← Back to Distinction 22

Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 22

Textus Latinus
p. 392

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum Deus habeat unum solum nomen, an plura.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Deus habeat unum solum nomen, an plura. Et quod plura, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Scripturae, quae ipsum diversis nominibus appellat. Exodi sexto1: Nomen meum magnum Adonai non indicavi eis. Exodi decimo quinto2: Omnipotens nomen eius. Et Psalmo3: Dominus nomen illi. Si ergo ista sunt diversa nomina, patet auctoritate Scripturae, quod Deus habet plura nomina.

2. Item, Dionysius in libro de Divinis Nominibus4 plura assignat nomina Dei; Ambrosius similiter in libro de Trinitate5, et Magister similiter in littera.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ratione videtur; quia nullum nomen sufficienter exprimit esse divinum nec in se nec in comparatione ad nostrum6 intellectum. Quod patet, quia omnis perfectio et est et intelligitur esse in Deo; et nullum nomen exprimit omnis conditionis perfectionem: ergo cum non possit fieri per unum, indigemus pluribus.

4. Item, illud in quo res conveniunt et in quo differunt, aut necesse est pluribus nominibus7 dicere, aut necesse est unum aequivocari; sed aequivocatio generat ambiguitatem et tollenda est: ergo congruum est diversis exprimere nominibus. Cum ergo in divinis sit commune et proprium et hoc in pluribus, necesse est, plura nomina esse.

5. Item, quamvis una sit prima veritas8, tamen articuli fidei sunt multi: si ergo fides de Deo multos articulos credit, et quod corde creditur ad iustitiam oportet ore confiteri ad salutem9, multos potest et debet articulos ore confiteri; sed multi articuli uno nomine non expresse et explicite exprimuntur: ergo oportet habere plura nomina.

Contra: 1. Hilarius10: «Non sermoni res, sed rei sermo est subiectus»: ergo cum in Deo sit omnimoda realis unitas, ergo et vocis et nominis.

p. 393

2. Item, omne quod est in Deo, est Deus, ergo quod significat aliquid quod est in Deo, est Deus; sed Deus unus est: ergo omnia11 divina nomina habent unum significatum; sed omnia talia sunt synonyma, nominibus autem synonymis non plus dicitur pluribus quam uno: ergo videtur, quod omnia alia ab uno sint praeter necessaria.

3. Item, multiplicatio divinorum nominum aut venit a parte rei, aut a parte intellectuum, aut a parte effectuum. Si a parte rei, tunc bonitas et veritas non sunt nomina diversa, quia res omnino una; si a parte effectuum, tunc ergo unitas et aeternitas non sunt diversa, cum non connotent effectum; si a parte intellectuum solum: ergo videtur, quod huiusmodi nomina cassa sint et vana, cum non habeant aliquid respondens12 in re.

4. Item, in Scriptura nomen Dei singulariter proponitur, sive addatur uni, ut cum dicitur: Dominus nomen illi13, sive pluribus, ut cum dicitur: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti: ergo cum eadem sit ratio rei et unius rei, et nominis et unius nominis14, ergo Deus tantum unum habet nomen.

Conclusio. Deum nominamus modo uno nomine, modo pluribus, iuxta diversos modos, quibus nomen accipitur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in nomine tria sunt, scilicet vox et significatio et ratio innotescendi. Unde et nomen multipliciter accipitur: aliquando pro voce significante, ut cum dicitur: Petrus est nomen Apostoli; et sic constat, quod in Deo sunt plura nomina. Aliquando nomen accipitur pro re significata, ut cum dicitur: bonum et honestum sunt idem nomine; et sic in divinis quodam modo est dicere nomen unum, quodam modo plura. Si enim res significata dicatur essentialiter, sic omnia unum; si personaliter, sic plures et plura nomina correspondentia. Aliquando nomen accipitur pro ipso notamine sive ratione innotescendi; et sic dicendum, quod15 quodam modo nomen unum, quodam modo plura.

