← Back to Distinction 16

Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
p. 283

Quaestio III. Quibus modis facta sit missio visibilis.

Tertio quaeritur, quibus modis fit1 missio visibilis. Et accipiuntur diversi modi ex Scripturis. Filius enim visibiliter apparuit in creatura rationali, ut in homine; Spiritus vero sanctus in irrationali, ut puta in columba, igne et flatu. Quaeritur ergo de diversitate horum modorum apparendi; et videtur, quod non fuerunt modi2 convenientes, hoc modo.

1. Spiritus sanctus est aeque nobilis persona, ut Filius: ergo in aeque nobili creatura debet manifestari, ut Filius.

2. Item, si Filius propter assumtionem humanitatis sive apparitionem in forma servi est minor Patre, immo factus minor Angelis3: ergo multo fortius Spiritus sanctus ex apparitione in igne non tantum minor Deo, sed etiam homine; sed hoc nullo modo congruit: ergo non congruit Spiritui sancto apparere in creatura irrationali. — Si tu dicas, quod Filius apparuit in homine assumto et unito, Spiritus autem sanctus non est columbae unitus vel igni; contra: unio nihil aufert divinitati: ergo propter unionem non debet dici minor. Si ergo dicitur minor, hoc est propter apparitionem: ergo etc.

3. Item, videtur quod Spiritus sanctus fuit unitus4, quia Spiritus sanctus apparebat in illa columba, et non in alia; et rursus apparebat ipse ibi5, non alia persona: ergo alio modo erat in illa quam Pater et Filius, et aliter in illa quam in alia; sed aliter non potuit esse in illa quam alia persona quantum ad substantiam nec quantum ad operationem, quia eadem est substantia et operatio in Trinitate, ergo quantum ad unionem: ergo etc. — Si tu dicas, quod apparuit sicut in signo, tunc quaero: aut illud signum fuit a natura, aut ab institutione6. Si a natura, tunc pari ratione et omnis alia columba; si ab institutione, quaeritur: quis instituit?

4. Item, Filius apparuit visibiliter uno modo tantum et in una creatura; quaeritur, quare non similiter Spiritus sanctus? et videtur, quod ita deberet esse, quia sicut in Filio nulla cadit varietas, immo omnimoda uniformitas, ita et in Spiritu sancto: ergo debuit apparere tantum in una specie, ut Filius7.

5. Item, Filius tantum semel apparuit visibiliter, quia tantum semel est incarnatus, non amplius. Quaeritur ergo, unde hoc est, quod Spiritus sanctus pluries apparuit, ut puta non tantum semel in igne, sed etiam quousque dabatur Spiritus sanctus8? — Si dicas, quod illa, in quibus Spiritus sanctus apparuit, statim esse desierunt post apparitionem, et ideo oportuit rursum alia fieri; tunc ergo videtur, quod nec illa columba fuerit vera, nec ignis, cum tam columba quam ignis habeant9 virtutem permanendi; et si hoc in illa apparitione non fuit, tunc ergo non fuerunt vera, sed falsa, et non fuerunt apparitiones, sed praestigia et illusiones, sicut sunt phantasmata daemonum et aliorum magorum.

6. Ultimo quaeritur, quare tot modis apparuit Spiritus sanctus, et quare in alia specie in capite quam in membris, ut in Christo et Apostolis?

Conclusio.

Apparitio Filii congruenter facta est semel in una et rationabili substantia unita; Spiritus vero sanctus congruenter apparuit pluries in pluribus et irrationabilibus creaturis ut signis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem; ideo modus apparendi sumendus est iuxta finem apparitionis. Apparuit autem Filius in carne, ut esset mediator, Spiritus vero sanctus, ut doctor, Ioannis decimo sexto10: Cum venerit, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Ad mediationem autem necessaria est extremorum separatorum concursio et in unum unio, sicut patet; et ideo Filius in creatura apparuit ut unitus. Ad eruditionem autem ignorantium intervenit signum11; ideo Spiritus sanctus apparuit in creatura ut signatum in signo.

Quoniam ergo nihil est Deo perfecte unibile nisi beatificabile, et hoc solum est substantia rationalis; ideo Filius in sola substantia rationali apparuit.

