Dist. 13, Dubia
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 13
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
DUB. I.
In praesenti distinctione sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de ratione Augustini, quam ponit ibi: «Si Spiritus sanctus Filius diceretur, amborum utique Filius diceretur»; et videtur sua ratio magis ad oppositum quam ad propositum: ex hoc enim similior esset generationi in creaturis, quae est ex duobus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis similior sit quantum ad dualitatem producentium, non tamen quantum ad modum producendi posset esse similitudo, quia sic oporteret, quod altera personarum esset principium passivum; quantum autem ad hoc nulla1 potest esse similitudo.
DUB. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Idem Spiritus sanctus procedit quomodo datus vel donum»; quia videtur male dicere, quia, cum non sit datus nisi ex tempore, videtur quod non procedat nisi ex tempore.
Respondeo: Sicut infra patebit2, si intelligitur de processione temporali, datus dicit actum; si autem de aeterna, datus dicit aptitudinem.
DUB. III.
Unde Augustinus Maximino praemissam quaestionem refricanti3. Maximinus refricabat dictam quaestionem sic: «Spiritus sanctus est Deus, et non est Deus nascendo: ergo non Deus naturaliter: ergo adoptive.» Et quod hoc argumentum sit bonum, videtur, quia quod inest alicui naturaliter, inest ei a nativitate: ergo quod non inest a nativitate, non inest naturaliter: ergo cum Spiritus sanctus non procedat ut natus, non inest ei esse Deum a nativitate: ergo non est Deus naturaliter.
Et est responsio Augustini ad hoc4, quod argumentum istud non valet, nisi in eis quae generantur, in aliis non. Et hoc patet, quia Adam erat homo natura, sicut unusquisque nostrum, et tamen ipse habuit per creationem, quod nos habemus per generationem; sic Deus Pater communicat naturam suam Spiritui sancto per spirationem, sicut Filio per generationem.
DUB. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Pater processionis eius est auctor». Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut hoc quod est auctor dicit essentiam, aut notionem: non essentiam, quia tunc diceretur de Spiritu sancto; si notionem, quaero, quam? non innascibilitatem, quia illa non dicit respectum ad processionem; item, non generationem nec spirationem, quia nihil esset dictum, ut videtur. — Item quaeritur, utrum Pater possit dici auctor generationis? Et quod non, videtur, quia Pater dicitur auctor Filii: ergo, sicut supra dixit Hilarius et habetur distinctione nona5, sensus est: id est genitor Filii; ergo tunc idem esset dicere «est auctor generationis», quod «genitor».
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod auctor dicit in Patre fontalem plenitudinem, quia ipse non est ab alio, sed alii ab ipso; et inde dicit, ut credo, eandem notionem, quam dicit innascibilis, sed differenti modo: quia innascibilis dicit per privationem prioris6, sed auctor dicit fecunditatem et plenitudinem respectu procedentium ab ipso, quam habet non aliunde; et ideo dicitur auctor ab auctoritate. Auctoritas autem est in Patre, quia quod habet, ab alio non habet, et hoc est, quod est7 innascibilis; et ita patet, quod potest dici auctor omnium personarum, quae sunt ab ipso. Ex his patet responsio. Dico enim, quod dicit eandem notionem quam innascibilitas, sed alio modo. Ex hoc patet, quod nunquam dicitur Filius auctor spirationis, quamvis spiret, quia non habet a se, sed ab alio; unde auctor proprie dicitur principium alterius non ab alio8.
DUB. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Distinguere inter illam generationem et istam processionem nescio». Videtur enim talis ignorantia esse peccatum, quia distinctio personarum de necessitate est fidei et salutis; sed qui ignorat ea quae sunt de necessitate fidei, damnabiliter ignorat: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex9 est scire, scilicet si est et sicuti est. Scire si est: hoc modo certitudinaliter credere distinctionem de necessitate salutis est, large sumto scire. Scire autem sicuti est non pertinet ad statum meriti, sed praemii; et de hac scientia loquitur hic Magister et Augustinus. Et nota, quod tria dicit: nescio quantum ad habitum scientiae; non valeo quantum ad ingenium; non sufficio quantum ad utrumque10.
DUB. VI.
Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit: «Appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in Scripturis, sed in consuetudine disputantium». Contra: Dionysius11: «Non est audendum aliquid dicere de illa supersubstantiali et sancta divinitate praeter ea quae divinitus nobis ex sacris eloquiis claruerunt»: ergo male fecerunt qui hoc nomen invenerunt.
Respondeo: Quamvis istud verbum non dicatur in Scripturis, dicitur tamen verbi huius intellectus. Et quia verbum non est profanum nec errori coniunctum, cum intellectus verbi ex Scriptura et fide habeatur, non fuit contra fas illud Deo attribuere, ut ipsam Trinitatem conferendo12 apertius possimus intelligere.
DUB. VII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: «Et aliter Augustinus accipit ingenitum, qui vel quod non est ab alio, quod dicit convenire soli Patri.» Sed hoc non videtur verum, quia hoc modo ingenitum convenit essentiae: ergo non est Patris proprium.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod licet Magister dicat intellectum Augustini, tamen non totum13. Ingenitum enim, secundum quod dicitur proprietas Patris, privat esse ab alio, nec hoc sufficit ad hoc, ut sit notio, nisi etiam consequenter dicat, quod alius sit ab ipso; quia, sicut obiectum est, non esse ab alio sive non generari convenit essentiae14.
DUB. VIII.
Item contra hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: «Est quod natum est, et factum non est», obiicit Arius, quod duodecim sint modi generationis, quorum quolibet dato sequitur, quod Filius non tantum natus, sed etiam factus est; et hos modos ponit disputans contra Victorinum15:
Primus modus est per defluxum lineae a puncto. Secundus est penes emissionem radii a sole vel ab alio luminoso corpore. Tertius est penes sigillationem characteris, sicut figura fit in cera a sigillo. Quartus est penes immissionem, ut quando a Deo datur bona voluntas. Quintus est penes exitum proprietatis vel accidentis a principiis subiecti, quae sunt materia et forma. Sextus est penes intentionis sive speciei abstractionem, sicut species rerum generatur in anima. Septimus est penes excitationem, sicut liberum arbitrium excitatum a gratia procedit in bona opera. Octavus est penes transfigurationem, sicut ex aere fit statua, vel sicut in figura incisionis. Nonus est penes productionem, sicut a primo movente immobili producitur motus. Decimus est penes exitum specierum de16 genere per differentias dividentes genus et constituentes speciem. Undecimus est penes ideationem, sicut arca exterior ab arca, quae est in mente artificis. Duodecimus est penes nascentiam, ut homo generatur ab homine.
Quocumque autem praedictorum modorum generetur Filius, non tantum genitus17, sed etiam factus est.
Ad hoc est responsio, quia aut Arius accipit generationem communiter ad creatam et divinam, aut specialiter in creatura. Si communiter, dico, quod insufficienter dividit, quia ultra istos modos est generatio Filii a Patre secundum modum singularem, qui18 est de tota substantia generantis — sicut supra dictum fuit nona distinctione19 — ubi, quia non potest esse mutatio, nullo modo potest esse factio. Si autem dividat generationem, ut est in creaturis, dicendum, quod divisio illa insufficiens est adhuc, quia omittit generationem aequivocam, quae est secundum20 putrefactionem. Sed esto quod comprehendat eam sub generatione, quae est secundum nascentiam, tamen adhuc non valet ad propositum, quod, si non generatur, sicut creatura dicitur generari, nullo modo generatur. Quamvis enim creatura sit Deo similis, tamen plus est dissimilis quam similis, sicut dicit Augustinus decimo quinto de Trinitate21, et Hilarius22 similiter: «Omnis comparatio inferiorum plus habeatur hominibus utilis quam Deo apta»; et ideo haeretici erraverunt, quia23 credebant, omnino esse in Deo sicut videbant in creatura. Et hoc bene tangitur in Glossa super primum ad Hebraeos24, ubi dicitur: «Non possunt temporalia comparari aeternis integra collatione, sed aliqua tenui similitudine»; et ideo, sicut supra ostensum est25, secundum diversas conditiones diversae generationes illam repraesentant. Ratione enim conformitatis est similis generationi verbi a mente; ratione coaevitatis similis generationi splendoris de sole sive de luce; ratione aequalitatis generationi viventis de vivente26.
