← Back to Distinction 19

Dist. 19, Part 1, Dubia

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 19

Textus Latinus
p. 350

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram; et primo dubitatur de situ huius partis. Cum enim unitas in substantia faciat identitatem, unitas in quantitate aequalitatem, unitas in qualitate similitudinem, pari ratione videtur, quod deberet determinare de identitate et similitudine; quia, si de his non determinat, videtur, quod nec de aequalitate deberet facere specialem tractatum.

p. 351

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ostensa perfecta aequalitate, ostenditur, quod omnimoda sit in natura identitas et similitudo; et ideo determinata aequalitate, non est opportunum de aliis determinare; sed magis de aequalitate determinat propter haereses extirpandas, Arianorum maxime, qui posuerunt inaequalitatem in divinis; et ideo difficilior1 et utilior circa hoc versatur disputatio.

DUB. II.

Item dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod aequalitas consistit in aeternitate. Videtur enim male procedere, quia ipse dividit coaeternitatem2 contra aequalitatem: ergo si ab ea distinguitur, quantum ad aeternitatem non attenditur aequalitas.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aequalitas perfecta in his tribus consistit, et Magister condividit aequalitatem contra coaeternitatem quantum ad alia duo membra, scilicet magnitudinem et potentiam.

DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non alio Deus, alio magnus etc., quia videtur pari ratione, cum alio sit Deus, alio Pater, quod alio sit Deus, alio magnus. Si dicas, quod quantitas transit in substantiam, relatio non; obiicitur, quod illud non solvit. Augustinus3 enim loquitur de formali praedicatione, et constat, quod formaliter loquendo ita est ista falsa: Deus est magnus deitate, vel Deus magnitudine, sicut et: Pater magnitudine4.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis secundum rationem loquendi vel intelligendi a parte nostra magnitudo in divinis dicatur per modum quantitatis, et deitas per modum substantiae, tamen a parte rei nulla est omnino differentia. Nihil enim de magnitudine dicitur, quod non dicatur de substantia. In relatione5 autem paternitatis non est ita. Aliquid enim praedicatur de paternitate, quod non potest dici de essentia, sicut distinguere et distingui.

DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In generatione generationum anni tui6. Videtur enim male dicere, quia in aeternitate nulla cadit variatio: ergo cum annus variationem habeat, non debet transferri ibi7. Item, in illa aeternitate est omnimoda simplicitas et impartibilitas: ergo non deberet pluraliter dici annos.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod iuxta modum nostrae infirmitatis et intelligimus8 divinam aeternitatem9 et nominamus. Quoniam enim annus dicit completam temporis revolutionem secundum decursum solis in zodiaco et regressum ad idem punctum, et divina aeternitas est perfecta et durationes ceteras circumplectens: ideo ad ipsam transtulit Scriptura nomen anni.

Rursus, quia interminata10 et a parte ante et a parte post, ideo non annum dicit, quasi terminum habeat, nec generationem singulariter, sed pluraliter annos, et generationes similiter. Ratione ergo perfectionis et interminationis transfertur, non ratione variationis.

DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod in generatione Sanctorum sunt anni Dei, aeternitas. Videtur enim falsum, quia duratio Sanctorum est finita a parte ante; sed aeternitas Dei est infinita a parte ante et post: ergo Sancti non sunt in illa11. Item, quo modo essendi in12 generatio Sanctorum est in illa? Sicut mensura, non, quia Dei aeternitas solius Dei est mensura; si sicut causa in effectu; sed hoc modo est in ceteris creaturis: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod13 illud verbum non est dictum per commensurationem neque per aequalitatem, sed per concomitantiam et conformitatem. Quia enim generatio Sanctorum a parte post durat in infinitum14, durat etiam sine variatione: ideo illam summam aeternitatem in aeternum comitatur et ei

p. 352

expresse conformatur; et ideo exponit illud Psalmi beatus Augustinus15: In generatione generationum anni tui: sive in generatione interminata, quae generatio est Sancti, sive Sancti sunt illa generatio, et quia in perpetuum durat, et quia ex multis generationibus sunt collecti.

DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Pater est in Filio et Filius in Patre; quia, si quidquid est in Deo Deus est propter summam simplicitatem, ergo quidquid est in Filio est Filius: ergo si Pater est in Filio, Pater est Filius.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est simile, quia, cum dicitur aliquid esse in Deo, haec praepositio in aut dicit distinctionem essentialem, et sic non quidquid est in Deo, est Deus, quia in eo vivimus, movemur et sumus16; aut nullam dicit distinctionem nisi secundum modum intelligendi, et hoc ponit omnimodam identitatem; et ideo sequitur, quod sit Deus quod est in Deo. Sed cum dicitur de persona, haec praepositio in dicit distinctionem personalem, et una persona de alia non praedicatur; et ideo patet, quod non est simile17.

DUB. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius: Nec exemplum rebus divinis comparatio humana praestabit. Videtur enim falsum, quia imago est expressa similitudo, et vestigium est in omni creatura: ergo videtur, quod exemplum sit in omnibus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est exemplum exprimens perfecte et18 consimiliter omnino, et tale nullum est in creaturis, quia imago et ceterae creaturae plus habent dissimilitudinis quam similitudinis; et est exemplum aliquo modo manuducens, et sic multa sunt, et ex multis colligitur unum, nec tamen omnino perfectum.

DUB. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quod inintelligibile est homini, possibile est Deo. Videtur falsum, «quia anima nostra quodam modo est omnia»19, et intellectus noster non tot intelligit, quin plura possit intelligere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est loqui de intellectu comprehendente, et sic non est verum, quod omnia intelligere possit, quia nec Deus nec aliquid Dei est comprehensibile nobis, quia omnino infinitus; et est loqui de intellectu apprehendente, et hoc dupliciter: aut in ratione possibilis20 et suscipientis, et utique omne quod potest fieri, potest intelligere, quia possibile est ad intelligendum; aut in ratione agentis, et quia non habet lumen tantae potentiae, quod possit super omnia, scilicet praesentia et futura, quia multa sunt contra21 eius iudicium, sic non est omnium.

DUB. IX.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius: Nam si partem eiusdem, qui genuit, accepit, neuter perfectus est. Videtur enim non sequi hoc, quia homo perfectus generat filium perfectum, et tamen non dat ei nisi partem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est perfectio simpliciter, et perfectio22 in genere. Perfectio in genere bene compatitur secum dationem et receptionem partis, quia in dante suppletur per restaurationem, in accipiente per augmentum et additionem; sed perfectio simpliciter non compatitur secum restaurationem nec additionem. Et quoniam in Deo perfectio est simpliciter, ideo si daret partem, in dante remaneret defectus, similiter et in accipiente; ideo non est simile de homine23.

DUB. X.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non per duplicem convenientium generum coniunctionem etc.;

p. 353

aut enim tangit modos essendi, aut generandi. Non essendi, quia multo plures sunt quam isti; non generandi; et ita24 utroque modo est insufficiens.

Respondeo: Aliqui dicunt, quod Hilarius tangit duos modos generationis, qui sunt in creaturis, ut excludat eos a Filio. Sed non assignat nisi duos25 modos, quia non loquitur nisi de generatione vivi; vivens autem generabile dividitur in vegetabile et sensibile; et secundum illud duplex genus duplex est modus generandi, quem tangit Hilarius. Nam animalia generantur per26 coniunctionem maris et feminae, et plantae per insertum. Primum tangit cum dicitur: «Non per duplicem convenientium generum», quia masculus et femina sunt duplicis generis quantum ad sexum, et tamen convenientes sunt quantum ad formam et naturam27. Secundum modum tangit cum dicit: «Nec per insitivam capacioris substantiae naturam», sicut surculus inseritur arbori, «sed per naturae unitam similitudinem», id est similitudinem omnino in natura indifferentem28.