Si enim accipitur ratio innotescendi ex parte Dei, sic innotescit per virtutem, quae una et magna est; et sic unum nomen Dei est et magnum sive maximum. Unde Jeremiae decimo16: Magnus es tu, et magnum nomen tuum; quantum ad rationem innotescendi sive virtutem, per quam innotescit, secundum quod dicitur in Psalmo17: Notus in Iudaea Deus, in Israel magnum nomen eius.

Si autem accipiatur ratio innotescendi ratione18 effectuum sive creaturarum, sic diversa sunt nomina. Nam Deus innotescit nobis tripliciter, scilicet per causalitatem, per ablationem et per excellentiam19; et secundum hoc est multitudo nominum. Si enim nominetur per causalitatem, multa sunt nomina, quia multos habet effectus; si per ablationem, multa sunt nomina, quia multa removentur, scilicet omnia creata; si per excellentiam, multa, quia in multis, in omnibus scilicet conditionibus nobilitatis, excedit creaturas20.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

4. Ex praedictis patent obiecta. Quod enim obiicit, quod Scriptura nomen Dei exprimit singulariter; dicendum, quod Scriptura, ut plurimum nomen Dei praedicat magnum, admirabile21, sanctum et laudabile; et sic non loquitur de nomine, secundum quod vox, sed secundum quod ratio innotescendi a parte Dei; et sic unum. Tamen non sequitur: loquitur singulariter, ergo unum solum, quia frequenter quod dicitur singulariter dicitur et universaliter, ut patet in multis exemplis in Lege, cum dicebatur: homo de domo Israel22, vel homo qui fecerit hoc vel illud, intelligebatur de quolibet homine.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unitas23 est a parte rei; dicendum, quod pluralitas a parte rei est.

p. 394

ut accipiatur res pro persona. Si autem pro natura, etsi non sit pluralitas in se, tamen24 in quantum innotescit. Et ideo plura nomina.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nomina talia sunt synonyma; dicendum, quod tunc sunt nomina synonyma, cum differunt a parte vocis solum. Hic autem est differentia secundum rationem innotescendi, et ideo non sunt synonyma. Alia ratio dicta fuit supra, distinctione octava in primo problemate.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si venit a parte intelligendi solum, ergo talia nomina sunt vana; dicendum, quod non venit ab hoc solum, quoniam illi rationi innotescendi respondet pluralitas in creaturis, et in Deo respondet vera unitas complectens illam totam pluralitatem. Unde quia intelligimus Dei potentiam et sapientiam per diversa, diversimode nominamus; et quia in Deo est vere sapientia et potentia, ideo non est ibi vanitas.

Scholion

I. Distinguit S. Doctor in termino tria, scilicet vocem significantem, rem significatam, rationem innotescendi. Ad illustrandum hoc ultimum membrum vulgo exemplum hoc afferebatur in notificatione hominis, quod factus sit ex humo. Divina autem essentia, in se una, simplicissima et infinita, est ratio innotescendi respectu ad plura, cum intellectus noster illam unam summam perfectionem non unico conceptu exprimere possit, sed alium conceptum formet de infinito illo uno sub ratione sapientiae, alium sub ratione bonitatis, et sic de aliis attributis. — Iuxta dictam distinctionem quaestio solvitur quinque propositionibus principalibus et nonnullis adiunctis. Pro explicatione servire potest supra d. 8. p. II. q. 2; et quoad solut. ad 2. 3. ibid. p. I. a. I. q. 1. circa fin.; S. Thom., S. I. q. 13. a. 4; S. c. Gent. I. c. 35.

II. Notandum, quod in solutione oppositorum ordo argumentorum mutatus est. Opposit. 1. non solvitur explicite, cum principia solutionis iam exhibita sint in corp. Prima solutio respicit 4. opposit.; secunda vero respicit 3. opposit. quoad primum membrum. Deinde sequitur solut. ad 2; et ultimo loco ad tertium membrum 3. oppositi.

III. In conclusione omnes conveniunt. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 48. m. 2. a. 1. et m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 8. a. 3; S. p. I. tr. 14. q. 59. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 73. q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II.

