← Back to Distinction 20

Dist. 20, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 20

Textus Latinus
p. 373

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum in divinis sit ordo naturae.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit ordo naturae. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per Augustinum, qui dicit in littera1, quod «cum dicitur Filius a Patre, non dicitur inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae».

2. Item, ubi est naturalis origo, ibi est naturalis ordo: sed in divinis est naturalis origo, ergo et naturalis ordo: ergo est ibi ordo naturae.

3. Item, ubi est causa et effectus, ibi est2 prius et posterius; sed ubicumque hoc, ibi est ordo naturae: ergo cum in divinis contingat reperire causam et effectum, sicut dicit Chrysostomus super principium ad Hebraeos3, et Damascenus primo libro, capitulo octavo: «Pater est causa Filii», patet etc.4

Contra: 1. Cuiuscumque est ordo, ipsum ordinatur: ergo si in divinis est ordo naturae, natura ordinatur; sed quod ordinatur distinguitur et numeratur5: ergo in divinis natura distinguitur et numeratur; sed hoc falsum: ergo etc.

2. Item, in divinis6 idem est natura et essentia, quia natura nomen est essentiale7; sed in divinis nullo modo ponitur ordo essentiae: ergo nec naturae.

p. 374

3. Item, ubi est ordo, ibi est prius et posterius8, ergo si in divinis est ordo naturae, ibi est prius et posterius secundum naturam; sed hoc nullo modo recipitur: ergo nec ordo naturae. Quod autem in divinis non sit prius et posterius secundum naturam, ostenditur sic: «Relativa sunt simul natura9», ergo Pater et Filius, secundum quod Pater et Filius, simul sunt natura; sed Pater secundum id quod est et secundum quod est Pater, simul est natura10, quia relationes in divinis non sunt advenientes, nec tantum sunt ratio referendi, sed etiam existendi11: ergo Pater et Filius secundum suas hypostases simul sunt natura, ergo non est ibi ordo naturae.

4. Item, in causis creatis videmus gradus, quod12 quanto substantia creata citius potest, velocius operatur; unde quaedam operantur in tempore, quaedam repente, quaedam subito; et illa causa, quae operatur subito, aliquando non praecedit tempore, sed natura. Si ergo Deus producit Filium secundum omnem nobilitatem et virtutem suae potentiae, et virtus suae potentiae infinitae maior est quam finitae: ergo non tantum simul duratione, sed etiam simul natura producit: ergo non est ibi ordo naturae.

5. Item, videmus in cognoscibilibus, quod quaedam habent sui cognitionem et cogitationem13 investigando et posterius tempore — et loquor de actuali, non de habituali — ut anima humana; et quaedam simul duratione, ut Angelus: ergo si Dei cognitio et dictio sive locutio non est accidens, sed multo nobilior et virtuosior14 quam omnis creatura, habet verbum intelligentiae, non tantum simul duratione, sed etiam natura: ergo etc.

CONCLUSIO.

In divinis recte dicitur esse ordo naturae, id est ordo naturalis originis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ordo dicitur esse15 alicuius dupliciter: aut sicut ordinati, aut sicut rationis ordinandi. Ordo in divinis sicut ordinati dicitur personae Patris vel16 Filii vel Spiritus sancti; sicut rationis ordinandi dicitur naturae. Natura enim dicit vim productivam, secundum quod dicit Philosophus17, quod «est vis insita rebus ex similibus similia procreans». In divinis autem est ordo secundum productionem, ideo18 dicitur ibi ordo naturae, id est naturalis originis. Unde genitivus ille non construitur subiective, sicut cum dicitur albedo Petri, sed ex vi declarationis essentiae, ut cum dicitur albedo claritatis vel homo auctoritatis. Et ideo resolvitur19 in duos, ut sit sensus: ordo naturae, id est naturalis originis.

Ad 1. Ex hoc patet primum quod obiicit20, quia obiicit, ac si diceretur ordo esse naturae ut rei ordinatae. Patet etiam secundum, quia21 essentia dicitur in absolutione omnimoda, non ut alterius principium; natura vero dicit ut alterius principium, unde dicit comparationem ad productionem sive emanationem naturalem.