Quia vero usui significationis purae12 convenit creatura irrationalis magis quam rationalis, ne forte crederetur unita, non tantum significans;

p. 284

ideo Spiritus sanctus apparuit in creatura irrationali, quae aliquo modo haberet rationem significandi et exprimendi, sicut flatus significat spirationem, ignis vero dilectionem.

Rursus, quoniam ad perfectam mediationem requiritur, quod mediator sit unus, et quod unio sit inseparabilis; ideo13 Filii apparitio singularis fuit et indivisibilis. Sed contra, quia non potest Spiritus sanctus perfecte significari in uno signo, ideo oportuit significari14 per plura: et ideo Filius uno modo apparuit, sed Spiritus sanctus pluribus. His visis, facile est respondere ad obiecta.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

Ad 1. Nam ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod aeque nobilis est persona Spiritus sancti; dicendum, quod nihil facit ibi nobilitas apparentis, sed finis apparitionis; quia ille ut mediator, iste ut eruditor sive doctor, ideo Filius ut in homine assumto, Spiritus sanctus ut in creatura et signo15.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus debet dici minor, sicut et Filius; dicendum, quod minoritas illa non dicitur de Filio ratione divinitatis, sed ratione unionis et communicationis16 idiomatum; quia Filius factus est homo passibilis, sed Spiritus sanctus non est factus columba.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est unitus columbae; dicendum, quod est unio secundum veritatem, et est unio secundum intentionem17. Primo modo uniuntur illa quae uniuntur in natura vel persona; secundo modo uniuntur significatum et signum; et hoc modo unita est persona Spiritus sancti illis formis, in quibus apparuit.

Si autem quaeratur, unde veniebat talis unio; dicendum, quod dispositive a proprietatibus creaturae, in quibus nata erat personam Spiritus sancti declarare18, sicut flatus spiritum, ignis amorem, columba donum propter fecunditatem. Sed completive veniebat hoc19 a divina ordinatione, quae ordinavit creaturas ad hoc, non instituendo, sed simul formando et instituendo, quia ad hoc solum formabat; et ideo tam columba quam ignis simul cum apparitione etiam incepit et desiit.

[Ad 4.][^20]

Ad 5. Ex hoc patet, quare21 Spiritus sanctus non tantum semel apparuit, sed pluries, Filius autem non, quia columba et ignis statim post apparitionem esse desierunt, non autem homo. — Ex hoc patet etiam, quod etsi22 columba illa et ignis essent verum corpus, tamen nec columba fuit vera columba, quia statim desiit, sed similitudo columbae; similiter nec ignis verus ignis, quia non comburebat. Nec tamen ibi erat aliqua illusio, quia non erat ibi aliqua falsitas in significando. Offerebatur enim sensui ad significandum, quod vere ibi erat; et quia magis attendebatur ratio significandi quam existendi, ideo tamdiu duravit, quamdiu significare potuit vel officium signi implevit. Et quia eadem vi formata est columba, mota, et conservata, statim ut vis illa desiit movere, columba et ignis desiit esse.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quare tot modis apparuit Spiritus sanctus; dicendum, quod apparitio Spiritus sancti fuit ad manifestandam plenitudinem redundantiae, ut prius habitum est23; et quoniam redundantia potest esse tripliciter, ideo tribus modis apparuit. Potest enim esse haec plenitudo per redemptionem; et ita fuit in Christo, et haec est perfecta gratia per omnem modum. Ideo in Christo apparuit in columba, quia24 erat pretium redemptionis primogenitorum et erat animal integrum et perfectum. Potest etiam esse per vitae influentiam quantum ad sensum et motum, et hoc mediantibus Sacramentis; et haec plenitudo est in sacerdotibus, et ideo datus est eis Spiritus sanctus in specie flatus, Ioannis vigesimo25: Insufflavit in eos dicens: Accipite Spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata etc. Potest etiam tertio modo esse per cognitionis administrationem sive doctrinam; et haec plenitudo est in Apostolis et Doctoribus, et ideo Spiritus sanctus apparuit eis in linguis igneis26. Ex his patet responsio et sufficientia modorum apparendi et obiectorum.

