proprium19 is common to definition and to property [propria passio] — yet because definition adds something over the name proprium, while property does not20 — therefore definition has a [proper] name, property does not, but retains the common name; so
[likewise] in the present case21. — But this is absurd to say, that the Spirit does not have22 a proper and singular mode of emanating, as the Son does.
Therefore others wished23 [to say] that [procession] adds another mode; but because that mode is not present in creatures — since either rarely or never does any hypostasis proceed otherwise than by generation — therefore the holy doctors did not wish to fashion a proper or new name, but rather to appropriate the common one. — But this still does not seem [right], since just as the emanation of the Son is rightly expressed by the verb to generate, so the emanation of the Spirit by the verb to spirate24.
And on this account it must be said otherwise that25 just as the Father is called unbegotten [ingenitus] because generation is altogether removed from him — since he neither is generated nor is from one generated — so conversely procession is properly26 said of him in whom there is altogether the account of proceeding; and such is the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds and is from one proceeding — not so the Son: therefore [procession] is attributed to the Holy Spirit.
It can also be said in another way, that the complete account of procession consists in [its] comparison both to the principle from which and to the term to which; and because the Spirit, in his emanation, since he is the bond, regards both — while the Son regards [only] the other — therefore the most complete account of this name is found in the Holy Spirit, although in some manner it is found in the Son27; and therefore it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit.
To 5. To that which is objected last — that "the one generating is the one spirating" — it must be said that that predication is not formal, but only by reason of the supposit28; and because one person, or one supposit, can both generate and spirate, therefore this is true: the one generating is the one spirating; but no single person can emanate at the same time in several modes; therefore it does not follow that "the one generated is the one spirated."
Scholion.
I. That in God there are two emanations, namely generation and procession, has already been proved above at d. 9, q. I, and d. 10, q. I. Here it is asked whether these two emanations differ, and in the following question, of what nature this difference is. And the discussion concerns generation and procession insofar as they are notional acts, or [taken] in the active sense. For generation and procession in the passive sense are the second and third persons of the Trinity. — The conclusion is of faith, since the Athanasian Creed says of the Holy Spirit: "Not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
II. That the response to 1 may be more easily understood, it is to be noted that in divine things the word procession is taken in two senses: either as a common name, whose species are generation and spiration, or as a special name of the second emanation. For "frequently we find that some proper [thing] is denominated by a common name" (St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, ad 2). Hence arises the question here proposed: why the name procession is appropriated rather to the Holy Spirit than to the Son. The first solution the Holy Doctor rejects, with St. Thomas in agreement. This [first solution] is upheld by Uldaricus, on the testimony of Dionysius the Carthusian, who asserts that the procession of the Holy Spirit is procession simply, and that generation adds a specific difference to this common account. The defenders of his assertion illustrate it by the example of the very word proprium. For this name is common both to definition, which expresses a species essentially through genus and difference, and to property [propria passio], i.e. that accidental condition of some entity which inheres inseparably in its subject, as risibility in man. For according to Aristotle proprium is defined as "that which does not indicate what the being of the thing is, yet is in it alone and is predicated convertibly" (e.g. every man is risible, and everything risible is a man). This species of proprium, then, has retained the common name and, according to Porphyry (c. 5), is the fourth predicable, while "genus, species, difference are the three first predicables." This is confirmed by Bl. Albert (1 Sent. d. 11, a. 2): "Proprium is said to be a convertible predicate; yet since the convertible predicate is twofold, namely essential — as definition — and accidentally convertible, the accidentally [convertible] retains the name proprium, and so it occurs in many cases." St. Thomas teaches similarly (here q. 1, a. 3). On the manifold sense of proprium cf. St. Bonaventure, II Sent. d. 16, a. 1, q. 3. — The second opinion, teaching that on account of the lack of a name expressing this special procession the common name has been appropriated to the second emanation, again does not please the Seraphic Doctor — for this reason, that there does in truth exist such a name, namely to spirate and spiration. Nevertheless St. Thomas in the Summa (I, q. 27, a. 4, ad 3) retains the said opinion, saying: "Hence procession, which is not generation, has remained without a special name, but it can be called spiration, since it is the procession of the Spirit." But in his Commentary (loc. cit.) besides this reason — of which he says, "and I believe it is the better" — he also brings forward two other reasons, here approved by St. Bonaventure.