Unde22 ulterius attendendum, quod ordo secundum naturalem originem in his inferioribus duo dicit, scilicet emanationem et antecessionem. Et ratio huius est, quia emanatio in his inferioribus ponit diversitatem substantialem. Unde omne quod emanat in his inferioribus, est effectus, et quod producit est causa; et ideo dicitur causa, cuius esse sequitur aliud23; et

p. 375

quia aliud in natura, ideo posterius in natura. In divinis autem est emanatio, ad quam non consequitur essentiae diversitas vel naturae, ideo nec prius nec posterius natura, sed simul natura. Et ideo in divinis non recipitur24 ratio causae vel effectus secundum Latinos, sed nomen principii, quamvis Graeci, extenso nomine, utantur nomine causae pro nomine principii. Et ideo in divinis est ordo naturae, non quo alter sit posterior altero, sed quo alter ex altero. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus in littera25.

Ad 3. Et ex hoc patet, quod tertio obiicitur; quamvis enim in creaturis ordo ponat posterioritatem naturae26, non tamen in Deo. Et ideo quamvis non sit ibi posterioritas, non sequitur, quin bene sit ibi ordo.

Ex his patent obiecta ad utramque partem. Concedendum est ergo, quod aliquo modo reperitur in divinis ordo naturae, sicut ostendunt primae rationes; tertia tamen27 deficit, quia nomen causae non reperitur in divinis secundum Latinos proprie.

Ad opp. 1. Quod obiicitur ad oppositum patet, quia ordo non est naturae ut rei ordinatae.

Ad opp. 2. Patet etiam quod obiicitur de divina28 essentia, quia est nomen absolutum nec importat rationem originis.

Ad opp. 3. Ultimum29 patet, quia non est ibi ordo naturae, quo alter prior altero, sed quo alter ex altero.

Scholion

I. Haec quaestio orta esse videtur ex verbo S. Augustini apud Magistrum (hic c. 3.) et in I. fundam., quod in divinis dicatur ordo naturae. Quodsi hoc intelligitur in eo sensu, quod ipsa natura ordinetur, procul dubio esset falsum, cum in natura non sit nec relatio nec ordo; si vero intelligitur, quatenus natura est ratio ordinandi, in sano sensu intelligi potest. Nam ordo originis, qui est inter Patrem et Filium, est per naturam. Et ex Alexandro notandum, quod alio modo dicitur natura, alio modo essentia, quia natura super essentiam addit rationem virtutis productivae sive principii agendi, et ratione huius connotati dici potest ordo naturae. Alii intelligunt ordo naturae in sensu originis naturalis, non voluntariae. De duplici significatione genitivi, quae est fundamentum responsionis, vide p. 374 nota 12.

II. In re principali omnes conveniunt; tamen Scot. (l. c.) cum nonnullis, et antiquis et modernis, in modo loquendi a ceteris discedit asserendo, ordinem originis importare etiam habitudinem secundum prius et posterius, quae tamen non sit durationis. De rationibus, quare sic loquitur, videsis Rada, controv. 5; Macedo, coll. 8. diff. 1. sect. 1. Sed Seraphicus cum S. Thoma, Richardo et plurimis aliis non admittit vocabulum prioris et posterioris in divinis. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; S. I. q. 42. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. — Aegid. R., sicut in q. praecedente. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 82. q. 2; a. 54. q. 5. n. 12. et q. 6. n. 26. et 34. — Biel, I. Sent. d. 9. q. 3.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II.

Whether in divine things there is an order of nature.

Secondly it is asked, whether in divine things there is an order of nature. And that there is, seems [to be the case]:

1. By Augustine, who says in the littera1, that «when the Son is said [to be] from the Father, an inequality of substance is not signified, but an order of nature».

2. Likewise, where there is a natural origin, there is a natural order; but in divine things there is a natural origin, therefore also a natural order: therefore there is there an order of nature.

