← Back to Distinction 16

Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 16

Textus Latinus
p. 281

Quaestio II. Ad quid sit utilis missio visibilis Spiritus sancti.

Secundo quaeritur, ad quid sit utilis missio visibilis, et constat quod ad efficiendum nihil confert, quia exterior apparitio nihil interius operatur. Quod etiam non sit utilis ad innotescendum, ostenditur sic.

1. Aut est ad manifestandam personae alicuius emanationem, aut inhabitationem. Non inhabitationem, quia nemo scit, utrum odio an amore dignus sit1, et ita nemo, utrum Deus in eo habitet, cognoscit. Et iterum, quae utilitas est? Esto quod sciat, Deum advenisse, tamen cum ignoret permansurum, nulla videtur2. Si ad manifestandam alicuius personae emanationem: ergo cum illa notitia omni tempore sit necessaria, scilicet tempore Legis scriptae et nunc, videtur, quod et tunc et nunc deberet3 esse missio visibilis. Quaeritur ergo, quare solum tempore Ecclesiae primitivae?

2. Item, quantumcumque appareat in creatura, non innotescit, nisi revelatio adsit; sed cum adest4 revelatio, ventum est ad cognitionem veriorem et certiorem, quam quae est a sensu: si igitur habens cognitionem certam non indiget occupari circa cognitionem imperfectam, ergo videtur, quod exterior apparitio omnino superfluat.

3. Item, probatur etiam, quod impediat, sic: affectus, circa bona visibilia occupatus, minus surgit ad bona invisibilia, ergo similiter intellectus: ergo si debet ad perceptionem invisibilium elevari, non debet ei fieri ostensio visibilium; quod si fiat, videtur potius impediri quam iuvari.

p. 282

4. Item, si missio est ad innotescendum, cum triplex sit in nobis vis cognitiva, scilicet sensus exterior5, imaginatio et intellectus, et secundum hanc triplicem vim triplex assignetur visio prophetalis, pari ratione videtur, quod triplex missio deberet distingui.

Praeterea, cum missio sit ad manifestationem inhabitationis, et Filius inhabitet sicut Spiritus sanctus, quare non est missio visibilis ad manifestandum illam?

Sed contra:

1. Quod sit utilis ad innotescendum, videtur, quia cognitio nostra incipit a sensu6: ergo si debemus elevari ad perceptionem intelligibilium, congruum et perutile est, quod aliquo modo praevia sit excitatio in sensu per signum. Et hoc est, quod dicit Gregorius7: « Dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus, per hunc in invisibilium [amorem rapiamur] etc. »

2. Item, sicut miracula ostendunt divinam potentiam, ita signa divinam praesentiam; sed utile fuit et pernecessarium, fidem nostram manuduci per miracula ad cognitionem divinae potentiae: ergo pari ratione per aliqua signa visibilia ad cognitionem divinae praesentiae.

3. Item, missio est ad redimendum hominem perditum; sed homo est perditus secundum naturam visibilem et invisibilem: ergo missio secundum utramque est ei8 utilis.

4. Item, familiarius offert suam praesentiam qui se offert secundum sensum et intellectum, quam qui secundum alterum tantum; sed hoc maxime expediebat homini averso, ut converteretur ad Deum: ergo etc.

Conclusio.

Missio visibilis Spiritus sancti utilis fuit, ut personis manuducendis per sensum manifestaretur inhabitatio secundum plenitudinis redundantiam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod missio Filii visibilis propriam et maximam habuit utilitatem, sicut patebit in tertio9. Sed nunc de Spiritu sancto dicendum, quod eius missio visibilis utilis est ad manifestandam et emanationem et inhabitationem, sed non qualemcumque inhabitationem nec in10 omni genere personae.

