Dist. 27, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 27
QUAESTIO II. Utrum Verbum aeternum connotet aliquid ex parte creaturae.
Secundo quaeritur de Verbi aeterni connotatione, et est quaestio, utrum Verbum aeternum connotet aliquid ex parte creaturae. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Primo auctoritate Psalmi1: Dixit et facta sunt; et primo Genesis: Dixit Deus: fiat, et factum est: ergo cum dicere non sit aliud quam verbum proferre, et ad dicere sequatur facere, et ad facere ipsum factum, ergo ad verbum sequitur factum: ergo videtur, quod Verbum connotet aliquid creatum. Si tu dicas, hoc non esse dictum de dicere, prout accipitur aeternaliter et respondet ei Verbum aeternum2, sed prout accipitur temporaliter et respondet ei verbum creatum; contra: Augustinus undecimo Confessionum3: «Verbo tibi coaeterno dicis quaecumque dicis, et fit quidquid dicis, nec aliter quam dicendo facis»: ergo videtur quod illud sit intelligendum de Verbo aeterno.
2. Item, Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum4 tractans illud Evangelii: In principio erat Verbum, dicit: «Melius in hoc loco Verbum interpretamur, ut significetur non tantum ad Patrem respectus, sed etiam ad ea quae facta sunt operativa potentia»: ergo Verbum significat respectum ad facta. Sed constat, quod de Verbo aeterno loquitur, scilicet quod erat in principio.
3. Item, super illud Psalmi: Semel locutus est Deus, dicit Augustinus5: id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit. Si ergo Verbum importat non tantum generationem, immo etiam dispositionem omnium, ergo ad omnia dicit respectum.
4. Item, Anselmus in Monologio6: «Cum summus Spiritus se ipsum dicit, dicit omnia quae facta sunt»: ergo eodem Verbo dicit se et creaturas. Sed Verbum dicit respectum ad illud quod per Verbum dicitur: ergo non tantum ad Patrem, sed etiam ad ea quae facta sunt dicit respectum: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. Omne quod connotat temporale, dicitur temporaliter; sed Verbum non dicitur temporaliter in divinis, quia in principio erat Verbum7: ergo Verbum non connotat temporale, quia omnis creatura vel creatum temporaliter incipit, accipiendo large tempus: ergo Verbum nihil connotat in comparatione ad creaturas. Si tu dicas, quod connotat in
habitu, non in actu, sicut aeterna dispositio et praedestinatio; contra: si nunquam aliquid fieret vel fiendum esset, adhuc Pater se ipsum diceret, ergo et Verbum mente8 conciperet: ergo Verbum esset, si nunquam ulla creatura esset futura vel praesens: ergo etc.
2. Item, dicere Verbum est necessarium, quoniam, sicut in praecedentibus probatum fuit, distinctione sexta9, productio personae est necessaria; sed productio creaturae est voluntaria, unde cum producit eam, posset non producere. Si ergo simpliciter necessarium non claudit in se contingens, Verbum non dicit respectum aliquem ad creaturam.
3. Item, Creator et creatura summe sunt distantia, ergo in nullo communicant; si ergo Verbum Patris est unum, et summe unum, ergo illo Verbo cum dicatur Deus Pater, impossibile est creaturam dici. Ergo si creatura non dicitur illo Verbo, non ergo dicit respectum ad creaturam.
4. Item, si Verbum dicit respectum ad creaturam, ergo poterit dici Verbum creaturae; quod expresse negat Anselmus in Monologio10: «Verbum quo creaturam dicit, nequaquam est Verbum creaturae». Si tu dicas mihi, quod dicit respectum ad dicentem principaliter, unde non potest dici nisi Verbum Patris; eadem ratione, cum Spiritus dicat respectum ad spirantem principaliter, non poterit dici: spiritus Moysis, vel spiritus Eliae; quod est contra Scripturam11.
5. Item, si dicit respectum ad creaturam, cum omne nomen, dicens respectum ad creaturam, sit essentiale, non personale; Verbum nullo modo dicitur personaliter; quod est contra praedeterminata12.
CONCLUSIO. Verbum aeternum importat etiam respectum ad creaturam per modum exemplaritatis dispositivae et virtutis operativae.