3. Likewise, where there is cause and effect, there is2 prior and posterior; but wherever this is, there is an order of nature: therefore since in divine things it happens that cause and effect are found, as Chrysostom says on the opening of [the Letter] to the Hebrews3, and the Damascene in the first book, chapter eight: «The Father is the cause of the Son», it is plain etc.4

On the contrary: 1. Of whatever there is an order, that thing itself is ordered: therefore if in divine things there is an order of nature, the nature is ordered; but what is ordered is distinguished and numbered5: therefore in divine things the nature is distinguished and numbered; but this is false: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in divine things6 nature and essence are the same, because the name nature is essential7; but in divine things in no way is an order of essence posited: therefore neither of nature.

3. Likewise, where there is order, there is prior and posterior8; therefore if in divine things there is an order of nature, there is there prior and posterior according to nature; but this in no way is admitted: therefore neither an order of nature. That however in divine things there is no prior and posterior according to nature, is shown thus: «Relatives are simultaneous in nature9»; therefore the Father and the Son, insofar as they are Father and Son, are simultaneous in nature; but the Father, according to that which He is and according to the fact that He is Father, is simultaneous in nature10, because the relations in divine things are not supervenient, nor are they only the ground of referring, but also of existing11: therefore the Father and the Son according to their hypostases are simultaneous in nature; therefore there is not there an order of nature.

4. Likewise, in created causes we see degrees, in that12 the more swiftly a created substance can [act], the more rapidly it operates; whence some operate in time, some abruptly, some all at once; and that cause which operates all at once sometimes does not precede in time, but in nature. If therefore God produces the Son according to every nobility and virtue of His power, and the virtue of His infinite power is greater than [that] of finite [power]: therefore He produces [the Son] not only simultaneously in duration, but also simultaneously in nature: therefore there is not there an order of nature.

5. Likewise, we see in things knowable that some have cognition and thought of themselves13 by investigation and later in time — and I am speaking of actual, not habitual [cognition] — as the human soul; and some simultaneously in duration, as the Angel: therefore if God's cognition and uttering or speaking is not an accident, but much more noble and virtuous14 than every creature, He has the word of intelligence not only simultaneously in duration, but also in nature: therefore etc.

CONCLUSION.

In divine things there is rightly said to be an order of nature, that is, an order of natural origin.

I respond: It must be said that an order is said to be15 of something in two ways: either as of the things ordered, or as of the ground of ordering. An order in divine things, as of the things ordered, is said of the persons of the Father or16 of the Son or of the Holy Spirit; as of the ground of ordering, it is said of the nature. For nature expresses a productive force, in the sense in which the Philosopher says17 that it «is a force implanted in things, generating like from like». But in divine things there is an order according to production; therefore18 there is said to be there an order of nature, that is, of natural origin. Whence that genitive is not construed subjectively, as when one says the whiteness of Peter, but by force of declaration of essence, as when one says the whiteness of brightness or the man of authority. And therefore it is resolved19 into two, so that the sense is: order of nature, that is, of natural origin.

To 1. From this is plain the first thing that is objected20, because it objects as if order were said to be of nature as of an ordered thing. Likewise the second is plain, because21 essence is said in altogether absolute fashion, not as the principle of another; but nature expresses [something] as the principle of another, whence it expresses a comparison to natural production or emanation.

Whence22 further it must be noted that order according to natural origin in these inferior things expresses two things, namely emanation and antecession. And the reason for this is that emanation in these inferior things posits substantial diversity. Whence everything that emanates in these inferior things is an effect, and what produces is a cause; and therefore that is called a cause, of which the being follows another23; and because [it is] another in nature, therefore [it is] posterior in nature. But in divine things there is an emanation upon which there does not follow diversity of essence or of nature; therefore neither prior nor posterior in nature, but simultaneous in nature. And therefore in divine things the account of cause or effect is not admitted24 according to the Latins, but [only] the name of principle, although the Greeks, with the term extended, use the name of cause in place of the name of principle. And therefore in divine things there is an order of nature, not such that one is posterior to the other, but such that one is from the other. And this is what Augustine says in the littera25.

To 3. And from this is plain what is objected thirdly; for although in creatures order posits posteriority of nature26, yet not in God. And therefore although there is not there posteriority, it does not follow but that there is well there an order.