Propter hoc11 intelligendum, quod est inhabitatio duplex, scilicet secundum sanctificationis sufficientiam, et secundum plenitudinis redundantiam. Illa quae est secundum sanctificationis sufficientiam, interius invisibiliter latet; quae vero est12 secundum redundantiam, exterius apparet; et ideo talis inhabitatio in signo visibili et exteriori manifestari debet, sicut factum est in Apostolis.

Similiter intelligendum, quod duplex est genus credentium. Quidam enim volunt signa, ut puta sensibiles; quidam intelligentiam quaerunt, ut puta iam provecti13. Quaerentes signa per haec manuducuntur14 ad intelligibilia; et propter tales utilis est missio visibilis. Utilis ergo est missio visibilis15 ad manifestandam inhabitationem plenitudinis redundantis, et hoc personis manuducendis per sensum.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

Ad 1. Ex hoc16 patet primum, quare scilicet non fuit missio visibilis tempore Legis scriptae; quia non erat missio in plenitudine, quoadusque venit plenitudo temporis17. Patet etiam, quare modo non datur sive mittitur visibiliter; quia iam manuducti sumus ad fidem, unde sicut cessaverunt miracula, ita exteriora signa.

Quod dicitur, quod nemo scit, utrum odio, an amore dignus sit: verum est18, nisi Deus dignetur ostendere; et tunc ostendebat, et hoc perutile erat ad fidem roborandam et devotionem excitandam.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod necessaria est aliqua revelatio; dicendum, quod verum est, nec tamen superfluit apparitio, quia excitat intellectum ad inquisitionem et sic excitando praeparat ad revelationem et post revelationem excitat19 ad dilectionem. Revelatio enim, etsi sit interior cognitio, tamen adhuc est viatoris, et ideo non evacuat cognitionem apparitionis.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod visibilia impediunt affectum; dicendum, quod visibilia possunt dupliciter considerari: vel ut res absolutae, vel ut signa et nutus ducentia in aliud20. Primo modo si amentur et considerentur, retardant intellectum et affectum; secundo modo iuvant; et sic est in apparitione visibili, quia ibi consideratur creatura ut signum faciens aliud in intellectum venire21.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur: quare non est triplex genus missionis secundum triplex genus cognitionis? dicendum, quod etsi cognitio sit de ratione missionis, non tamen quaecumque vel cuiuslibet, sed inhabitantis. Et quia duplex est modus inhabitandi, ut praehabitum est22, ideo tantum est duplex modus mittendi, licet plures sint modi cognoscendi. — Vel aliter dicendum, quod Deus in via non cognoscitur nisi aut in effectu, aut in signo. Si in effectu, cum effectus ille sit gratia gratum faciens, quae in sola cadit mente, sic est missio invisibilis; si in signo, cum signum sit quod offert se sensui, sic est visibilis. Quia vero imaginaria est earum rerum, quarum imagines in interiori sensu exprimuntur, Deus autem non est talis, ideo de eo non est ponere huiusmodi cognitionem.

Ad ultimum (Praeterea). Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quare non fuit missio visibilis ad manifestandam inhabitationem Filii; dicendum, quod Filium inhabitare est dupliciter: aut per gratiam unionis, aut per gratiam sanctificationis. Primo modo non fuit necessaria manifestatio sive visibilis missio, quia plenissime erat in homine sibi unito, in quo operabatur opera visibilia, in quibus manifestabatur; et ideo non oportebat, alia signa visibilia adhiberi. Secundo vero modo non habuit missionem manifestantem inhabitationem talem, quia sanctificatio appropriatur Spiritui sancto; unde sufficiebat, esse missionem visibilem ad manifestandam ipsius inhabitationem, cui sanctificatio appropriatur, cum inhabitatio Filii et Spiritus sancti sint indivisae. Manifestato, quod in homine inhabitet Spiritus sanctus, sufficienter ostenditur, quod et Filius.