Aliter potest dici, quod Hilarius non loquitur de modo29 generandi, sed loquitur, quomodo Pater sit in Filio; et excludit modum essendi in, quo creatura dicitur esse in creatura secundum modum usitatum; ad quem modum concurrit duplex conditio creaturarum: prima est creaturarum30 quoad naturam diversitas; secunda est continentis capacitas. Et has excludit ab illo modo existendi, qui est in divinis, per illa duo, quae dicit: «Quod Filius est in Patre non per coniunctionem duorum generum, neque per insitivam capacioris substantiae naturam». Hoc patet per litteram Hilarii31, quam immediate subiungit in originali, et Magister omittit: «Quia, inquit Hilarius, per corporalem necessitatem exteriora fieri his, quibus continentur, interiora non possunt», et32 vult, quod illud est impossibile in creaturis corporalibus, quod mutuo sint in se ipsis, sicut Pater est in Filio; quia propter corporalem necessitatem et imperfectionem interiora non possunt fieri exteriora his quibus continentur, ut si aqua est intus33 in vase, dum est intus, non potest fieri extra, et ita non continetur vas, ut vas sit in aqua.

DUB. XI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Dum naturam Dei non degenerat nativitas, quia non tantum in Deo, sed in creaturis pluribus non degenerat.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod degenerare est extra genus generantis exire. Exire autem extra genus generantis hoc est: aut quantum ad communem34 formam et naturam; et sic est degeneratio in aequivocis, sicut equus ex asina generat burdonem, et asinus ex equa mulum, unde mulus degenerat. Alio modo degenerare est proprietates generantis relinquere, retenta natura, sicut filius, qui generatur ex patre nobili et pulcro, est rusticanus35 et turpis. Tertio modo est degenerare naturam generantis relinquere, non per dissimilitudinem, sed per diversitatem; et hoc modo omnis nativitas creata degenerat, quia in omni creatura generans est aliud a generato36, et sola divina generatio est, quae non degenerat, quia nihil nascitur novum, nihil additur alienum, et ideo generans a generato in substantia non separatur; et ideo illa generatio sola est nobilissima37.

---

English Translation

DOUBTS ON THE MASTER'S TEXT.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the littera, and first there is doubt about the placement of this part. For since unity in substance makes identity, unity in quantity [makes] equality, unity in quality [makes] likeness, by parity of reason it appears that he ought to determine [also] concerning identity and likeness; because, if he does not determine concerning these, it appears that neither concerning equality ought he to make a special treatment.

I respond: It must be said that, equality having been shown perfectly, it is shown that there is in [the divine] nature in every way identity and likeness; and therefore, equality having been determined, it is not necessary to determine concerning the others; but he treats more of equality on account of heresies to be extirpated, especially of the Arians, who posited inequality in the divine [persons]; and therefore the disputation that concerns this is more difficult1 and more useful.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is doubted concerning what he says, that equality consists in eternity. For it appears to proceed wrongly, because he himself divides coeternity2 over against equality: therefore if [equality] is distinguished from [coeternity], with respect to eternity equality is not regarded.

I respond: It must be said that perfect equality consists in these three [eternity, magnitude, power], and the Master places equality in coordinate division against coeternity with respect to the other two members, namely magnitude and power.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: Not by another [is God] God, by another great etc., because by parity of reason it appears, since by another he is God, by another Father, that by another he is God, by another great. If you say that quantity passes over into substance, but relation does not; the objection is raised that this does not solve it. For Augustine3 is speaking of formal predication, and it is established that, formally speaking, this [proposition] is just as false: God is great by deity, or God by magnitude, as also: Father by magnitude4.