---
Doubts on the Master's text.
Doubt I.
In the present distinction there are doubts concerning the littera; and first, doubt is raised about Augustine's reasoning, which the Master sets down there: "If the Holy Spirit were called Son, he would be called the Son of both"; and his reasoning seems to make rather for the opposite than for the proposition — for from this [premise that the Spirit is from two] he would be more like generation in creatures, which is from two.
I respond: It must be said that, although there would be a greater likeness as to the duality of the producers, nevertheless as to the mode of producing there could be no likeness, since [otherwise] it would have to be the case that one of the persons was a passive principle; and as to this no1 likeness is possible.
Doubt II.
Likewise, it is asked about what he says: "The same Holy Spirit proceeds in the manner of one given or of a gift"; for this seems to speak ill, since, since he is given only in time, it appears that he proceeds only in time.
I respond: As will be plain below2, if it is understood of temporal procession, datus signifies act; if of eternal, datus signifies aptitude.
Doubt III.
Hence Augustine [replies] to Maximinus, who was reviving the aforesaid question3. Maximinus was reviving the said question thus: "The Holy Spirit is God, and is not God by being-born: therefore he is not God naturally: therefore [he is so] adoptively." And that this argument is sound appears, since what is in something naturally is in it from birth: therefore what is not in it from birth is not in it naturally: therefore, since the Holy Spirit does not proceed as one born, being God is not in him from birth: therefore he is not God naturally.
And the response of Augustine to this4 is that this argument does not hold except in the case of those things which are generated, in others not. And this is plain, since Adam was a man by nature, just as each of us, and yet he had through creation what we have through generation; so God the Father communicates his nature to the Holy Spirit by spiration, just as to the Son by generation.
Doubt IV.
Likewise, it is asked about what he says: "The Father is the author of his procession." For this seems to speak ill, since either auctor signifies the essence or [it signifies] a notion: not essence, since then it would be said of the Holy Spirit; if a notion, I ask, which? not unbegettability, since that does not signify a respect to procession; likewise, neither generation nor spiration, since [otherwise] nothing would have been said, as it appears. — Likewise it is asked, can the Father be called author of [the] generation? And that he cannot, appears: since the Father is called author of the Son — therefore, as Hilary said above and is held in d. 95, the sense is: "that is, begetter of the Son"; therefore then to say "he is author of the generation" would be the same as [to say] "begetter."
I respond: It must be said that auctor signifies in the Father the fontal plenitude, since he himself is not from another, but others are from him; and hence it signifies, as I believe, the same notion which innascibilis signifies, but in a different mode: since innascibilis signifies by privation of a prior6, whereas auctor signifies the fecundity and plenitude with respect to those proceeding from him, which he has not from elsewhere; and therefore he is called auctor from auctoritas ("authority"). Now auctoritas is in the Father, since what he has, he does not have from another, and this is what innascibilis7 is; and so it is plain that he can be called auctor of all the persons that are from him. From these things the response is plain. For I say that [auctor] signifies the same notion as innascibilitas, but in another mode. Hence it is plain that the Son is never called author of spiration, although he spirates, since he does not have [it] from himself but from another; whence auctor is properly called the principle of another which is itself not from another8.
Doubt V.
Likewise, it is asked about what he says: "To distinguish between that generation and this procession I do not know how." For such ignorance appears to be a sin, since the distinction of persons is of the necessity of faith and of salvation; but he who is ignorant of those things which are of the necessity of faith, is damnably ignorant: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that to know is twofold9, namely [to know] that it is and as it is. To know that it is: in this mode to believe the distinction with certitude is of the necessity of salvation, with to know taken broadly. But to know as it is does not pertain to the state of merit, but of reward; and of this knowledge speaks here the Master and Augustine. And note that he says three things: I do not know — as to the habit of knowledge; I am not able — as to ability of mind; I do not suffice — as to both10.
Doubt VI.
Likewise, an objection is raised about what he says: "He is called unbegotten — not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the custom of disputants." On the contrary, Dionysius11: "Nothing must be ventured to say of that supersubstantial and holy divinity beyond those things which have been made plain to us divinely from the sacred utterances": therefore those who invented this name did wrong.