Scholion

I. Quaestio resolvitur iuxta duplicem distinctionem, scilicet circa modum inhabitationis et circa genera credentium. Quae hic a S. Bonav. dicuntur de inhabitatione secundum plenitudinis redundantiam diffusius explicantur a magistro eius Alex. Hal., qui (loc. infra cit.) ita dicit: « Non est (missio visibilis) ad demonstrationem cuiuscumque inhabitationis, sed illius inhabitationis, quae est per plenitudinem gratiae in alios redundantis, qualis fuit in Christo et aliquo modo in Apostolis ». Deinde docet, quomodo in Christo fuit influentia plenitudinis dupliciter, scil. per modum causae et per modum doctrinae: per modum causae efficientis quoad divinam naturam, per modum causae meritoriae quantum ad humanam; et quomodo his duobus modis est influentia gratiae redundantis in Sacramentis, sicut est plenitudo veritatis redundans in praedicatione Christi. Tum pergit: « Adveniente ergo plenitudine temporis, revelanda erat plenitudo inhabitationis, quoniam illa plenitudo redundare coepit, et hoc sensibilibus et nondum adhuc in fide provectis. Hoc autem fuit, quando Christus baptizatus fuit et praedicare coepit; plenitudo scil. gratiae ipsius per modum influentiae, quia data est tunc vis regenerativa aquae baptismi; et plenitudo veritatis eius per modum doctrinae, quia tunc praedicare coepit et veritatem fidei influere. Et ideo, quia plenitudo eius coepit influere in alios, debuit per signa manifestari, ut doctrinae eius citius crederetur ». — « In Apostolis autem fuit plenitudo gratiae descendens a plenitudine Christi, et etiam quodam modo plenitudo influentiae, scil. per modum doctrinae et per modum ministerii. Nam de plenitudine veritatis Christi accepimus ex doctrina Apostolorum, de plenitudine gratiae per ministerium ipsorum in dispensatione Sacramentorum ». Denique concludit, quod ad ostendendam inhabitationem quantum ad effectum gratiae redundantis per modum ministerii Spiritus sanctus visibiliter Apostolis datus sit in flatu, quando dictum est eis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata etc. (Ioan. 20, 22.); deinde vero in linguis igneis ad ostendendam inhabitationem Spiritus sancti ad effectum plenitudinis veritatis redundantis in alios per modum doctrinae.

II. Ex conclusione principali deducuntur duo corollaria in textu posita. — Verba in 2. coroll. sicut cessaverunt miracula non intelliguntur in sensu absoluto, sed quatenus miracula in principio Ecclesiae fuerunt manuductio quasi ordinaria ad fidem. — Quoad triplicem visionem (ad 4.) cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 2.; III. Sent. d. 23. dub. 1.; Hexaem. Serm. 9.

III. Conclusio in re est communis sententia. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 74. m. 2. — S. Thom., S. I. q. 43. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. circa fin.

---

English Translation

Question II. To what end the visible mission of the Holy Spirit is useful.

In the second place it is asked, to what end the visible mission is useful; and it is established that it contributes nothing toward effecting [grace], because an exterior apparition operates nothing interior. That neither is it useful for making known, is shown thus.

1. Either it is for manifesting the emanation of some person, or the indwelling. Not the indwelling, because no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or of love1, and so no one knows whether God dwells in him. And again, what is the utility? Granted that he knows that God has come, yet since he does not know whether he will remain, no [utility] appears2. If for manifesting the emanation of some person: then since that knowledge is necessary at every time, namely in the time of the written Law and now, it appears that both then and now there ought3 to be a visible mission. It is asked therefore, why only in the time of the primitive Church?

2. Likewise, however much he appears in a creature, he is not made known unless revelation be present; but when4 revelation is present, one has come to a truer and more certain cognition than that which is from sense: if therefore one having certain cognition does not need to be occupied with imperfect cognition, then it appears that exterior apparition is altogether superfluous.