Scholion

I. In hac una quaestione quatuor problemata solvuntur: 1. quot sint missiones et Filii et Spiritus sancti; 2. quare Filio una et Spiritui sancto plures attribuantur; 3. quare et quo modo Filius apparuerit ut unitus, scilicet unione hypostatica, Spiritus sanctus autem tantum ut « signatum in signo »; 4. cur Filius, factus homo, sit se ipso minor, non vero Spiritus sanctus respectu sui signi (in solut. ad 2.).

II. Tres tantum enumerantur visibiles missiones Spiritus sancti, quia etiam Magister hoc loco tantum tres affert. A S. Thoma (S. I. q. 43. a. 7. ad 6.) aliisque additur quarta « in nube lucida » (Matth. 17, 5), quae ab ipsa Ecclesia insinuatur in Officio Transfigurationis (I. Noct. respons. II.) his verbis: « In splendenti nube Spiritus sanctus visus est ». Iuxta S. Bonav. vero (Comment. in Lucam c. 9. v. 34.) ista nubes significavit humanam Christi naturam.

III. In solut. ad 5. incidit etiam quinta quaestio, utrum illa columba fuerit res mere phantastica, an saltem res corporalis, vel etiam specifice columba realis. Seraphicus mediam viam tenet, sicut etiam B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique multi. In eodem sensu loqui videtur ipse S. Thomas et in Comment. hic a. 3. ad 3. et in S. I. q. 43. a. 7. Attamen idem in S. III. q. 39. a. 7. veram columbam fuisse affirmat, quae assertio tantum in sensu maioris probabilitatis dicta videtur, ut ibi observat Caietanus. Hanc opinionem sequitur etiam Uldaricus, « discipulus et imitator Alberti », ut dicit Dionys. Carth., qui et ipse est eiusdem sententiae.

IV. Praeter iam laudatos cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 74. m. 3. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. seq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 5. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1, et 3. princ. q. unica. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

English Translation

Question III. By what modes the visible mission was made.

In the third place it is asked, by what modes1 the visible mission is made. And diverse modes are taken from the Scriptures. For the Son appeared visibly in a rational creature, namely in a man; but the Holy Spirit in an irrational [creature], namely in a dove, fire, and breath. It is asked therefore concerning the diversity of these modes of appearing; and it appears that the modes2 were not fitting, in this way.

1. The Holy Spirit is a person equally noble as the Son: therefore he ought to be manifested in an equally noble creature, as the Son [was].

2. Likewise, if the Son on account of the assumption of humanity, or [on account of] the apparition in the form of a servant, is less than the Father, indeed made less than the Angels3: therefore much more strongly the Holy Spirit, from the apparition in fire, [would be] less not only than God but also than man; but this in no way fits: therefore it does not fit the Holy Spirit to appear in an irrational creature. — If you say, that the Son appeared in a man assumed and united, but the Holy Spirit was not united to the dove or to the fire; on the contrary: union takes nothing away from divinity: therefore on account of union [the Son] ought not to be called less. If therefore he is called less, this is on account of the apparition: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it appears that the Holy Spirit was united4, because the Holy Spirit was appearing in that dove, and not in another; and again he himself was appearing there5, not another person: therefore he was in that [dove] in another mode than the Father and the Son, and otherwise in that [dove] than in another; but he could not be otherwise in that [dove] than another person as to substance nor as to operation, since substance and operation are the same in the Trinity, therefore as to union: therefore etc. — If you say, that he appeared as in a sign, then I ask: was that sign by nature, or by institution6? If by nature, then by parity of reason every other dove also; if by institution, it is asked: who instituted?

4. Likewise, the Son appeared visibly in only one mode and in only one creature; it is asked, why not similarly the Holy Spirit? And it appears that it ought to be so, because just as in the Son no variety falls, but rather every kind of uniformity, so also in the Holy Spirit: therefore he ought to have appeared only in one species, as the Son [did]7.

5. Likewise, the Son appeared visibly only once, because he was only once incarnated, no more. It is asked therefore, whence is it, that the Holy Spirit appeared more often, namely not only once in fire, but also as long as the Holy Spirit was being given8? — If you say, that those [creatures] in which the Holy Spirit appeared, immediately ceased to exist after the apparition, and therefore it was necessary that other [creatures] be made again; then it appears that neither was that dove true, nor the fire, since both the dove and the fire have9 the power of remaining; and if this was not [the case] in that apparition, then they were not true, but false, and were not apparitions, but tricks and illusions, as are the phantasms of demons and other magicians.