I respond: Although that word is not said in the Scriptures, yet the understanding of this word is said. And since the word is neither profane nor coupled with error — since the understanding of the word is had from Scripture and faith — it was not against right to attribute it to God, that by comparing12 we might more openly understand the Trinity itself.
Doubt VII.
Likewise, it is asked about what the Master says: "And in another way Augustine takes ingenitum: namely as that which is not from another, which he says belongs to the Father alone." But this does not appear true, since in this mode ingenitum belongs to the essence: therefore it is not proper to the Father.
I respond: It must be said that, although the Master expresses Augustine's meaning, yet not the whole of it13. For ingenitum, insofar as it is said to be the property of the Father, deprives [him] of being from another; nor is this enough for it to be a notion, unless it consequently also says that another is from him; since, as was objected, not to be from another — or not to be generated — belongs [also] to the essence14.
Doubt VIII.
Likewise, against what Jerome says: "[The Holy Spirit] is what is born and what is not made," Arius objects that there are twelve modes of generation, on any one of which it follows that the Son is not only born but also made; and these modes he sets down disputing against Victorinus15:
The first mode is by the flowing-down of a line from a point. The second is by the emission of a ray from the sun or from another luminous body. The third is by the sealing of a character, as a figure is made in wax by a seal. The fourth is by infusion, as when good will is given by God. The fifth is by the going-forth of a property or accident from the principles of the subject, which are matter and form. The sixth is by the abstraction of an intention or species, as the species of things are generated in the soul. The seventh is by excitation, as free will excited by grace proceeds into good works. The eighth is by transfiguration, as a statue is made from bronze, or as in the figure of an incision. The ninth is by production, as motion is produced by the unmoved first mover. The tenth is by the going-forth of species from16 genus, by differences dividing the genus and constituting the species. The eleventh is by ideation, as the exterior chest is from the chest which is in the mind of the craftsman. The twelfth is by being-born, as a man is generated from a man.
By whichever of the aforesaid modes the Son is generated, [says Arius,] he is not only begotten17 but also made.
To this the response is: either Arius takes generation commonly to created and divine, or specifically in the creature. If commonly, I say that he divides insufficiently, since beyond these modes there is the generation of the Son from the Father according to a singular mode, which18 is of the whole substance of the begetter — as was said above in the ninth distinction19 — where, since there can be no change, there can in no way be making. If, however, he divides generation as it is in creatures, it must be said that that division is still insufficient, since it omits equivocal generation, which is by20 putrefaction. But suppose that he comprehends it under the generation which is by being-born — yet still it does not avail for the proposition that, if [the Son] is not generated as a creature is said to be generated, then in no way is he generated. For although the creature is like to God, yet it is more unlike than like, as Augustine says in book XV On the Trinity21, and Hilary22 similarly: "Every comparison of lower things should be regarded as more useful to men than fitting to God"; and therefore the heretics erred, since23 they believed that things are wholly in God just as they saw them in the creature. And this is well touched on in the Gloss on first [Epistle] to the Hebrews24, where it is said: "Temporal things cannot be compared to eternal things by an integral collation, but [only] by some slender likeness"; and therefore, as was shown above25, according to diverse conditions diverse generations represent that [generation]. For by reason of conformity [generation in God] is like the generation of a word from the mind; by reason of co-eternity like the generation of splendor from the sun or from light; by reason of equality [like the generation] of the living from the living26.
---
- Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus nulla loco non.On the testimony of most manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted nulla ("no") in place of non ("not").
- Dist. 11. a. 1, q. 1.[See] d. 11, a. 1, q. 1.
- Scil. denuo vel instanter quaerenti, cur Spiritus sanctus non diceretur Filius, cum de Patris esset substantia. Verba ex lit. Magistri, c. 3. Cfr. August., II. contra Maximin. c. 14. et 15. — Mss. et ed. 1 perperam refutanti pro refricanti, sicuti et mox refutabat loco refricabat; Vat. omittit verba Maximinus usque sic.That is, [to Maximinus] asking again or insistently why the Holy Spirit is not called Son, since he is from the substance of the Father. The words [are] from the Master's littera, c. 3. Cf. Augustine, Contra Maximinum II, cc. 14 and 15. — The manuscripts and ed. 1 wrongly read refutanti for refricanti ("reviving"), as also shortly afterwards refutabat in place of refricabat; the Vatican edition omits the words from Maximinus through sic.