3. Likewise, it is also proved that it impedes, thus: the affect, occupied with visible goods, rises less to invisible goods, therefore likewise the intellect: therefore if it is to be elevated to the perception of invisibles, the showing of visibles ought not to be made to it; and if it is made, it appears rather to be impeded than helped.

4. Likewise, if mission is for making known, since the cognitive power in us is threefold, namely the exterior sense5, imagination, and intellect, and according to this threefold power a threefold prophetic vision is assigned, by parity of reason it appears that a threefold mission ought to be distinguished.

Furthermore, since mission is for the manifestation of indwelling, and the Son indwells just as the Holy Spirit, why is there no visible mission to manifest his [indwelling]?

On the contrary:

1. That it is useful for making known, appears, because our cognition begins from sense6: therefore if we ought to be elevated to the perception of intelligibles, it is fitting and very useful that there be in some way a previous excitation in sense through a sign. And this is what Gregory says7: "While we visibly know God, through this [we are caught up into the love] of invisibles etc."

2. Likewise, just as miracles show divine power, so signs show divine presence; but it was useful and most necessary that our faith be led by the hand through miracles to the knowledge of divine power: therefore by parity of reason through certain visible signs to the knowledge of divine presence.

3. Likewise, mission is for the redemption of lost man; but man is lost according to his visible and invisible nature: therefore mission according to both is useful to him8.

4. Likewise, he more familiarly offers his presence who offers himself according to sense and intellect than he who [offers himself] according to one only; but this most expediently fitted man, turned away, that he might be converted to God: therefore etc.

Conclusion.

The visible mission of the Holy Spirit was useful, that to persons to be led by the hand through sense there might be manifested the indwelling according to the redundance of plenitude.

I respond: It must be said, that the visible mission of the Son had its proper and greatest utility, as will be clear in the third [book]9. But for now concerning the Holy Spirit it must be said, that his visible mission is useful for manifesting both emanation and indwelling, but not just any indwelling, nor in10 every kind of person.

On account of this11 it must be understood, that indwelling is twofold, namely according to the sufficiency of sanctification, and according to the redundance of plenitude. That which is according to the sufficiency of sanctification interiorly and invisibly lies hidden; but that which is12 according to redundance appears exteriorly; and therefore such an indwelling ought to be manifested in a visible and exterior sign, as was done in the Apostles.

Likewise it must be understood, that the kind of believers is twofold. For some want signs, namely the sensible [type]; some seek understanding, namely those already advanced13. Those seeking signs are by these led by the hand14 to the intelligibles; and for such the visible mission is useful. Therefore the visible mission is useful15 for manifesting the indwelling of redounding plenitude, and this for persons to be led by the hand through sense.

To the arguments on the contrary:

To 1. From this16 the first [point] is clear, namely why there was no visible mission in the time of the written Law; because there was no mission in plenitude, until the fullness of time17 came. It is also clear why now it is not given or sent visibly; because we have already been led by the hand to faith, whence just as miracles have ceased, so [have] exterior signs.

To what is said, that no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or of love: it is true18, unless God deigns to show; and then he was showing, and this was very useful for strengthening faith and exciting devotion.

To 2. As to what is objected, that some revelation is necessary; it must be said, that it is true, yet apparition is not superfluous, because it excites the intellect to inquiry, and thus by exciting it prepares for revelation, and after revelation it excites19 to love. For revelation, even if it is interior cognition, is nevertheless still that of the wayfarer, and therefore does not empty out the cognition of apparition.

To 3. As to what is objected, that visibles impede the affect; it must be said, that visibles can be considered in two ways: either as absolute things, or as signs and beckonings leading to something else20. In the first way, if they are loved and considered [as such], they retard the intellect and affect; in the second way they help; and so it is in visible apparition, because there a creature is considered as a sign making something else come into the intellect21.