6. Lastly it is asked, why the Holy Spirit appeared in so many modes, and why in another species in the head than in the members, namely in Christ and the Apostles?

Conclusion.

The apparition of the Son was fittingly made once in one and rational substance united; but the Holy Spirit fittingly appeared more often in many and irrational creatures as signs.

I respond: It must be said, that the end imposes necessity on those things which are unto the end; therefore the mode of appearing is to be taken according to the end of the apparition. Now the Son appeared in flesh, that he might be the mediator; but the Holy Spirit, [appeared] as teacher, [as in] John 1610: When he comes, he will teach you all truth. For mediation there is necessary the concourse of separated extremes and union into one, as is clear; and therefore the Son appeared in a creature as united. But for the instruction of the ignorant a sign11 intervenes; therefore the Holy Spirit appeared in a creature as the signified in a sign.

Since therefore nothing is perfectly unitable to God except what is capable of beatitude, and this alone is rational substance; therefore the Son appeared in rational substance alone.

But because for the use of pure signification12 an irrational creature is more fitting than a rational one, lest perhaps it be believed united, not only signifying;

therefore the Holy Spirit appeared in an irrational creature, which would have in some way an account of signifying and expressing, as breath signifies spiration, but fire love.

Again, since for perfect mediation it is required that the mediator be one and that the union be inseparable; therefore13 the Son's apparition was singular and indivisible. But on the contrary, since the Holy Spirit cannot be perfectly signified in one sign, therefore it was necessary to be signified14 through several: and therefore the Son appeared in one mode, but the Holy Spirit in several. These things seen, it is easy to respond to the objections.

To the arguments on the contrary:

To 1. For as to what is objected first, that the Holy Spirit is an equally noble person; it must be said, that the nobility of the one appearing makes nothing there, but the end of the apparition; because the one [appears] as mediator, the other as instructor or teacher, therefore the Son [appeared] as in a man assumed, the Holy Spirit as in a creature and sign15.

To 2. As to what is objected, that the Holy Spirit ought to be called less, just as also the Son; it must be said, that that lessness is not said of the Son by reason of divinity, but by reason of union and communication16 of idioms; because the Son was made a passible man, but the Holy Spirit was not made a dove.

To 3. As to what is objected, that he is united to the dove; it must be said, that there is union according to truth, and there is union according to intention17. In the first mode are united those things which are united in nature or person; in the second mode the signified and the sign are united; and in this mode the person of the Holy Spirit was united to those forms in which he appeared.

If however it is asked, whence such union came; it must be said, that dispositively [it came] from the properties of the creature, in which it was apt to declare the person of the Holy Spirit18, as breath [declares] spirit, fire [declares] love, the dove [declares] gift on account of fecundity. But completively this came19 from the divine ordination, which ordained the creatures unto this, not by instituting, but simultaneously by forming and instituting, since for this alone it was forming; and therefore both the dove and the fire began and ceased simultaneously with the apparition.

[To 4.][^20]

To 5. From this it is clear, why21 the Holy Spirit not only once appeared, but more often, but the Son did not, because the dove and the fire ceased to exist immediately after the apparition, but not [so] the man. — From this it is also clear, that even if22 that dove and that fire were a true body, nevertheless neither was the dove a true dove, because it ceased immediately, but a likeness of a dove; similarly neither was the fire a true fire, because it was not burning. Yet there was no illusion there, because there was no falsity in signifying. For it was offered to sense to signify what truly was there; and because the account of signifying was attended to more than [the account] of existing, therefore it lasted as long as it could signify, or [as long as] it fulfilled the office of a sign. And since the dove was formed, moved, and conserved by the same power, immediately when that power ceased to move, the dove and the fire ceased to be.

To 6. As to what is asked last, why the Holy Spirit appeared in so many modes; it must be said, that the apparition of the Holy Spirit was for manifesting the fullness of redundance, as was had before23; and since the redundance can be in three ways, therefore he appeared in three modes. For this fullness can be through redemption; and so it was in Christ, and this is perfect grace in every mode. Therefore in Christ he appeared in the dove, because24 [the dove] was the price of redemption of the firstborn and was an integral and perfect animal. It can also be through the influence of life as to sense and motion, and this through the mediation of the Sacraments; and this fullness is in priests, and therefore the Holy Spirit was given to them in the form of breath, [as in] John 2025: He breathed on them, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall remit etc. It can also in a third mode be through the administration of cognition or doctrine; and this fullness is in the Apostles and Doctors, and therefore the Holy Spirit appeared to them in fiery tongues26. From these the response is clear, and the sufficiency of the modes of appearing and of the objects.