III. On the conclusion, cf. Alex. Hales, Summa p. I, q. 42, m. 2, § 1, and q. 43, m. 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, and q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2 and 3. — Aegidius of Rome, here 2. princ. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following, here q. unic.
---
- Cap. 26. n. 47, in quo textu fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1, consentiente ed. operum Augustini, posuimus ita[?].[Augustine, De Trinitate] c. 26, n. 47, in which text — on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, with the agreement of the [Maurist] edition of Augustine's works — we have placed ita ("so")[?].
- Dist. 9. q. I.[Cf. above, I Sent.] d. 9, q. I.
- Multi codd. ut A C G H I L R S T U Y Z etc. cum [ed.] perperam omittunt per viam generationis.Many codices — A, C, G, H, I, L, R, S, T, U, Y, Z, etc. — together with [an edition] wrongly omit per viam generationis ("by the way of generation").
- Dist. 10. a. I. q. I. et 2.[Cf. above, I Sent.] d. 10, a. I, q. I and 2.
- Cod. O superflue addit: sed Filius non est Spiritus sanctus nec e converso; ergo generatio non est processio nec e [converso].Codex O superfluously adds: "but the Son is not the Holy Spirit, nor conversely; therefore generation is not procession, nor conversely."
- Supple: terminatur; Vat. cum cod. cc ad hanc lectionem tollendam omittit et, quod praefigitur particulae contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1.Supply terminatur ("it terminates") [in the contra-1: "generation is motion [terminating] at the opposite"]; the Vatican edition with codex cc, in order to remove this reading, omits et, which the older codices and ed. 1 prefix to the particle contra (so reading "et contra").
- Cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. seqq. (c. 1.) et I. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 11. seqq. (c. 3.). — Mox Vat. cum cod. cc contra alios codd. et ed. 1 secundum hypostasim loco sive hypostasis.Cf. Aristotle, Physics V, text. 7 ff. (c. 1) and On Generation and Corruption I, text. 11 ff. (c. 3). — Shortly after, the Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other codices and ed. 1, reads secundum hypostasim ("according to hypostasis") in place of sive hypostasis ("or hypostasis").
- Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 8: Generatio quidem in hoc consistit, ut ex gignentis substantia proles eiusdem cum gignente substantiae producatur. — Paulo infra ed. 1 post Spiritus addit sanctus. — Aliqui codd. ut B T Y cum ed. 1 addunt sc.[?][John Damascene,] On the Orthodox Faith, bk. I, c. 8: "Generation indeed consists in this, that from the substance of the begetter offspring of the same substance with the begetter is produced." — Shortly below, ed. 1 after Spiritus adds sanctus. — Some codices such as B, T, Y, with ed. 1, add sc. (= scilicet) [exact body location uncertain — flagged].
- Aristot., V. Phys. text. 1: Magis autem ab eo in quod quam ex quo movetur, denominatur mutatio.Aristotle, Physics V, text. 1: "Change, however, is named rather from that into which than from that out of which it is moved."
- Aliis verbis: productio est genus, cuius species est ge[neratio].In other words: production is the genus, of which generation is a species.
- Corrupta lectio Vat., in qua haec duo priora distinctionis membra ita exhibentur: est producere substantiam secundum voluntatem et est producere substantiam similem praeter naturam, resarcitur ope mss. et ed. 1; cod. W post dissimilem addit naturae, cod. Z autem per modum voluntatis; ed. 1 tandem post similem adiicit et hoc dupliciter, nam est producere substantiam similem.The corrupt reading of the Vatican edition — in which these first two members of the division are presented as "to produce a substance according to will, and to produce a substance like beyond nature" — is repaired with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1; codex W after dissimilem adds naturae ("of nature"); codex Z reads per modum voluntatis ("by way of will"); and ed. 1, finally, after similem adds et hoc dupliciter, nam est producere substantiam similem ("and this in two ways, for there is to produce a like substance...").
- Cod. Z Adae.Codex Z reads Adae ("of Adam," genitive) [for Adam].
- Interpunctio huius loci et lectio in Vat. et cod. cc est prorsus perturbata: et ideo fuit ibi generatio secundum rem: ergo isti tres modi distinguuntur in Deo. Tamen; obstat insuper auctoritas antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 nec non contextus.The punctuation of this passage and the reading in the Vatican edition and codex cc is utterly disturbed: "and therefore there was generation there according to the matter: therefore these three modes are distinguished in God. However…"; the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, no less than the context, stands against this.