Respondeo: Dicendum est, sicut dicit Anselmus13, quod tunc verbum dicitur vel generatur, quando mente similitudo vel imago alicuius cognoscibilis concipitur; et verbum illud respicit, quod respicit similitudo concepta. Quoniam igitur mens nostra non simul nec uno et eodem videt se et alia, ideo alio verbo dicit se, et alio alia, immo aliis: tot enim in ea sunt verba, quot intellecta. Summus autem Spiritus in Patre se et omnia uno aspectu et eodem cognoscit; et cum intelligit se et alia, cognoscit se ut aliorum principium. Et quia in ipso vis conceptiva concipit similitudinem, omnia circumplectentem sub intuitu uno sive aspectu, concipit sive generat unum Verbum, quod est similitudo Patris imitativa et similitudo rerum exemplativa et similitudo operativa; et ita tenet quasi medium, et dicitur Pater operari per Verbum; et ulterius ipsi Verbo attribuitur, quod sit Dei virtus et Dei sapientia14.
Et ita patet, quod Verbum divinum dicit respectum ad Patrem, dicentem ipsum, a quo generatur, per omnia consimilem. Dicit etiam respectum ad creaturam per modum exemplaritatis dispositivae et virtutis operativae. Et quia ista non dicunt respectum in actu, sed solum in habitu, dico, quod sicut exemplar dicit respectum in habitu, et potentia similiter — quia multa scit Deus et potest, quae non facit — sic et Verbum aeternum. Unde sicut supra15 dictum est de Dono, ita etiam nunc intelligendum de Verbo.
Ad oppositum:
Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, quod dicit respectum; sed non connotat effectum actualiter. Unde prima ratio16, quae probat de effectu actuali, solvenda est, sicut in opponendo tactum est, quia ibi loquitur de dicere, secundum quod ei respondet verbum creatum, quod est quasi verbum prolatum; sed tamen illud dicere est per Verbum increatum, sicut Pater dicitur operari per Filium; et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus, «quod aeterno Verbo dicis quaecumque dicis, et fit quidquid dicis». — Potest tamen dici, quod illud dicere est aeternum, et tantum valet, quantum disponere; sed hoc non dicit effectum, sed respectum in habitu; et hoc concessum est, quod Verbum dicit. Et quod iste sit intellectus Augustini, patet per litteram sequentem:
«Et simul et sempiterne dicis. Nec tamen simul et sempiterna sunt17 quaecumque facis». Ex hac auctoritate patet veritas responsionis, quod Verbum dicit habitualem respectum.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod nullum aeternum connotat temporale; dicendum, quod hoc verum est in actu; unde Verbum proprie loquendo non connotat effectum, sed dicit respectum non ad creaturam iam entem vel etiam tantum futuram, verum etiam possibilem fieri. Et sic patet responsio ad instantiam, quam adducit in contrarium.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod productio Verbi est necessaria et aeterna, sed creaturae voluntaria; dicendum, quod quamvis actualis productio creaturae sit voluntaria, tamen potentia producendi et scientia est necessaria. Impossibile enim est, Deum non posse, et impossibile est, Deum nescire creaturas producere.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non communicant in aliquo; dicendum, quod verum est de communitate essentiali et praedicatione; et hoc modo non communicant in Verbo, quia Verbum est Deus, non creatura; nihilominus tamen secundum aliquam rationem possunt habere respectum ad idem. Nihil enim impedit, quod unius et eiusdem Deus sit principium, et creatura sit effectus; et ita est de Verbo aeterno, quod dicit respectum ad Patrem ut ad principium, ad creaturam autem ut ad effectum.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc poterit dici Verbum creaturae; dicendum, quod, sicut patet ex ratione nominis, verbum dicit respectum ut ad producentem, quia illius verbum dicentis; similiter domini: et quia principalis respectus, importatus per nomen, solum dicitur respectu personae, ideo nec Filius dicitur verbum creaturae, nec Spiritus sanctus donum creaturae. Et si tu obiicias de hoc nomine spiritus, dicendum, quod prout de spiritu Eliae dicitur, non accipitur ab actu personali — quia Spiritus sanctus dicitur spiritus Patris et Filii tantum — sed accipitur ab actu spirandi, de quo Ioannis tertio18: Spiritus, ubi vult spirat; et iste est actus essentialis. Unde sicut dicitur Deus Eliae quia fovet Eliam, vel ab aliquo alio actu, ita spiritus Eliae, quia spirat Eliae; ita etiam posset dici spiritus sanctus Eliae, sicut dicitur Danielis decimo tertio19: Suscitavit Deus spiritum sanctum pueri iunioris. Nec hoc est contra Magistrum, quia ipse loquitur de Spiritu sancto, prout est nomen impositum a proprietate personali. Et magis determinatum est illud totale nomen, quod stet pro persona, quam hoc nomen spiritus per se; ideo frequentius invenimus spiritum dici alicuius hominis quam spiritum sanctum alicuius hominis. Attamen invenitur alicubi, quia, sicut dicitur spiritus Eliae, quia in eum spirat et inspirat20, ita et spiritus sanctus Eliae, quia ei sancta inspirat. Et ideo fortassis ibi21 dictum est, quod suscitavit spiritum sanctum, quia non fuit ad futura praedicendum, sed ad iniquum iudicium retractandum.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nomen dicens respectum ad creaturam non est notionale; dicendum, quod verum est, si illum pure dicat; sed Verbum non tantum ipsum dicit nec principaliter dicit, sed principaliter dicit respectum ad Patrem, sicut et de Dono dictum est22. Magis autem Filius et Spiritus sanctus nominantur nominibus dicentibus respectum ad creaturam quam Pater, quoniam secundum rationem intelligendi et appropriandi quasi medium sunt inter nos et Deum, et secundum rationem appropriandi sunt reducentes ad Deum. Unde secundum Augustinum23: «Pater est principium, ad quod reducimur; Filius forma, quam sequimur; et Spiritus sanctus gratia, qua reconciliamur». Unde et ipsi magis proprie nobis dari dicuntur quam Pater.