From these things the objections on either side are plain. It must therefore be granted that in some manner an order of nature is found in divine things, as the first reasons show; the third however27 fails, because the name of cause is not properly found in divine things according to the Latins.

To opp. 1. What is objected on the opposite [side] is plain, because order is not of nature as of an ordered thing.

To opp. 2. Likewise plain is what is objected concerning the divine28 essence, because it is an absolute name and does not import the account of origin.

To opp. 3. The last29 is plain, because there is not there an order of nature such that one is prior to the other, but such that one is from the other.

Scholion

I. This question seems to have arisen from the word of St. Augustine [cited] in the Master (here c. 3) and in the first fundamentum, that in divine things there is said to be an order of nature. But if this is understood in that sense, that nature itself is ordered, it would beyond doubt be false, since in nature there is neither relation nor order; but if it is understood inasmuch as nature is the ground of ordering, it can be understood in a sound sense. For the order of origin which is between the Father and the Son is through nature. And from Alexander it is to be noted that nature is said in one way, essence in another, because nature adds over essence the account of productive force or of a principle of acting, and by reason of this connotation an order of nature can be spoken of. Others understand order of nature in the sense of natural origin, not voluntary. Concerning the twofold signification of the genitive, which is the foundation of the response, see p. 374 note 12.

II. On the principal matter all agree; nevertheless Scotus (l. c.) with some — both ancient and modern — departs from the rest in his manner of speaking, asserting that the order of origin imports also a relation according to prior and posterior, which however is not of duration. Concerning the reasons why he speaks thus, see Rada, controv. 5; Macedo, coll. 8, diff. 1, sect. 1. But the Seraphic Doctor with St. Thomas, Richard, and very many others does not admit the term prior and posterior in divine things. — Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 46, m. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 2; Summa I, q. 42, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unic., a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 4. — Aegidius Romanus, as in the preceding question. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 82, q. 2; a. 54, q. 5, n. 12, and q. 6, nn. 26 and 34. — Biel, I Sent. d. 9, q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Hic, c. 3. circa finem.
    Here, c. 3, near the end.
  2. In pluribus mss. ut A T V X et ed. 1 omittitur est.
    In several manuscripts such as A T V X and edition 1, est is omitted.
  3. Homil. 2. n. 2: Si enim Pater eius est causa et auctor, multo magis eorum quae per ipsum facta sunt. — Verba Ioan. Damasc. de Fide orthod. loc. cit. sunt: Pater naturaliter Filii causa est.
    Homily 2, n. 2: For if the Father is His cause and author, much more [is He the cause and author] of those things which were made through Him. — The words of John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, loc. cit., are: The Father is naturally the cause of the Son.
  4. Vat. cum paucis codd. addit si hoc. Paulo infra post sed hoc in aliquibus mss. ut VXZ adiungitur est.
    The Vatican edition with a few codices adds si hoc ("if this"). A little below, after sed hoc, in some manuscripts such as VXZ est is added.
  5. In codd. aa bb additur principium, cuius mentionem facit et S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. ad 4.
    In codices aa bb principium ("principle") is added, of which St. Thomas also makes mention, here q. 1, a. 3, ad 4.
  6. In plurimis codd. et ed. 1 deest in divinis, sed propter rationem additam certe supplendum.
    In most codices and edition 1, in divinis ("in divine things") is missing, but on account of the reason added [in the argument] it is certainly to be supplied.
  7. Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 loco essentiale ponunt personale, quod vel est lapsus librariorum, vel signum, quod hic et in ipsa obiectione tertium divisionis membrum, ut non necessario enumerandum, omissum sit, sicut supra a nobis fide codicis X observatum est. — Paulo ante fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 delevimus Ad illud, quod Vat. verbis quod obiicitur praefigit. Mox cod. A notionale pro notionem.