Scholion

I. In this one question four problems are resolved: 1. how many missions there are both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; 2. why one is attributed to the Son and several to the Holy Spirit; 3. why and in what mode the Son appeared as united, namely by hypostatic union, but the Holy Spirit only as "signified in a sign"; 4. why the Son, having been made man, is less than himself, but not the Holy Spirit with respect to his sign (in the solution to 2).

II. Only three visible missions of the Holy Spirit are enumerated, because the Master also in this place brings forward only three. By St. Thomas (Summa I, q. 43, a. 7, ad 6) and others a fourth is added, "in the bright cloud" (Matthew 17:5), which is hinted at by the Church herself in the Office of the Transfiguration (Nocturn I, response 2) in these words: "In the resplendent cloud the Holy Spirit was seen". But according to St. Bonaventure (Commentary on Luke, c. 9, v. 34), that cloud signified the human nature of Christ.

III. In the solution to 5 a fifth question also arises: whether that dove was a merely phantastic thing, or at least a corporeal thing, or even specifically a real dove. The Seraphic [Doctor] holds the middle way, as also B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and many others. In the same sense St. Thomas himself appears to speak, both in the Commentary here a. 3, ad 3, and in the Summa I, q. 43, a. 7. However the same in Summa III, q. 39, a. 7 affirms it to have been a true dove, an assertion which seems said only in the sense of greater probability, as Cajetan there observes. This opinion is also followed by Uldaricus, "the disciple and imitator of Albert", as Dionysius Carthusianus says, who himself is also of the same view.