I. In respons. distinguitur in Verbo triplex similitudo, scilicet Patris imitativa (expressiva), rerum creatarum exemplativa, et earundem operativa. Haec accepta sunt ex August., 83 Quaest. q. 63, et approbata ab Alex., S. p. I. q. 62. m. 1. a. 3, et ab Angelico, S. q. 34. a. 3; cfr. etiam quaest. seq. ad 2. argum. 1. — Pro fundam. eget explicatione quae fit in respons. dupliciter, incipiendo a verbis: Concedendae igitur sunt. Pro tota quaestione cfr. supra d. 18. q. 5, et pro solut. ad 1. ibid. q. 6.
II. Cum hac quaestione cohaeret controversia quaedam praecipue inter scholam Thomisticam et Scotisticam agitata, scilicet ex qua cognitione producatur Verbum, utrum ex aliqua cognitione actuali essentiae personarum et creaturarum, an ex praesupposita cognitione divinae essentiae et personarum, non autem creaturarum; et utrum ista cognitio praesupponatur ut principium quo Verbi, an solum ordine naturae praesupponatur, quin sit principium productionis. Haec differentia oritur ex illo diverso modo loquendi, de quo in Scholio ad praeced. quaest. locuti sumus. S. Bonav. ad utramque partem trahitur a suis interpretibus, qui verba egregia (in corp.): Summus autem Spiritus etc. sibi favere ex utraque parte putant. Probabilius autem (ut nobis videtur) Barth. de Barberiis (disput. 14. q. 9.) asserit, eum ad modum Scoti loqui. Sed res exigui est momenti.
III. In ipsa quaestione solvenda omnes consentire videntur. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 62. m. I. a. i. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 3; Report. hic q. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; S. q. 34. a. 3, et q. 37. a. 2. ad 3. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. I. Sent. d. 28. a. 10; S. p. I. tr. 8. q. 35. m. 3. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. Med., a hic a. 2. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 4. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 59. q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. circa finem. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 3. — Biel, de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3.
---
Question II. Whether the eternal Word connotes anything on the side of the creature.
Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the connotation of the eternal Word, and the question is whether the eternal Word connotes anything on the side of the creature. And that it does, is shown:
1. First, by the authority of the Psalm1: He spoke and they were made; and from the first chapter of Genesis: God said: Let it be made, and it was made: therefore, since to say is nothing other than to utter a word, and since making follows upon saying, and the thing made follows upon making, therefore the thing made follows upon the word: therefore it seems that the Word connotes something created. If you say that this is not said of saying as it is taken eternally and corresponds to the eternal Word2, but as it is taken temporally and corresponds to the created word; on the contrary: Augustine in the eleventh book of the Confessions3: «By a Word coeternal with thee thou sayest whatever thou sayest, and whatever thou sayest comes to be, nor in any other way than by speaking dost thou make»: therefore it seems that this is to be understood of the eternal Word.
2. Likewise, Augustine in the book On the Eighty-three Questions4, treating that text of the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, says: «Better in this place do we interpret Word, so that there is signified not only relation to the Father, but also operative power toward those things which have been made»: therefore the Word signifies relation to things made. But it is clear that he is speaking of the eternal Word, namely that which was in the beginning.
3. Likewise, on that text of the Psalm: God hath spoken once, Augustine says5: that is, He begot the Son, in whom He disposed all things. If therefore the Word imports not only generation, but also the disposition of all things, then it bears a relation to all things.