    Most codices with editions 1, 2, 3 in place of essentiale put personale, which either is a slip of the copyists, or a sign that here and in the very objection a third member of the division — as not necessarily to be enumerated — has been omitted, as we have observed above on the testimony of codex X. — A little earlier, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and edition 1, we have deleted Ad illud, quod, which the Vatican edition prefixes to the words quod obiicitur. Next, codex A [reads] notionale in place of notionem.
  8. Praestamus antiquam lectionem mss. et ed. 1, dum Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc in hac propositione post ordo addit naturae, et verbo posterius adiungit secundum naturam, ac mox bis omittit secundum naturam, in qua lectione vis argumentationis debilitatur. — De principiis huius obiectionis cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Priori.
    We prefer the ancient reading of the manuscripts and edition 1, while the Vatican edition with the more recent codex cc, in this proposition after ordo adds naturae, and to the word posterius it joins secundum naturam, and next twice omits secundum naturam, in which reading the force of the argument is weakened. — On the principles of this objection cf. Aristotle, Categories, c. On the Prior.
  9. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Relativis.
    Aristotle, Categories, c. On Relatives.
  10. Mutila lectio Vat., in qua haec propositio sed Pater usque natura omittitur, resarcitur ope mss. et ed. 1. Mox cod. X ergo non pro nec.
    The mutilated reading of the Vatican edition, in which this proposition from sed Pater up to natura is omitted, is repaired by the help of the manuscripts and edition 1. Next codex X [reads] ergo non in place of nec.
  11. Cfr. supra d. 7. dub. 1.
    Cf. above d. 7, dub. 1.
  12. Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 quia. Paulo infra plures codd. ut CEGIIKRSU operatur loco operantur.
    The Vatican edition, against most codices and edition 1, [reads] quia. A little below, several codices such as CEGIIKRSU [read] operatur in place of operantur.
  13. Codd. inter se dissident; alii enim ut BDFIKS VWXY ponunt cognitionem, cod. O aliorum cognitionem, ceteri vero cum ed. 1 cogitationem, quae lectio et in se melior est et maiore numero mss. fulcitur; Vat. omittit et cogitationem. In cod. Z in cognoscentibus pro in cognoscibilibus. Paulo infra post habituali supple cum cod. bb cognitione. Dein codd. LO post duratione addunt sed posterius natura.
    The codices disagree among themselves: for some, such as BDFIKS VWXY, put cognitionem; codex O, aliorum cognitionem; the rest with edition 1 [put] cogitationem, which reading is in itself better and is supported by the greater number of manuscripts; the Vatican edition omits et cogitationem. In codex Z [there is] in cognoscentibus in place of in cognoscibilibus. A little below, after habituali, supply with codex bb cognitione. Then codices LO after duratione add sed posterius natura.
  14. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 nobilius et virtuosius.
    The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] nobilius et virtuosius.
  15. In aliquibus mss. ut ASTY etc. deest esse.
    In some manuscripts such as ASTY etc., esse is missing.
  16. Vat., antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, hic et paulo post et loco vel.
    The Vatican edition, against the resistance of the older manuscripts and edition 1, here and a little after [reads] et in place of vel.
  17. Vide supra pag. 134 nota 10.
    See above p. 134, note 10.
  18. Aliqui codd. ut LO et ideo, alii ut KSV ee et loco ideo; plures ut AFIIIT bb cc cum sex primis edd. id est pro ideo. Paulo infra, postulantibus mss. et ed. 1, loco parietis substituimus Petri, ubi dein a codd. aa bb adiungitur quia ordo non ordinatur vel ordo non est illud quod ordinatur. Mox post essentiae incongrue plures mss. ut B E K V addunt id est naturalis originis, ac dein fide mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus verba vel homo auctoritatis.
    Some codices such as LO [read] et ideo; others such as KSV ee [read] et in place of ideo; several such as AFIIIT bb cc with the first six editions [read] id est in place of ideo. A little below, on the demand of the manuscripts and edition 1, in place of parietis we have substituted Petri, where then by codices aa bb there is added quia ordo non ordinatur ("because order is not ordered") or ordo non est illud quod ordinatur ("order is not that which is ordered"). Next, after essentiae, incongruously several manuscripts such as B E K V add id est naturalis originis ("that is, of natural origin"), and then on the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied the words vel homo auctoritatis ("or man of authority").