Whether God has one only name, or several.

Secondly it is asked, whether God has one only name, or several. And that [he has] several, it seems:

1. By the authority of Scripture, which calls him by diverse names. Exodus 61: My great name Adonai I did not show to them. Exodus 152: Almighty is his name. And in the Psalm3: The Lord is his name. If therefore these are diverse names, it is clear by the authority of Scripture that God has several names.

2. Likewise, Dionysius in the book On the Divine Names4 assigns several names to God; Ambrose likewise in the book On the Trinity5, and the Master likewise in the text [of the Sentences].

3. Likewise, this same [point] is seen by reason; since no name sufficiently expresses the divine being neither in itself nor in comparison to our6 intellect. Which is clear, since every perfection both is and is understood to be in God; and no name expresses the perfection of every condition: therefore since it cannot be done by one, we have need of several.

4. Likewise, that in which things agree and that in which they differ must be expressed either by several names7, or it is necessary that one [name] be used equivocally; but equivocation generates ambiguity and is to be removed: therefore it is fitting to express [them] by diverse names. Since therefore in divine matters there is what is common and what is proper, and this in several [respects], it is necessary that there be several names.

5. Likewise, although there is one first truth8, yet the articles of faith are many: if therefore faith concerning God believes many articles, and what is believed in the heart unto justice must be confessed with the mouth unto salvation9, one can and ought to confess many articles with the mouth; but many articles are not expressly and explicitly expressed by one name: therefore it is necessary to have several names.

On the contrary: 1. Hilary10: «It is not the thing that is subject to discourse, but discourse to the thing»: therefore since in God there is altogether real unity, therefore [there is unity] also of speech and of name.

2. Likewise, everything which is in God, is God; therefore that which signifies something which is in God, is God; but God is one: therefore all11 divine names have one signified; but all such [names] are synonyms, and by synonymous names no more is said by several than by one: therefore it seems that all [names] other than one are beyond what is necessary.

3. Likewise, the multiplication of divine names comes either from the side of the thing, or from the side of the intellects [understanding], or from the side of the effects. If from the side of the thing, then goodness and truth are not diverse names, since the thing is altogether one; if from the side of the effects, then likewise unity and eternity are not diverse, since they do not connote an effect; if from the side of the intellects only: then it seems that names of this sort are empty and vain, since they have nothing corresponding12 in the thing.

4. Likewise, in Scripture the name of God is set forth in the singular, whether [the name] be added to one [person], as when it is said: The Lord is his name13, or to several, as when it is said: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: therefore since the account of a thing and of one thing, and of a name and of one name, is the same14, therefore God has only one name.

Conclusion. We name God now by one name, now by several, according to the diverse modes by which "name" is taken.

I respond: It must be said that in a name there are three [things], namely the vocal sound, the signification, and the ground of making known (ratio innotescendi). Whence "name" is also taken in many ways: sometimes for the signifying vocal sound, as when it is said: Peter is the name of the Apostle; and so it is established that in God there are several names. Sometimes "name" is taken for the thing signified, as when it is said: the good and the honourable are the same in name; and so in divine matters in a certain way one may say [there is] one name, in a certain way several. For if the thing signified be spoken of essentially, then all [the names are] one; if personally, then [there are] several and several corresponding names. Sometimes "name" is taken for the very note of recognition or the ground of making known; and so it must be said that15 in a certain way the name [is] one, in a certain way several.

For if the ground of making known be taken on the side of God, [God] is so made known by [his] power, which is one and great; and so the one name of God is also great or greatest. Whence Jeremiah 1016: Great are you, and great is your name; as regards the ground of making known or the power through which he is made known, according to what is said in the Psalm17: God is known in Judah, in Israel his name is great.

But if the ground of making known be taken by reason18 of the effects or creatures, then the names are diverse. For God is made known to us in three ways, namely by causality, by removal (ablatio), and by excellence19; and according to this there is a multitude of names. For if he be named by causality, the names are many, since he has many effects; if by removal, the names are many, since many [things] are removed [from him], namely all created [things]; if by excellence, [the names are] many, since in many [things] — namely in all conditions of nobility — he exceeds creatures20.