To 4. As to what is objected: why is there not a threefold kind of mission according to the threefold kind of cognition? it must be said, that even though cognition belongs to the account of mission, yet not [cognition] of any kind whatever, but [the cognition] of one indwelling. And since the mode of indwelling is twofold, as was had before22, therefore there are only two modes of being sent, although there are several modes of knowing. — Or it must be said otherwise, that God in this life is known only either in an effect, or in a sign. If in an effect, since that effect is grace making one pleasing, which falls only into the mind, thus there is invisible mission; if in a sign, since a sign is what offers itself to sense, thus there is visible [mission]. Now since [the mode] is imaginary of those things whose images are expressed in the interior sense, but God is not such, therefore no such cognition is to be posited concerning him.

To the last (Furthermore). As to what is asked last, why there was no visible mission for manifesting the indwelling of the Son; it must be said, that the Son's indwelling is twofold: either through the grace of union, or through the grace of sanctification. In the first mode no manifestation or visible mission was necessary, because he was most fully in the man united to himself, in whom he was working visible works, in which he was manifested; and therefore it was not necessary that other visible signs be applied. But in the second mode he did not have a mission manifesting such an indwelling, because sanctification is appropriated to the Holy Spirit; whence it sufficed that there be a visible mission for manifesting the indwelling of him to whom sanctification is appropriated, since the indwelling of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are undivided. When it is manifested that the Holy Spirit indwells in man, it is sufficiently shown that the Son also [does].

Scholion

I. The question is resolved according to a twofold distinction, namely concerning the mode of indwelling and concerning the kinds of believers. What is said here by St. Bonaventure concerning indwelling according to the redundance of plenitude is more diffusely explained by his master Alexander of Hales, who (cited below) says thus: "It is not (the visible mission) for the demonstration of any indwelling whatsoever, but of that indwelling which is through the fullness of grace redounding upon others, such as was in Christ and in some manner in the Apostles". He then teaches how in Christ there was an influence of fullness in two ways, namely by way of cause and by way of doctrine: by way of efficient cause as to the divine nature, by way of meritorious cause as to the human; and how in these two modes there is the influence of grace redounding in the Sacraments, as there is the fullness of truth redounding in Christ's preaching. Then he continues: "Therefore at the coming of the fullness of time, the fullness of indwelling was to be revealed, since that fullness began to redound, and this to the sensible and those not yet advanced in faith. Now this was when Christ was baptized and began to preach; namely the fullness of his grace by way of influence, because the regenerative power of the water of baptism was then given; and the fullness of his truth by way of doctrine, because then he began to preach and to infuse the truth of faith. And therefore, since his fullness began to flow into others, it had to be manifested through signs, that his doctrine might be more quickly believed". — "But in the Apostles there was a fullness of grace descending from the fullness of Christ, and also in some manner a fullness of influence, namely by way of doctrine and by way of ministry. For from the fullness of Christ's truth we have received through the doctrine of the Apostles, [and] of the fullness of grace through their ministry in the dispensation of the Sacraments". Finally he concludes, that for showing the indwelling as to the effect of grace redounding by way of ministry, the Holy Spirit was visibly given to the Apostles in the breath, when it was said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you remit etc. (John 20:22); but afterward in the fiery tongues, for showing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit unto the effect of the fullness of truth redounding upon others by way of doctrine.

II. From the principal conclusion two corollaries posited in the text are deduced. — The words in the second corollary just as miracles have ceased are not understood in an absolute sense, but insofar as miracles in the beginning of the Church were the manuduction, as it were ordinary, to faith. — As for the threefold vision (in to 4), cf. II. Sent. d. 10, a. 3, q. 2; III. Sent. d. 23, dub. 1; Hexaemeron Sermon 9.