4. Likewise, Anselm in the Monologion6: «When the supreme Spirit speaks Himself, He speaks all things which have been made»: therefore by the same Word He speaks Himself and creatures. But the Word bears a relation to that which is spoken through the Word: therefore not only to the Father, but also to those things which have been made does it bear a relation: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
1. Everything which connotes a temporal thing is said temporally; but the Word is not said temporally in divine matters, because in the beginning was the Word7: therefore the Word does not connote anything temporal, since every creature or created thing temporally begins, taking time broadly: therefore the Word connotes nothing in relation to creatures. If you say that it connotes in
habit, not in act, like the eternal disposition and predestination; on the contrary: if nothing were ever made or to be made, the Father would still speak Himself, and so would conceive the Word in His mind8: therefore the Word would be, even if no creature were ever to be future or present: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, to speak the Word is necessary, since, as was proved in what precedes, in distinction six9, the production of a Person is necessary; but the production of a creature is voluntary, whence when He produces it, He could not produce it. If therefore the simply necessary does not include in itself the contingent, the Word does not bear any relation to the creature.
3. Likewise, the Creator and the creature are most distant, therefore in nothing do they share; if therefore the Word of the Father is one, and supremely one, then by that Word, since God the Father is spoken, it is impossible for a creature to be spoken. Therefore if a creature is not spoken by that Word, then it does not bear a relation to the creature.
4. Likewise, if the Word bears a relation to the creature, then it could be called the Word of the creature; which Anselm expressly denies in the Monologion10: «The Word by which He speaks the creature is in no way the Word of the creature». If you say to me that it bears a relation principally to the speaker, and so cannot be called anything but the Word of the Father; for the same reason, since the Spirit bears a relation principally to the spirator, it could not be said: the spirit of Moses, or the spirit of Elias; which is contrary to Scripture11.
5. Likewise, if it bears a relation to the creature, since every name bearing a relation to the creature is essential, not personal; the Word would in no way be said personally; which is contrary to what has been determined above12.
CONCLUSION. The eternal Word also imports a relation to the creature by way of dispositive exemplarity and operative power.
I respond: It must be said, as Anselm says13, that a word is then spoken or generated, when in the mind a likeness or image of some knowable thing is conceived; and that word looks toward what the conceived likeness looks toward. Since therefore our mind does not see itself and other things together, nor by one and the same act, it speaks itself by one word, and other things by another, indeed by others: for there are as many words in it as things understood. But the supreme Spirit in the Father knows Himself and all things by one and the same gaze; and when He understands Himself and other things, He knows Himself as the principle of others. And because in Him the conceiving power conceives a likeness embracing all things under one intuition or gaze, He conceives or generates one Word, which is the imitative likeness of the Father and the exemplative likeness of things and the operative likeness; and so it holds, as it were, a middle place, and the Father is said to operate through the Word; and further it is attributed to the Word itself that it is the power of God and the wisdom of God14.
And so it is clear that the divine Word bears a relation to the Father, who speaks it, by whom it is generated, in all things like Him. It also bears a relation to the creature by way of dispositive exemplarity and operative power. And because these do not bespeak relation in act, but only in habit, I say that, just as exemplar bespeaks relation in habit, and so does power — because God knows and can do many things which He does not — so also the eternal Word. Hence as was said above15 of the Gift, so likewise it is now to be understood of the Word.
To the opposite arguments:
The arguments proving that it bears a relation are therefore to be conceded; but it does not connote an effect actually. Hence the first argument16, which proves about an actual effect, is to be solved as was touched on in the objection, because there it speaks of saying according as the created word — which is, as it were, an uttered word — corresponds to it; but nevertheless that saying is through the uncreated Word, just as the Father is said to operate through the Son; and this is what Augustine says, «that by an eternal Word thou sayest whatever thou sayest, and whatever thou sayest comes to be». — Yet it can be said that that saying is eternal, and amounts to as much as disposing; but this does not bespeak an effect, but rather relation in habit; and this has been conceded, that the Word bespeaks. And that this is the meaning of Augustine, is clear from the following text:
«And both together and eternally thou sayest. Nor however are they together and eternal17 whatsoever things thou makest». From this authority is plain the truth of the response, that the Word bespeaks habitual relation.
1. To that which is objected on the contrary, that nothing eternal connotes a temporal thing; it must be said that this is true in act; whence the Word, properly speaking, does not connote an effect, but bespeaks relation not to a creature already existing, or even merely future, but also to one that is possible to be made. And so the response to the instance which is brought against it is plain.
2. To that which is objected, that the production of the Word is necessary and eternal, but that of the creature voluntary; it must be said that, although the actual production of the creature is voluntary, nevertheless the power of producing and the knowledge are necessary. For it is impossible that God should not be able, and impossible that God should not know how to produce creatures.