To the arguments on the opposite side:

4. From what has been said the [arguments] objected are clear. For as regards what is objected, that Scripture expresses the name of God in the singular; it must be said that Scripture for the most part predicates the name of God [as] great, admirable21, holy and praiseworthy; and so it does not speak of "name" as vocal sound, but as the ground of making known on the side of God; and so [it is] one. Yet it does not follow: it speaks in the singular, therefore [the name is] one only, since frequently what is said in the singular is also said universally, as is clear in many examples in the Law, when it was said: a man of the house of Israel22, or a man who shall do this or that, [and] it was understood of any man whatever.

1. To that which is objected, that the unity23 is on the side of the thing; it must be said that the plurality is [also] on the side of the thing,

p. 394

so that "thing" be taken for "person". But if [it be taken] for the nature, although there be no plurality in itself, yet24 [there is plurality] insofar as it is made known. And therefore [there are] several names.

2. To that which is objected, that such names are synonyms; it must be said that names are then synonymous, when they differ on the side of vocal sound only. But here there is a difference according to the ground of making known, and therefore they are not synonymous. Another reasoning was stated above, in the eighth distinction, in the first problem.

3. To that which is objected, that if [the multiplication] comes from the side of understanding only, then such names are vain; it must be said that it does not come from this alone, since to that ground of making known there corresponds plurality in creatures, and in God there corresponds true unity comprehending that whole plurality. Whence since we understand God's power and wisdom through diverse [things], we name [them] in diverse modes; and since in God there is truly wisdom and power, therefore there is no vanity there.

Scholion

I. The holy Doctor distinguishes three [things] in a term, namely the signifying vocal sound, the thing signified, [and] the ground of making known. To illustrate this last member the example was commonly adduced of the naming of "man" (homo), [namely] that he was made from earth (humus). The divine essence, however, in itself one, most simple and infinite, is the ground of making known with respect to several [names], since our intellect cannot express that one supreme perfection by a single concept, but forms one concept of that one infinite [essence] under the aspect of wisdom, another under the aspect of goodness, and so of the other attributes. — According to the said distinction the question is solved by five principal propositions and several adjoined ones. For explanation, [the following] can serve: above, d. 8, p. II, q. 2; and as to the solutions to [arguments] 2 and 3, [see] there, p. I, a. I, q. 1, near the end; St. Thomas, S. I, q. 13, a. 4; S. contra Gentiles I, c. 35.

II. It is to be noted that in the solution to the opposites the order of the arguments has been changed. Opposite 1 is not explicitly solved, since the principles of [its] solution have already been set forth in the body. The first solution regards opposite 4; the second regards opposite 3 as to its first member. Then follows the solution to [opposite] 2; and in the last place [the solution] to the third member of opposite 3.