  19. Supple: genitivus. De significatione genitivi cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. dub. 3, et infra d. 31. dub. 5, ac d. 41. dub. 2; hoc ultimo loco ait: Et si obiiciatur, quod unus genitivus non construitur ex illa vi (declarationis essentiae); dicendum, quod verum est, nisi habeat virtutem duorum. Unde bene dicitur: vir sanguinis et homo auctoritatis, similiter: electio gratiae, id est gratuitae bonitatis.
    Supply: the genitive. On the signification of the genitive cf. above d. 3, p. II, dub. 3, and below d. 31, dub. 5, and d. 41, dub. 2; in this last place [Bonaventure] says: And if it is objected that a single genitive is not construed by that force (of declaration of essence), it must be said that it is true, unless it has the force of two. Whence it is rightly said: a man of blood and a man of authority; likewise: an election of grace, that is, of gratuitous goodness.
  20. Vat. obiicitur, sed contra mss., quorum plures ut ISV bb cum ed. 1 dein perperam omittunt quia obiicit.
    The Vatican edition [reads] obiicitur, but against the manuscripts, of which several such as ISV bb with edition 1 then wrongly omit quia obiicit.
  21. Fide plurium mss. et ed. 1 substituimus hic quia pro ambiguo quod, et paulo infra, postulantibus vetustioribus codd. et ed. 1, posuimus unde dicit loco ideo dicit.
    On the testimony of several manuscripts and edition 1 we have here substituted quia in place of the ambiguous quod, and a little below, on the demand of the older codices and edition 1, we have put unde dicit in place of ideo dicit.
  22. Aliqui codd. ut FG Y cum ed. 1 omittunt Unde, et mox in nonnullis codd. ut SW post ordo additur substantiae.
    Some codices such as FG Y with edition 1 omit Unde, and next in some codices such as SW, after ordo, substantiae ("of substance") is added.
  23. Vide supra pag. 120 nota 7, ubi excipias ed. 1, quae cum Vat. legit: ad cuius esse etc. — Paulo infra post posterius praepositio in deest in cod. Z et ed. 1. Mox plures codd. ut ASWY sequitur loco consequitur.
    See above p. 120 note 7, except for edition 1, which with the Vatican edition reads: ad cuius esse etc. — A little below, after posterius, the preposition in is missing in codex Z and edition 1. Next several codices such as ASWY [read] sequitur in place of consequitur.
  24. Vat. cum pluribus mss. accipitur, sed obstant alii codd. ut GHZ aa bb etc. cum ed. 1 et usus loquendi.
    The Vatican edition with several manuscripts [reads] accipitur, but the other codices such as GHZ aa bb etc. with edition 1 — and the usage of speaking — stand against [it].
  25. Hic, c. 3. circa finem: Nec cum dicitur Filius a Patre genitus, ostenditur inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae, non quo alter prior esset altero, sed quo alter est ex altero.
    Here, c. 3, near the end: Nor when the Son is said to be begotten by the Father is an inequality of substance shown, but an order of nature, not such that one is prior to the other, but such that one is from the other.
  26. Ex multis mss. ut ACFGHILORSTW etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus naturae, et paulo infra ex fere omnibus codd. et ed. 1 ideo. Mox cod. V possit ibi esse ordo pro sit ibi ordo.
    From many manuscripts such as ACFGHILORSTW etc. and edition 1 we have supplied naturae, and a little below from nearly all the codices and edition 1 [we have supplied] ideo. Next codex V [reads] possit ibi esse ordo ("there could be an order there") in place of sit ibi ordo ("there is an order there").
  27. A vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 abest ratio, quod Vat. hic addit.
    From the older manuscripts and edition 1 ratio ("reason") is absent, which the Vatican edition here adds.
  28. Multi codd. etiam hic, sicut in ipsa obiectione, omittunt divina, loco cuius ed. 1 habet natura et.
    Many codices here also, as in the objection itself, omit divina; in place of which edition 1 has natura et.
  29. In cod. Y additur etiam. Mox post prior ed. 1 adiungit vel posterior.
    In codex Y etiam is added. Next after prior edition 1 adds vel posterior ("or posterior").
← Dist. 20, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 20, Dubia→