III. The conclusion in substance is the common sentence. — Alex. of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 74, m. 2. — St. Thomas, Summa I, q. 43, a. 7. — B. Albert, here a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 1, near the end.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Ecclesiastes, 9, 1, ubi Vulgata: Et tamen nescit homo, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit. — Vat. cum aliquibus tantum mss. hic et infra in responsione vel loco an.
    Ecclesiastes 9:1, where the Vulgate reads: And yet man does not know whether he is worthy of love or of hatred. — The Vatican edition with only some manuscripts here and below in the response [reads] vel in place of an.
  2. Supple cum cod. X: utilitas, vel cum ed. 1 esse utilitas; cod. H vero addit ergo frustra. Immediate post Vat. Non loco Si, deinde quia pro ergo, sed emendatur ope mss. (quorum aliqui falso Sed loco Si, quod saepe saepius etiam alibi contingit) et edd. 1, 2, 3.
    Supply with codex X: utilitas [utility]; or with edition 1: esse utilitas [there be utility]; codex H adds ergo frustra [therefore in vain]. Immediately after, the Vatican [edition reads] Non in place of Si, then quia for ergo, but it is emended with the help of the manuscripts (some of which falsely [read] Sed for Si, which happens very often elsewhere also) and editions 1, 2, 3.
  3. Nonnulli codd. ut aa bb debeat.
    Some codices, such as aa, bb, [read] debeat.
  4. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 minus bene adsit, quae et post revelatio adiungit interior. Mox cod. K superiorem et cod. W interiorem loco veriorem.
    The Vatican [edition], against the faith of the manuscripts and edition 1, less rightly [reads] adsit, and after revelatio it adds interior. Soon after, codex K [reads] superiorem and codex W interiorem in place of veriorem.
  5. Vat. addit et, quod deest in mss. et ed. I. — De triplici visione prophetali vide August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 6. n. 15. seqq.
    The Vatican [edition] adds et, which is missing in the manuscripts and edition 1. — On the threefold prophetic vision see Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter, Book XII, ch. 6, nn. 15ff.
  6. Vide Aristot., III. de Anima text. 39. (c. 8.) et de Sensu et sensibilibus, c. 6. — Mox post elevari cod. K per sensum ad cognitionem intelligibilium; et paulo infra ed. 1 fiat loco sit.
    See Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 39 (c. 8), and On Sense and Sensibles, c. 6. — Soon after elevari, codex K [reads] per sensum ad cognitionem intelligibilium; and a little below, edition 1 [reads] fiat in place of sit.
  7. Libr. Sacrament., ubi horum verborum ultima pars ita exhibetur: per hunc invisibilium amore rapiamur.
    Book of Sacraments [Sacramentary], where the last part of these words is given thus: through this we are caught up into the love of invisibles.
  8. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ei.
    From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied ei ["to him"].
  9. Libr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2.
    Sentences Book III, d. 1, a. 2.
  10. Plures codd. ut A T etc. cum ed. 1 omittunt in. Mox cod. K post personae addit sive hominum.
    Several codices, such as A, T, etc., with edition 1 omit in. Soon after personae, codex K adds sive hominum [or of men].
  11. Mss. et ed. 1 postulantibus, substituimus Propter hoc loco Propterea.
    With the manuscripts and edition 1 calling for it, we have substituted Propter hoc in place of Propterea.
  12. Codd. vetustiores cum ed. 1 exhibent verbum est, quod in Vat. et cod. cc deest.
    The older codices with edition 1 give the word est, which is missing in the Vatican [edition] and codex cc.
  13. Alluditur ad illud Matth. 12, 39: Generatio... signum quaerit; et ad illud Daniel. 8, 15: Et quaererem intelligentiam. — Paulo ante Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 sensuales pro sensibiles, et dein contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 quaerentes loco quaerunt.
    An allusion is made to Matthew 12:39: A generation... seeks a sign; and to Daniel 8:15: And I sought to understand. — A little before, the Vatican [edition], against the faith of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] sensuales for sensibiles, and then against the older codices and edition 1 [reads] quaerentes in place of quaerunt.