I respond: It must be said that although according to our manner of speaking or understanding on our part magnitude in divine matters is said in the manner of quantity, and deity in the manner of substance, yet on the side of the thing there is no difference whatsoever. For nothing is said of magnitude which is not said of substance. In the relation5, however, of paternity it is not so. For something is predicated of paternity which cannot be said of essence, as to distinguish and to be distinguished.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: In the generation of generations are thy years6. For it appears to say wrongly, because in eternity no variation falls: therefore since year has variation, it ought not to be transferred there7. Likewise, in that eternity there is every kind of simplicity and impartibility: therefore years ought not to be said in the plural.

I respond: It must be said that according to the measure of our weakness we both understand8 and name the divine eternity9. For since year states the complete revolution of time according to the course of the sun in the zodiac and its return to the same point, and the divine eternity is perfect and embraces all other durations: therefore Scripture transferred to it the name of year.

Again, because [it is] unterminated10 both from the side before and the side after, therefore it does not say year [in the singular], as though it had a terminus, nor generation singularly, but plurally years, and likewise generations. By reason therefore of perfection and unterminatedness it is transferred, not by reason of variation.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that in the generation of the saints are the years of God, eternity. For it appears to be false, because the duration of the saints is finite from the side before; but the eternity of God is infinite from the side before and after: therefore the saints are not in it11. Likewise, by which mode of being in12 is the generation of the saints in it? As measure, no, because the eternity of God is measure of God alone; as cause in effect [and so be in it]; but in this mode he is in the other creatures: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that13 this saying is not said by way of commensuration nor by way of equality, but by way of concomitance and conformity. For since the generation of the saints from the side after endures into infinity14, it endures also without variation: therefore it accompanies that highest eternity in eternity and

p. 352

is expressly conformed to it; and thus blessed Augustine15 expounds that [verse] of the Psalm: In the generation of generations are thy years: either in the unterminated generation, which is the generation of the Saint, or [because] the saints are that generation, both because it endures forever and because they are gathered out of many generations.

Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father; because, if whatever is in God is God on account of the highest simplicity, therefore whatever is in the Son is the Son: therefore if the Father is in the Son, the Father is the Son.

I respond: It must be said that it is not similar, because, when something is said to be in God, this preposition in either states an essential distinction, and so not whatever is in God is God, since in him we live, move, and have our being16; or it states no distinction except according to the mode of understanding, and this posits an utter identity; and therefore it follows that what is in God is God. But when it is said of a person, this preposition in states a personal distinction, and one person is not predicated of another; and therefore it is clear that it is not similar17.

Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary says: Nor will human comparison furnish an example for divine matters. For it appears to be false, because image is an express likeness, and a vestige is in every creature: therefore it appears that example is in all things.

I respond: It must be said that there is an example expressing perfectly and18 altogether in like manner, and no such [example] exists in creatures, because image and the other creatures have more dissimilitude than likeness; and there is an example in some way leading-by-the-hand, and so [examples] are many, and from many is gathered one, yet not altogether perfect.

Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: That which is unintelligible to man is possible to God. It appears false, «because our soul is in some way all things»19, and our intellect does not understand so many things that it cannot understand more.

I respond: It must be said that it is one thing to speak of the comprehending intellect, and so it is not true that it can understand all things, because neither God nor anything of God is comprehensible to us, since [he is] altogether infinite; and it is another to speak of the apprehending intellect, and this in two ways: either in the manner of possible [intellect]20 and receiving, and indeed everything that can come to be, [the intellect] can understand, because it is possible for understanding; or in the manner of agent, and because it does not have light of so great a power that it could [reach] over all things, namely things present and future, since many are against21 its judgment, so it is not [the intellect] of all things.

Doubt IX.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary says: For if he received a part of the same one who begot, neither is perfect. For it appears that this does not follow, because a perfect man begets a perfect son, and yet does not give him except a part.

I respond: It must be said that there is perfection simply, and perfection22 in a genus. Perfection in a genus well tolerates with itself the giving and receiving of a part, because in the giver it is supplied through restoration, in the receiver through increase and addition; but perfection simply does not tolerate with itself restoration nor addition. And since in God perfection is simply, therefore if he were to give a part, in the giver a defect would remain, likewise also in the receiver; therefore it is not similar in the case of man23.