- Vat. absque mss. et ed. 1 auctoritate: Resp. Dicendum ad hoc secundum Augustinum. Plures codd. inepte ratio loco responsio.The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads]: "Reply: It must be said to this according to Augustine." Several codices ineptly read ratio ("reasoning") in place of responsio ("response").
- In lit. Magistri, c. 4. circa finem. — Vat., mss. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, et loco ergo; deinde omittit et habetur distinctione nona.[The reference is to a passage] in the Master's littera, c. 4, near the end. — The Vatican edition, despite the resistance of the manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] et in place of ergo; then it omits the words et habetur distinctione nona ("and is held in d. 9").
- Supple: notionem; quam suppletionem non attendendo Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 omittit per.Supply notionem ("a notion") [reading "innascibilis signifies a notion by privation of a prior"]; not heeding this suppletion, the Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and ed. 1, omits per ("by").
- Aliqui codd. ut A T X Z aa bb omittunt est, qui et cum ed. 1 quia loco quod substituunt.Some codices — A, T, X, Z, aa, bb — omit est ("is"), and these, with ed. 1, also substitute quia ("since") for quod ("that").
- In ultimis hisce verbis summa solutionis continetur. Quia enim auctor non dicit quodlibet principium emanationis, sed tale principium, quod quidquid habet, ab alio non habet, et quia hoc solum Patri convenit; ideo Pater dici potest auctor generationis et processionis. Idem infra d. 27. p. I. q. 2. ad 3. fusius exponitur, ubi inter alia S. Doctor haec dicit: Quoniam igitur ratio primitatis in aliquo genere est ratio principiati in illo, ideo quia Pater est primum respectu emanationis, generationis et processionis, generat et spirat. Cfr. etiam d. 2. q. 2, d. 9. dub. 11, et d. 13. p. 2. dub. 6. — Quomodo Pater possit dici auctor explicatur et a S. Fulgentio, Fragment. 35. (ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. tom. 65. col. 822.), ubi ait: Deus quippe Pater non est auctor Trinitatis, sed auctor est Filii et Spiritus sancti, in eo quod de illo natus est Filius et de illo procedit Spiritus sanctus. Nam quisquis recte intelligit auctoris vocabulum, relationis nomen inveniet, non naturae. Auctor enim nemo esse dicitur sibi, sed alteri: unde non ad se ipsum, sed ad alterum auctor veraciter nuncupatur. Nemo autem quolibet relativo nomine sic potest ad suam sicut ad alterius referri personam… Deum itaque Patrem non totius Trinitatis, sed Filii et Spiritus sancti fatemur auctorem: de quo habet et unigenitus Filius aeternae nativitatis, et Spiritus sanctus aeternae processionis originem.In these last words is contained the sum of the solution. For since auctor does not signify any principle of emanation whatever, but such a principle as has whatever it has not from another — and since this belongs to the Father alone — therefore the Father can be called author of generation and of procession. The same point is more fully expounded below at d. 27, p. I, q. 2, ad 3, where among other things the Holy Doctor says: "Since therefore the account of priority in any genus is the account of the principiated in that [genus], therefore because the Father is first with respect to emanation, generation, and procession, [for that reason] he generates and spirates." Cf. also d. 2, q. 2; d. 9, dub. 11; and d. 13, p. 2, dub. 6. — How the Father can be called auctor is also explained by St. Fulgentius, Fragment 35 (Migne, PL t. 65, col. 822), where he says: "God the Father is not indeed the author of the Trinity, but he is the author of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in that the Son is born of him and from him the Holy Spirit proceeds. For whoever rightly understands the word author, will find it the name of a relation, not of a nature. For no one is said to be author to himself, but to another: hence the author is truly so called not in relation to himself, but to another. But no one can refer himself by any relative name to his own person as he can to another's person… So we confess God the Father not the author of the whole Trinity, but of the Son and the Holy Spirit: from whom both the Only-Begotten Son has the origin of his eternal birth, and the Holy Spirit the origin of his eternal procession."
- Ed. 1 dupliciter.Ed. 1 [reads] dupliciter ("in two ways") [for duplex].