- Ed. 1 hic repetit potentiae.Ed. 1 here repeats potentiae ("of potency"), reading "limitation of potency."
- Id est, completa vel sufficiens definitio generationis.That is, the complete or sufficient definition of generation.
- Vat. contra antiquiores codd. defecit; ed. 1 defuit.The Vatican edition, against the older codices, has defecit ("has failed"); ed. 1 has defuit ("was lacking") [for our reading deficit].
- In cod. Y et ed. 1 additur processio.In codex Y and ed. 1 the word processio is added [reading "that procession is common to generation"].
- Cod. V addit hoc modo.Codex V adds hoc modo ("in this manner") [reading "nor is subjected in this manner"].
- Ita plurimi codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. legit sicut hoc nomen proprium.Thus most of the codices, with ed. 1; while the Vatican edition reads sicut hoc nomen proprium ("as this name proprium").
- Petr. Hisp. Summula, tract. de Praedicab. de Proprio[?]: Proprium est quod inest soli et semper et conversim praedicatur de re et non indicat, quid est esse (essentiam) rei, ut risibile. Unde — non indicat, quid est esse rei — ponitur in definitione proprii ad differentiam definitionis; definitio enim conversim praedicatur de re et indicat, quid est esse rei. Exemplum: ut substantia animata sensibilis convertitur cum animali et indicat, quid est esse eius; quia omnis definitio datur per substantialia; omne enim superius est de essentia sui inferioris.Peter of Spain, Summulae, tract. On the Predicables, On Proprium[?]: "Proprium is that which is in only [the subject], and always, and is predicated convertibly of the thing, and does not indicate what the being (the essence) of the thing is, as risible. Hence — does not indicate what the being of the thing is — is set in the definition of proprium to mark its difference from a [strict] definition; for a definition is predicated convertibly of the thing and indicates what the being of the thing is. Example: as animated sensible substance is convertible with animal and indicates what its being is; because every definition is given through substantials; for everything superior [in genus] is of the essence of its inferior."
- Definitio enim sic describitur ab Aristotele; definitio est oratio quid est esse rei significans; proprium autem non indicat quid est esse rei. — Mox cod. I nomen proprium pro nomen propria. Deinde Vat. post sic addit etiam dicunt, quod, tamen abest a mss. et ed. 1; aliqui codd. falso sicut loco sic.[Continuation of the proprium/definitio note:] "For definition is thus described by Aristotle: a definition is a discourse signifying what the being of a thing is; whereas proprium does not indicate what the being of a thing is." — Shortly after, codex I reads nomen proprium for nomen, propria [where the body has "the name [is] proper, [but] the property [does] not"]. Then the Vatican edition after sic adds etiam dicunt, quod ("they also say that"), which however is absent from the manuscripts and ed. 1; some codices wrongly read sicut for sic.
- Vat. praeter fidem plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 habet.The Vatican edition, against the testimony of most manuscripts and ed. 1, reads habet ("has") [for habeat, "should have," in subjunctive].
- Vat. contra codd. et ed. 1 volunt loco voluerunt, deinde nolunt pro noluerunt.The Vatican edition, against the codices and ed. 1, reads volunt ("they will") for voluerunt ("they wished"), then nolunt ("they do not will") for noluerunt ("they did not wish").
- Ed. 1 addendo vel procedendi elidit vim argumenti, scil. quod detur nomen proprium respectu emanationis Spiritus sancti.Ed. 1, by adding vel procedendi ("or of proceeding"), nullifies the force of the argument — namely, that there does exist a proper name with respect to the emanation of the Holy Spirit.
- Ex plurimis codd. et ed. 1 substituimus quod loco quia et paulo infra omnino pro omnis.From most codices and ed. 1 we have substituted quod ("that") for quia ("because"), and a little below omnino ("altogether") for omnis ("all").
- In multis mss. deest proprie.In many manuscripts the word proprie ("properly") is missing.
- Ed. 1 brevius: ratio huius nominis non reperitur in Filio.Ed. 1 [reads] more briefly: "the account of this name is not found in the Son."
- In cod. X adiicitur: sicut si diceres, grammaticus est …In codex X there is added: "just as if you should say, the grammarian is …" [the OCR breaks here mid-clause; the example is presumably Aristotle's "the grammarian is musical" sort of praedicatio per accidens].