Doubt X.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: Not by a coupling-together of two corresponding genera etc.;

p. 353

for either he touches modes of being, or [modes] of generating. Not [modes] of being, because they are far more than these; not [modes] of generating; and so24 in either way it is insufficient.

I respond: Some say that Hilary touches the two25 modes of generation which are in creatures, in order to exclude them from the Son. But he assigns only two modes, because he speaks only of the generation of a living thing; and a living thing capable of generation is divided into vegetable and sensible; and according to that twofold genus the mode of generating is twofold, which Hilary touches. For animals are generated through26 the coupling of male and female, and plants through grafting. He touches the first when it is said: «Not by a coupling-together of two corresponding genera», because male and female are of twofold genus with respect to sex, and yet are corresponding with respect to form and nature27. He touches the second mode when he says: «Nor by the engrafted nature of a more capacious substance», as a shoot is grafted onto a tree, «but by a likeness united to nature», that is, a likeness altogether undifferentiated in nature28.

It can be said otherwise that Hilary does not speak about the mode29 of generating, but speaks about how the Father is in the Son; and he excludes the mode of being-in by which a creature is said to be in a creature according to the customary mode; to which mode there concurs a twofold condition of creatures30: the first is the diversity of creatures with respect to nature; the second is the capacity of the container. And he excludes these from that mode of existing which is in the divine [persons], by those two things which he says: «That the Son is in the Father not by the coupling of two genera, nor by the engrafted nature of a more capacious substance». This is clear from the text of Hilary31 which he immediately subjoins in the original [text], and which the Master omits: «Because, says Hilary, by corporeal necessity outer things cannot become inner to those by which they are contained», and32 he means that this is impossible in corporeal creatures, that they should mutually be in themselves, as the Father is in the Son; because on account of corporeal necessity and imperfection inner things cannot become outer to those by which they are contained, as if water is within33 a vessel, while it is within, it cannot come to be outside, and so the vessel is not contained, in such a way that the vessel might be in the water.

Doubt XI.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: While nativity does not degenerate from the nature of God, because not only in God, but in many creatures it does not degenerate.