III. In the conclusion all agree. Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 48, m. 2, a. 1, and m. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 8, a. 3; S. p. I, tr. 14, q. 59, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unic., a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2. — Aegid. R. (Giles of Rome), here 1 princ., q. 2. — Henr. of Ghent, S. a. 73, q. 9. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 3.
    Verse 3.
  2. Vers. 3.
    Verse 3.
  3. [Psalm.] 67, 5.
    [Psalm] 67:5.
  4. Cap. I. § 8, ubi nomina generatim recensentur, quae Deo et a sacra Scriptura v. g. Ego sum qui sum, vita, lux etc. et a sapientibus v. g. bonum, pulcrum etc. attribuuntur.
    C. 1, § 8, where the names that are attributed to God — both by sacred Scripture, e.g. I am who am, life, light etc., and by the wise, e.g. good, beautiful etc. — are reviewed in general.
  5. Id est, II. de Fide ad Gratianum, in Prologo; vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Cod. W ponit Augustinum et ed. 1 Anselmum pro Ambrosius. Mox post Magister unus alterve codex ut SV omittit similiter.
    That is, [Ambrose,] On the Faith to Gratian, II, in the Prologue; see here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Codex W puts Augustinum, and edition 1 Anselmum, in place of Ambrosius. Soon after, after Magister, one or another codex such as S, V omits similiter.
  6. In Vat. et cod. cc desideratur nostrum, quod in ceteris mss. et ed. 1 invenitur. Paulo infra cod. X perfectionis conditionem pro conditionis perfectionem.
    In the Vatican edition and codex cc, nostrum ("our") is wanting, which is found in the other manuscripts and in edition 1. A little below, codex X [reads] perfectionis conditionem in place of conditionis perfectionem.
  7. Praeferimus lectionem codd. G M et ed. 1 ponendo nominibus pro modis, quam contextus exigit; vel si magis placet, legas cum codd. aa bb modis vel nominibus. Mox post ambiguitatem cod. X quae loco et; dein post congruum est in cod. H additur pluribus et ac in cod. 1 post diversis adiungitur modis dicere et.
    We prefer the reading of codices G, M and edition 1 in setting nominibus ("by names") in place of modis ("by modes"), which the context requires; or if you prefer, read with codices aa, bb: modis vel nominibus ("by modes or names"). Soon after, after ambiguitatem, codex X [reads] quae in place of et; then after congruum est in codex H is added pluribus, and in codex 1 after diversis is appended modis dicere et.
  8. Antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 contra Vat. in hac propositione exhibent prima, quamvis aliqui eorum vel verbis transpositis legant una prima sit veritas vel una male omittant.
    The more ancient codices together with edition 1, against the Vatican edition, exhibit in this proposition prima ("first"), although some of them, with the words transposed, read una prima sit veritas ("there is one first truth"), or wrongly omit una.
  9. Rom. 10, 10. — Paulo infra post expresse cod. bb nec pro et, qui et dein cum cod. aa ponit debet loco oportet.
    Romans 10:10. — A little below, after expresse, codex bb [reads] nec in place of et; which [codex] also then, with codex aa, sets debet in place of oportet.
  10. Libr. IV. de Trin. n. 14.
    [Hilary,] On the Trinity IV, n. 14.
  11. Ex mss. et sex primis edd. supplevimus omnia. Paulo supra post primum ergo in cod. T repetitur omne. In fine huius argumenti Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 habet non sint necessaria loco sint praeter necessaria.
    From the manuscripts and the first six editions we have supplied omnia ("all"). A little above, after the first ergo, in codex T omne is repeated. At the end of this argument, the Vatican edition, against the witness of the manuscripts and edition 1, has non sint necessaria ("are not necessary") in place of sint praeter necessaria ("are beyond what is necessary").
  12. Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 correspondens.
    The Vatican edition, against very many codices and edition 1, [reads] correspondens.
  13. Psalm. 67, 5; Matth. 28, 19. — Paulo ante ex plurimis antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus addatur loco additur, et codd. GHM cum ed. 1 post singulariter bene addunt semper.
    Psalm 67:5; Matthew 28:19. — A little before, from very many of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted addatur in place of additur, and codices G, H, M with edition 1, after singulariter, rightly add semper ("always").
  14. Aristot., IV. Metaph. text. 3 (III. c. 2): Idem enim et unus homo, et homo et ens homo; et non diversum aliquid ostendit secundum dictionem repetitam homo et ens, homo et unus homo.