  14. Vat. perperam et absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 ut per haec manuducantur, ac paulo post omittit particulam et. Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 per hoc loco per haec, sed minus bene; dein aliqui codd. ut I P Q Z intelligentiam pro intelligibilia.
    The Vatican [edition] wrongly and without authority of the manuscripts and edition 1 [reads] ut per haec manuducantur, and a little later omits the particle et. Most codices with edition 1 [read] per hoc in place of per haec, but less rightly; then some codices, such as I, P, Q, Z, [read] intelligentiam for intelligibilia.
  15. Vat. cum aliquibus codd., omittendo verba Utilis ergo est missio visibilis et coniungendo ea quae sequuntur cum praecedenti propositione, sententiam Doctoris distorquet. Lectio in textum recepta exhibetur a multis mss. ut AFGHIKNTV WY ee ff, quorum tamen plures, forsan decepti ex immediate praecedenti verbo visibilis, cum ed. 1 minus congrue omittunt Utilis.
    The Vatican [edition] with some codices, by omitting the words Utilis ergo est missio visibilis and joining what follows to the preceding proposition, distorts the doctor's meaning. The reading received into the text is given by many manuscripts (AFGHIKNTV, WY, ee, ff), of which however several, perhaps deceived by the immediately preceding word visibilis, with edition 1 less aptly omit Utilis.
  16. Ex multis codd. ut AFGKTVWX Y etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus autem, quod hic ut principio responsionis ad aliam partem argumentorum minus bene omittitur. Post accipit supple: Augustinus. [?]
    From many codices (AFGKTVWX, Y, etc.) and edition 1 we have supplied autem, which is here, as at the beginning of the response to the other part of the arguments, less rightly omitted. After accipit supply: Augustinus. [?] — anchor of the second clause unclear; accipit does not appear in the printed text and may refer to a variant elsewhere; flagged for PDF check.
  17. Galat. 4, 4. — De seq. prop. cfr. Greg., II. Homil. 29. n. 4. in Evang.
    Galatians 4:4. — On the following proposition cf. Gregory, Homilies on the Gospel II, Homily 29, n. 4.
  18. In cod. O additur: de scientia certitudinis vel potius intelligitur de scientia status finalis.
    In codex O is added: concerning the science of certitude, or rather it is understood concerning the science of the final state.
  19. Cod. T cum ed. 1 exercitat. Mox nonnulli codd. ut WXVZ perperam delectationem pro dilectionem; cod. cc autem ad devotionem et dilectionem. Dein ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus enim loco autem, quod Vat. cum cod. cc habet, et quo vis responsionis debilitatur.
    Codex T with edition 1 [reads] exercitat. Soon after, some codices (WXVZ) wrongly [read] delectationem for dilectionem; codex cc however [reads] ad devotionem et dilectionem. Then from the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted enim in place of autem, which the Vatican [edition] with codex cc has, and by which the force of the response is weakened.
  20. Alludit ad verba Augustini: Vae his, qui nutus tuos pro te amant etc., supra d. 3. p. I. q. 2. ad 1. allegata; vide etiam ibidem q. 3. ad ult., ubi eadem distinctio in res et signa occurrit. — Mox post amentur Vat., antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, vel si loco et.
    An allusion to Augustine's words: Woe to those who love your beckonings instead of you etc., cited above d. 3, p. I, q. 2, ad 1; see also there q. 3, ad ult., where the same distinction into res and signa occurs. — Soon after amentur, the Vatican [edition], against the older manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] vel si in place of et.
  21. August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 1. n. 1: Signum est enim res praeter speciem, quam ingerit sensibus, aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire.
    Augustine, On Christian Doctrine II, ch. 1, n. 1: For a sign is a thing which, beyond the appearance which it presents to the senses, makes something else come into thought of itself.
  22. Hic, in corp. quaest. — Codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt tamen. Mox cod. V cuiuscumque pro cuiuslibet.
    Here, in the body of the question. — The codices with edition 1 omit tamen. Soon after, codex V [reads] cuiuscumque for cuiuslibet.
← Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 3→