I respond: It must be said that to degenerate is to go out beyond the genus of the begetter. To go out beyond the genus of the begetter is this: either with respect to the common34 form and nature; and so there is degeneration in equivocals, as a horse from a she-ass begets a hinny, and an ass from a mare a mule, whence the mule degenerates. In another way to degenerate is to leave behind the properties of the begetter, the nature being retained, as a son who is generated from a noble and beautiful father is rustic35 and ugly. In a third way to degenerate is to leave behind the nature of the begetter, not through dissimilitude, but through diversity; and in this mode every created nativity degenerates, because in every creature the begetter is something other than the begotten36, and the divine generation alone is the one which does not degenerate, because nothing new is born, nothing alien is added, and therefore the begetter is not separated in substance from the begotten; and therefore that generation alone is the most noble37.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vide supra pag. 342. nota 6.
    See above p. 342, note 6.
  2. Cod. O sufficientior.
    Codex O [reads] sufficientior.
  3. Nonnulli codd. ut IVYZ aeternitatem.
    Some codices such as I, V, Y, Z [read] aeternitatem.
  4. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 2.
  5. Vat. perperam et praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 ordinem invertit ponendo quod sicut loco ita et sic et ista: Pater est magnus pro sicut et: Pater magnitudine, quae et post vel repetit Deus est.
    The Vatican [edition] wrongly and against the faith of the manuscripts and edition 1 inverts the order, putting quod sicut in place of ita et sic et ista: Pater est magnus in place of sicut et: Pater magnitudine, which it also after vel repeats Deus est.
  6. Mendum Vat. resolutione correximus ex mss. et edd. 1, 2.
    We have corrected the error of the Vatican [edition] resolutione from the manuscripts and editions 1, 2.
  7. Ita codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. cum ceteris edd. In generatione et generationem anni tui; ceterum vide supra textum Magistri, c. 1.
    So the codices with edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with the other editions [reads] In generatione et generationem anni tui; for the rest see above the text of the Master, c. 1.
  8. Cod. dd ad divina pro ibi. Paulo infra Vat. falso impartialitas loco impartibilitas; obstant etiam plurimi mss. et ed. 1.
    Codex dd [reads] ad divina in place of ibi. A little below the Vatican [edition reads] falsely impartialitas in place of impartibilitas; very many manuscripts and edition 1 stand against [it] also.
  9. Multi codd. contra contextum Trinitatem pro aeternitatem; Vat. cum uno alterove codice Trinitatem vel aeternitatem; lectio in textum recepta exhibetur a pluribus mss. ut H ee ff et ed. 1. Mox ex antiquioribus mss. supplevimus enim.
    Many codices, against the context, [read] Trinitatem in place of aeternitatem; the Vatican [edition] with one or another codex [reads] Trinitatem vel aeternitatem; the reading received into the text is exhibited by several manuscripts such as H, ee, ff, and edition 1. Soon, from the older manuscripts we have supplied enim.
  10. Subintellige: aeternitas. — Pauci codd. ut HT adiiciunt est, cod. X est duratio.
    Understand: aeternitas ("eternity"). — A few codices such as H, T add est, codex X [reads] est duratio.
  11. Nempe: aeternitate Dei. — Vat. absque auctoritate codd. et sex primarum edd., sensu eodem manente, ergo illa non est Sanctis.
    Namely: the eternity of God. — The Vatican [edition], without the authority of the codices and of the first six editions, the same sense remaining, [reads] ergo illa non est Sanctis.
  12. Cfr. supra q. 4. argum. 7. ad opp., ubi novem modi essendi in referuntur. Mox Vat. est in illa generatione Sanctorum, sed praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd., licet idem servetur sensus.
    Cf. above q. 4, argument 7 ad oppositum, where the nine modes of being in are recounted. Soon, the Vatican [edition reads] est in illa generatione Sanctorum, but against the faith of the manuscripts and of the first six editions, although the same sense is preserved.
  13. Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus quod et consequenter substituimus est loco esse.
    On the faith of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied quod, and consequently substituted est in place of esse.
  14. Cod. I cum ed. 1 addit et. Mox aliqui codd. ut T X cum ed. 1 concomitatur pro comitatur.
    Codex I with edition 1 adds et. Soon, some codices such as T, X, with edition 1, [read] concomitatur in place of comitatur.