    Aristotle, Metaphysics IV, text 3 (III, c. 2): For "one man" and "man" and "a being [that is a] man" are the same; and the repeated expression "man and a being", "man and one man", does not point out something diverse.
  15. Vat. cum cod. cc, sed aliis codd. et ed. 1 refragantibus, omittit quod.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc, but with the other codices and edition 1 resisting, omits quod ("that").
  16. Vers. 6, post quem textum in Vat. et cod. cc additur id est. Paulo ante cod. Y et loco sive, dum cod. W particulam et ibi verbo magnum praefixam omittit.
    Verse 6, after which text in the Vatican edition and codex cc is added id est ("that is"). A little before, codex Y [reads] et in place of sive, while codex W omits the particle et prefixed there to the word magnum.
  17. [Psalm.] 75, 2.
    [Psalm] 75:2.
  18. Cod. M cum ed. 1 a parte.
    Codex M with edition 1 [reads] a parte ("from the side of").
  19. Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 7. § 3, cuius verba vide supra pag. 77 nota 10.
    Dionysius, On the Divine Names, c. 7, § 3, the words of which see above on page 77, note 10.
  20. Cod. aa addit: Quartus modus potest addi, ut dicatur, quod innotescit nobis Deus per similitudinem; et sic similiter sunt multa nomina, ut leo, agnus, lapis et huiusmodi. Eadem verba inveniuntur in cod. bb ad marginem. Praedicti duo codices pro quolibet trium modorum cognoscendi Deum addunt exempla; sic pro via causalitatis post nomina adiiciunt ut creator, conditor et huiusmodi; pro via ablationis post nomina ponunt ut incorporeus, immensus et huiusmodi; pro via excellentiae post nomina addunt ut supersubstantialis, superbonus et huiusmodi. Cod. X hic addit verbum sunt. Cod. Y in principio huius propositionis habet nominatur pro nominetur.
    Codex aa adds: A fourth mode can be added, namely that it be said that God is made known to us by likeness; and so in like manner there are many names, such as lion, lamb, stone and the like. The same words are found in codex bb in the margin. The said two codices add examples for each of the three modes of knowing God; thus for the way of causality, after nomina, they add as creator, founder and the like; for the way of removal, after nomina, they put as incorporeal, immense and the like; for the way of excellence, after nomina, they add as supersubstantial, supergood and the like. Codex X here adds the word sunt ("are"). Codex Y at the beginning of this proposition has nominatur ("is named", indicative) for nominetur (subjunctive).
  21. Plures mss. ut ASTV etc. cum ed. 1 mirabile. Paulo infra termino unum in cod. W praefigitur est.
    Several manuscripts such as A, S, T, V etc. with edition 1 [read] mirabile ("wonderful"). A little below, before the term unum, codex W prefixes est.
  22. Levit. 17, 8. — Fide mss. antiquiorum et ed. 1 restituimus domo.
    Leviticus 17:8. — On the witness of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 we have restored domo ("house").
  23. Vat. cum cod. cc pluralitas, sed contra scopum obiectionis et alios codd. cum ed. 1. Mox cod. 1, verbis transpositis, dicendum, quod si accipiatur res pro persona, pluralitas a parte rei est.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] pluralitas ("plurality"), but against the scope of the objection and against the other codices together with edition 1. Soon after, codex 1, with the words transposed, [reads] dicendum, quod si accipiatur res pro persona, pluralitas a parte rei est ("it must be said that if 'thing' be taken for 'person', the plurality is on the side of the thing").
  24. Supple: est, quod codd. Z aa bb particulae tamen praefigunt. — Paulo infra ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus nomina, et mox fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus differunt pro inepto dicuntur, ac paulo infra supplevimus sunt. — Et infra: nempe p. I. q. 1. ad ult. — Cod. T una veritas, cum quo concordat cod. S, qui, omisso vera, ponit veritas; cod. Y, omisso vera, habet unitas, et codd. aa bb post unitas addunt sive veritas. — Ed. 1 adiungit sed veritas et unitas, quae et paulo ante adverbio vere praemittit unum.
    Supply est, which codices Z, aa, bb prefix to the particle tamen. — A little below, from very many manuscripts and edition 1 we have added nomina, and soon after, on the witness of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted differunt for the inept dicuntur, and a little below we have supplied sunt. — And below: namely [d. 8] p. I, q. 1, near the end. — Codex T [reads] una veritas, with which codex S agrees, which, omitting vera, sets veritas; codex Y, omitting vera, has unitas, and codices aa, bb after unitas add sive veritas. — Edition 1 appends sed veritas et unitas, which [edition] also a little before prefixes unum to the adverb vere.
← Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 3→