IV. Besides those already cited, cf. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. 1, q. 74, m. 3, 5. — B. Albert, here a. 4 and following. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 5. — Aegidius Romanus, here 2 princ. q. 1, and 3 princ. q. unica. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vat. fuit; plures codd. ut A T V X sit.
    The Vatican [edition reads] fuit; several codices, such as A, T, V, X, [read] sit.
  2. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus modi.
    From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied modi.
  3. Cfr. Epist. ad Philip. 2, 7, et ad Hebr. 2, 7. et 9. — Paulo ante in cod. T post seipsum additur factus, in ed. 1 vero non solum, quae et paulo infra Angelo ponit pro Deo.
    Cf. Philippians 2:7 and Hebrews 2:7 and 9. — A little before, in codex T after seipsum is added factus; in edition 1 [is added] non solum, which a little below also puts Angelo in place of Deo.
  4. Ed. 1 fuerit unitus illi columbae.
    Edition 1 [reads] fuerit unitus illi columbae [was united to that dove].
  5. Aliqui codd. ut H I addunt et.
    Some codices, such as H, I, add et.
  6. Haec signi divisio insinuatur ab Aristotele, I. Periherm. c. 2, et ab August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 1. 2. n. 2. 3.
    This division of the sign is hinted at by Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 2, and by Augustine, On Christian Doctrine II, cc. 1–2, nn. 2–3.
  7. Vat., antiquis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, omittit ut Filius. Paulo ante cod. W si est in Filio nulla varietas loco sicut in Filio nulla cadit varietas.
    The Vatican [edition], against the ancient manuscripts and edition 1, omits ut Filius. A little before, codex W [reads] si est in Filio nulla varietas in place of sicut in Filio nulla cadit varietas.
  8. Scil. signis visibilibus, quod primis Ecclesiae temporibus frequenter fiebat; vide Act. 8, 17 et 10, 44. — Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 in specie columbae loco quousque dabatur Spiritus sanctus.
    That is, by visible signs, which happened frequently in the first ages of the Church; see Acts 8:17 and 10:44. — The Vatican [edition], without authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] in specie columbae in place of quousque dabatur Spiritus sanctus.
  9. Vat. cum pluribus codd. habeat.
    The Vatican [edition] with several codices [reads] habeat.
  10. Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata: Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit etc.
    [John 16,] verse 13, where the Vulgate reads: But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach etc.
  11. Plura de hoc, sicut et de modo, quo eruditio per signum fit, vide apud August., libr. de Magistro. — Plures codd. ut AITWYZ bb cc signatio (significatio).
    More on this, as also on the mode by which instruction takes place through a sign, see in Augustine, the book On the Teacher. — Several codices (AITWYZ, bb, cc) [read] signatio (significatio).
  12. Cod. T potius loco purae moxque omittit magis.
    Codex T [reads] potius in place of purae, and soon after omits magis.
  13. In cod. cc et Vat. deest ideo, quod tamen in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur.
    In codex cc and the Vatican [edition] ideo is missing, which however is found in the other codices and in edition 1.
  14. Supplevimus ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 significari.
    We have supplied from the older manuscripts and edition 1 significari.
  15. Codd. aa bb, post sanctus omisso et, ponunt ut signo.
    Codices aa, bb, with et omitted after sanctus, place ut signo.
  16. Fide plurimorum codd. et ed. 1 substituimus nomen magis usitatum communicationis pro communionis.
    On the faith of most codices and edition 1 we have substituted the more usual name communicationis for communionis.
  17. Id est, secundum actum rationis et voluntatis, quae fit vel cum vel sine fundamento in re.
    That is, according to an act of reason and will, which is made either with or without a foundation in the thing.
  18. Ita multi mss. ut ADFGIKPQTVW etc. et ed. 1, dum Vat. cum aliquibus codd. modo passivo et minus apto persona Spiritus sancti declarari. In lectione in textum recepta nata refertur ad creaturae.
    Thus many manuscripts (ADFGIKPQTVW, etc.) and edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with some codices in the passive mode and less aptly [read] persona Spiritus sancti declarari. In the reading received into the text nata refers to creaturae.
  19. Sequimur plurimos codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. cum cod. cc ponit veniebant haec. Codd. P Q veniebat unio haec, cod. S autem omittit hoc. Paulo infra Vat. cum cod. cc, ceteris tamen codd. cum ed. 1 refragantibus, et loco quia, deinde quia pro et ideo, quibus positis ordo et connexio confunditur. Mox aliqui mss. ut H Y Z cum ed. 1 et loco etiam.
    We follow most codices with edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with codex cc places veniebant haec. Codices P, Q [read] veniebat unio haec; codex S omits hoc. A little below the Vatican [edition] with codex cc, but with the rest of the codices and edition 1 against it, [reads] et in place of quia, then quia for et ideo, by which placements the order and connection is thrown into confusion. Soon after, some manuscripts (H, Y, Z) with edition 1 [read] et in place of etiam.
  20. Ad obiectionem quartam specialis a S. Doctore non est data responsio, quia ipsa iam in corp. quaest. continetur. Vide etiam respectu ipsius infra resp. ad 6.
    No special response is given by the Holy Doctor to the fourth objection, because it is already contained in the body of the question. See also with respect to it the response ad 6 below.
  21. Praeferimus lectionem plurium codd. ut I T aa bb ff et ed. 1 quare loco quod. Codd. aa bb paulo ante post Ex hoc adiiciunt etiam.
    We prefer the reading of several codices (I, T, aa, bb, ff) and edition 1: quare in place of quod. Codices aa, bb a little before, after Ex hoc, add etiam.
  22. Vat. cum pluribus codd. si loco etsi.
    The Vatican [edition] with several codices [reads] si in place of etsi.
  23. Quaest. praeced. et hic circa finem corp. quaest. — Mox antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 exigentibus, substituimus tripliciter loco triplex.
    [In] the preceding question, and here near the end of the body of the question. — Soon after, with the older manuscripts and edition 1 demanding it, we have substituted tripliciter in place of triplex.
  24. Supple: columba, vel pone cum codd. Y Z quae loco quia. — Cfr. Levit. 12, 6 seqq.
    Supply: columba [the dove], or place with codices Y, Z quae in place of quia. — Cf. Leviticus 12:6ff.
  25. Vers. 22. et 23, ubi Vulgata: Insufflavit et dixit eis: accipite etc.
    [John 20,] verses 22 and 23, where the Vulgate reads: He breathed on [them] and said to them: Receive etc.
  26. Act. 2, 3.
    Acts 2:3.
← Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 16, Dubia→