  15. Enarratio in Psalm. 101. Serm. 2. n. 11: De tot generationibus colliges omnes sanctas proles omnium generationum, et facies inde unam generationem. In ista generatione generationum anni tui, id est, aeternitas illa in illa generatione erit, quae de omnibus generationibus colligitur et in unam redigitur; ipsa particeps erit aeternitatis tuae. Ceterae generationes implendis temporibus generantur, ex quibus illa in aeternum regeneratur; mutata vivificabitur, erit idonea portare te, vires accipiens a te. In generatione generationum anni tui. — Vat. hic sicuti et supra in dub. 4. contra codd. et ed. 1 In generatione et generationem anni tui, quae et paulo ante addit hic post ideo, ac dein Sanctorum sive pro Sancti sive ponit contra mss. et ed. 1. Mox cod. I durant et cod. dd durant beati loco durat, qui et in fine responsionis adiungit et hic est intellectus huius propositionis. — Idem dubium solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 6.
    Commentary on Psalm 101, sermon 2, n. 11: Of so many generations you will gather all the holy offspring of all the generations, and you will make from these one generation. In that generation of generations are thy years, that is, that eternity will be in that generation which is gathered from all the generations and is reduced into one; it will partake of thy eternity. The other generations are generated for the filling-out of time, from which that [one] is regenerated into eternity; changed, it will be vivified, it will be fit to carry thee, receiving strength from thee. In the generation of generations are thy years. — The Vatican [edition] here just as also above in dub. 4, against the codices and edition 1, [reads] In generatione et generationem anni tui, which it also a little before adds hic after ideo, and then puts Sanctorum sive in place of Sancti sive, against the manuscripts and edition 1. Soon, codex I [reads] durant and codex dd durant beati in place of durat, which also at the end of the response adjoins et hic est intellectus huius propositionis. — The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 6.
  16. Act. 17, 28. — Paulo infra cod. T quod sic Deus est in Deo loco quod sit Deus quod est in Deo.
    Acts 17:28. — A little below, codex T [reads] quod sic Deus est in Deo in place of quod sit Deus quod est in Deo.
  17. Cfr. supra q. 4. ad 1. et Scholion.
    Cf. above q. 4 ad 1 and the Scholion.
  18. Ex mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 supplevimus et. Plures codd. ut CLORSUV similiter pro consimiliter. — Cfr. de hac divisione pag. 94. dub. 4.
    From the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we have supplied et. Several codices such as C, L, O, R, S, U, V [read] similiter in place of consimiliter. — Cf. concerning this division p. 94, dub. 4.
  19. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 37. (c. 8.).
    Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 37 (c. 8).
  20. Vat. cum cod. cc possibilitatis, sed contra alios codd. et ed. 1. Paulo post fide plurium mss. ut ISTYZ bb et ed. 1 restituimus particulam utique.
    The Vatican [edition] with codex cc [reads] possibilitatis, but against the other codices and edition 1. A little later, on the faith of several manuscripts such as I, S, T, Y, Z, bb, and edition 1, we have restored the particle utique.
  21. Vat., obnitentibus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6, supra. In lectione codicum intelligas locutionem contra iudicium rationis de ratione inferiori et conversa ad sensibilia, ut ipse S. Doctor praeclare explicat III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. — Plura de intellectu comprehendente et apprehendente vide supra d. 3. p. I. q. 1. ad 1; de intellectu possibili et agente II. Sent. d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 4, et Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 1–20 (c. 4. et 5). — In cod. O in fine responsionis additur quia non habet tantum lumen intellectuale, quod possit omnia intellecta in potentia facere intellecta in actu.
    The Vatican [edition], the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6 contradicting [it], [reads] supra. In the reading of the codices, understand the locution as "against the judgment of reason of the lower reason and turned to sensible things," as the holy Doctor himself explains splendidly in III Sent. d. 23, a. 1, q. 1, ad 4. — More on the comprehending and apprehending intellect see above d. 3, p. I, q. 1, ad 1; on the possible and agent intellect II Sent. d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 4, and Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 1–20 (c. 4 and 5). — In codex O at the end of the response is added: because it does not have so great an intellectual light that it could make all intellected things in potency intellected in act.
  22. In pluribus mss. ut AFGISTWY etc. et ed. 1 deest perfectio.
    In several manuscripts such as A, F, G, I, S, T, W, Y etc., and edition 1, perfectio is missing.
  23. Ex multis mss. ut AFGHIMNPQTUZ ee ff et ed. 1 adiecimus verba ideo non est simile de homine.