- De hac ultima divisione vide supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 3.On this last division [knowledge–ability–sufficiency] see above d. 1, a. 1, q. 1, fundam. 3.
- De Div. Nom. c. 1, in quo textu Vat. contra multos codd. et ed. 1 necnon ed. oper. Dionysii Trinitate loco divinitate.[Pseudo-Dionysius,] On the Divine Names, c. 1; in which text the Vatican edition, against many codices and ed. 1 and also against the [printed] edition of Dionysius's works, [reads] Trinitate ("Trinity") in place of divinitate ("divinity").
- Cod. Y confitendo.Codex Y [reads] confitendo ("by confessing") [for conferendo, "by comparing"].
- Aliqui codd. ut H M ff cum ed. 1 satis bene addunt dicit. Mox codd. aa bb est loco dicitur; ed. 1 dicit proprietatem.Some codices — H, M, ff — with ed. 1, add, well enough, dicit [reading "yet does not say the whole"]. Shortly after, codices aa and bb [read] est in place of dicitur; ed. 1 [reads] dicit proprietatem.
- De significatione ingeniti vide infra d. 28. q. 1, et hic q. 4.On the signification of ingenitum see below d. 28, q. 1, and [in this distinction] q. 4.
- Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 falso Victorianum. Marius Victorinus Rhetor (cfr. supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.) scripsit libros quatuor contra Arium et disputabat cum Candido, Arii defensore, qui in libro de Generatione divina n. 4. duodecim istos modos generationis proponebat.The Vatican edition, against most codices and ed. 1, falsely [reads] Victorianum. Marius Victorinus the Rhetor (cf. above d. 1, a. 1, q. 1, in corp.) wrote four books against Arius and disputed with Candidus, Arius's defender — who in the book On Divine Generation, n. 4, was proposing these twelve modes of generation.
- Fide mss. et trium primarum edd. substituimus de loco in.On the testimony of the manuscripts and the first three editions we have substituted de ("from") in place of in ("in").
- In Vat. additur est, quod tamen nec in mss. nec in 1, 2, 3, 6 edd. habetur.In the Vatican edition est is added, which however is not in the manuscripts nor in editions 1, 2, 3, 6.
- Multi mss. ut A F G H K T V W etc. loco qui habent quae — quod refertur ad generatio. Ed. 1 significatum pro singularem.Many manuscripts — A, F, G, H, K, T, V, W, etc. — in place of qui ("which" m.) read quae ("which" f.) — which [feminine relative] refers to generatio. Ed. 1 [reads] significatum ("signified") for singularem ("singular").
- Quaest. 1. — Mox ed. 1 transponit verba legendo quia ubi.[I.e.] q. 1 [of d. 9]. — Shortly after, ed. 1 transposes the words, reading quia ubi [for ubi quia].
- Ed. 1 per.Ed. 1 [reads] per [for secundum, "by"; "per putrefactionem"].
- Cap. 20. n. 39.[Augustine, De Trinitate XV,] c. 20, n. 39.
- Libr. I. de Trin. n. 19. — Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1, interpunctione mutata, confundit omnia legens et Hilarius. Similiter cum omnis etc.[Hilary,] On the Trinity I, n. 19. — The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, with the punctuation altered, confuses everything by reading "and Hilary. Likewise, since every…" etc.
- Praeferimus lectionem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 ponendo quia loco qui. Mox cod. E post omnino addit simile.We prefer the reading of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 in placing quia ("since") in place of qui. Shortly after, codex E after omnino adds simile.
- Vers. 3. Glossam vide apud Lyranum, super locum cit., in qua post tenui additur et parva.[Heb. I,] verse 3. See the Gloss in Lyra, on the cited place, in which after tenui ("slender") is added et parva ("and small").
- Dist. 9. q. 1. et dub. 10.[See above, I Sent.] d. 9, q. 1, and dub. 10.
- Cfr. Hex. Serm. 11. Fere idem invenies in Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 42. m. 8. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 5; Richard., hic circa lit.Cf. [Bonaventure,] Collations on the Hexaemeron, sermon 11. You will find nearly the same in Alex. Hales, Summa p. I, q. 42, m. 8, a. 3; Bl. Albert, here a. 5; Richard, here on the littera.