    From many manuscripts such as A, F, G, H, I, M, N, P, Q, T, U, Z, ee, ff, and edition 1, we have added the words ideo non est simile de homine ("therefore it is not similar in the case of man").
  24. Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus additum in.
    On the faith of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have struck out the added in.
  25. Unus alterve codex ut G cum ed. 1 hic loco hos.
    One or another codex such as G with edition 1 [reads] hic in place of hos.
  26. Pauci mss. ut GH et ed. 1 ex coniunctione. Mox Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 post insertum adiicit Et. Dein aliqui codd. ut FGH cum ed. 1 dicit loco dicitur.
    A few manuscripts such as G, H, and edition 1 [read] ex coniunctione. Soon the Vatican [edition], against the older codices and edition 1, after insertum adds Et. Then some codices such as F, G, H, with edition 1, [read] dicit in place of dicitur.
  27. Ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus naturam loco materiam. Paulo post aliqui codd. ut aa bb dicitur pro dicit.
    From very many manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied naturam in place of materiam. A little later, some codices such as aa, bb [read] dicitur in place of dicit.
  28. Vat. similitudinem non in natura differentem; sed obstat auctoritas vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1. — Praedictam expositionem huius loci praebent B. Albert., hic art. 10; S. Thom. et Richard., hic circa lit.
    The Vatican [edition reads] similitudinem non in natura differentem; but the authority of the older manuscripts and edition 1 stands against [it]. — The aforesaid exposition of this passage is given by B. Albert, here art. 10; St. Thomas and Richard, here in the expositio litterae.
  29. Nonnulli codd. ut FG cum ed. 1 modis.
    Some codices such as F, G with edition 1 [read] modis (in the plural).
  30. In Vat. deest creaturarum, quod tamen exstat in mss.
    In the Vatican [edition] creaturarum is missing, which yet stands in the manuscripts.
  31. Libr. VII. de Trin. n. 39. — Ed. 1 cum uno alterove codice Et hoc pro Hoc. Mox ex pluribus mss. ut AHKTYZ etc. et ed. 1 quam loco quoniam substituimus.
    Book VII On the Trinity n. 39. — Edition 1 with one or another codex [reads] Et hoc in place of Hoc. Soon, from several manuscripts such as A, H, K, T, Y, Z etc., and edition 1, we have substituted quam in place of quoniam.
  32. Plurimi mss. cum ed. 1 exhibent particulam et, quae[?] in Vat. deest.
    Very many manuscripts with edition 1 exhibit the particle et, which[?] is missing in the Vatican [edition].
  33. Sequimur antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 addendo intus, quorum tamen aliqui ut FGISVW aa omittunt in.
    We follow the older codices with edition 1 in adding intus, of which yet some such as F, G, I, S, V, W, aa omit in.
  34. In cod. T deest communem.
    In codex T communem is missing.
  35. Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, rusticus. Paulo ante cod. T matre pro pulcro. Mox post Tertio ex nonnullis mss. ut P Q dd supplevimus modo. Dein post degenerare cod. dd addit id quod, pro quo plures codd. ut AFGHPQTZ ee ff cum ed. 1 minus bene id est, aliqui autem ut S V et.
    The Vatican [edition] with codex cc, the other manuscripts and edition 1 contradicting [it], [reads] rusticus. A little before, codex T [reads] matre in place of pulcro. Soon after Tertio, from some manuscripts such as P, Q, dd we have supplied modo. Then after degenerare codex dd adds id quod, in place of which several codices such as A, F, G, H, P, Q, T, Z, ee, ff, with edition 1, less well [read] id est, but some such as S, V [read] et.
  36. Mendum Vat. et cod. cc generante pro generato hic et paulo infra ex aliis mss. et ed. 1 castigavimus. Paulo ante cod. T cum ed. 1 creato loco creatura et cod. Y alius pro aliud. Mox pro lectione Vat. et in sola divina generatione degeneratio non est fide fere omnium antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus et sola divina generatio est, quae non degenerat; in qua propositione codd. O Y ponunt sed loco et, ac cod. L quae non degenerata est pro quae non degenerat.
    We have corrected the error of the Vatican [edition] and codex cc generante in place of generato here and a little below from the other manuscripts and edition 1. A little before, codex T with edition 1 [reads] creato in place of creatura, and codex Y alius in place of aliud. Soon, in place of the Vatican reading et in sola divina generatione degeneratio non est, on the faith of nearly all the older manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted et sola divina generatio est, quae non degenerat; in which proposition codices O, Y put sed in place of et, and codex L quae non degenerata est in place of quae non degenerat.
  37. Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 11.
    Cf. B. Albert, here a. 11.
← Dist. 19, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4Dist. 19, Part 2, Dubia→