3. To that which is objected, that they share in nothing; it must be said that this is true of essential community and predication; and in this way they do not share in the Word, because the Word is God, not a creature; nevertheless, according to a certain account, they can have relation to the same thing. For nothing prevents that God should be the principle of one and the same thing, and that the creature should be its effect; and so it is with the eternal Word, which bears a relation to the Father as to a principle, but to the creature as to an effect.
4. To that which is objected, that then it could be called the Word of the creature; it must be said that, as is plain from the meaning of the name, word bears a relation as to the producer, because it is the word of the speaker; likewise of the lord: and because the principal relation imported by the name is said only with respect to the person, therefore neither is the Son called the word of the creature, nor the Holy Spirit the gift of the creature. And if you object concerning this name spirit, it must be said that as it is said of the spirit of Elias, it is not taken from a personal act — because the Holy Spirit is called the spirit of the Father and of the Son only — but is taken from the act of breathing, of which John in the third chapter18: The Spirit breathes where He wills; and this is an essential act. Hence as God is called the God of Elias because He cherishes Elias, or from some other act, so the spirit of Elias, because He breathes upon Elias; thus it could also be said the Holy Spirit of Elias, as is said in Daniel chapter thirteen19: God raised up the holy spirit of the younger boy. Nor is this against the Master, because he is speaking of the Holy Spirit as it is a name imposed from the personal property. And that total name, which stands for a person, is more determinate than this name spirit by itself; therefore we more frequently find a spirit said of some man than a holy spirit of some man. Yet it is found in some places, because, just as the spirit of Elias is so called because He breathes and inspires upon him20, so also the Holy Spirit of Elias, because He inspires holy things into him. And therefore perhaps it was said there21 that He raised up the holy spirit, because it was not for predicting future things, but for retracting an iniquitous judgment.
5. To that which is objected, that a name bearing a relation to the creature is not notional; it must be said that this is true if it bespeaks it purely; but the Word does not only bespeak it, nor does it bespeak it principally, but principally it bespeaks the relation to the Father, as has also been said of the Gift22. The Son and the Holy Spirit are however more named by names bespeaking a relation to the creature than the Father, since by the account of understanding and appropriation they are, as it were, a middle between us and God, and by the account of appropriation they are reducing us to God. Whence according to Augustine23: «The Father is the principle, to whom we are reduced; the Son the form, whom we follow; and the Holy Spirit the grace, by which we are reconciled». Whence also they themselves are more properly said to be given to us than the Father.
I. In the response there is distinguished in the Word a threefold likeness, namely the imitative (expressive) likeness of the Father, the exemplative likeness of created things, and the operative likeness of the same. These are taken from Augustine, 83 Questions, q. 63, and approved by Alexander, Summa p. I. q. 62. m. 1. a. 3, and by the Angelic Doctor, Summa q. 34. a. 3; see also the following question, reply to argument 1. — As to the foundation, it requires the explanation which is given in the response in two ways, beginning with the words: The arguments are therefore to be conceded. For the whole question, see above d. 18. q. 5, and for the solution to the first, ibid. q. 6.
II. With this question coheres a certain controversy, agitated chiefly between the Thomistic and Scotistic schools, namely from what cognition the Word is produced — whether from some actual cognition of the essence, of the persons, and of creatures, or from a presupposed cognition of the divine essence and persons, but not of creatures; and whether this cognition is presupposed as the principle by which of the Word, or only in the order of nature is presupposed, without being the principle of production. This difference arises from that diverse manner of speaking of which we spoke in the Scholion to the preceding question. St. Bonaventure is drawn to either side by his interpreters, who think that the excellent words (in the body): But the supreme Spirit etc. favor them on either side. More probably however (as it seems to us) Barth. de Barberiis (disput. 14. q. 9.) asserts that he speaks after the manner of Scotus. But the matter is of small moment.
III. In the resolution of the question itself all seem to agree. Alex. Hal., Summa p. I. q. 62. m. I. a. i. — Scotus, on this and the following questions, here q. 3; Reportata, here q. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 3; Summa q. 34. a. 3, and q. 37. a. 2. ad 3. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following question, I. Sent. d. 28. a. 10; Summa p. I. tr. 8. q. 35. m. 3. a. 5. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 2. a. 3. — Richardus Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Aegidius Romanus, here 2. princ. q. 4. — Henr. Gand., Summa a. 59. q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 3. near the end. — Durand., here q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., on this and the following questions, here q. 3. — Biel, on this and the following question, here q. 3.
---
- Ps. 32, 9, et 148, 5. — In Vat. desiderantur verba a et primo Genesis: Dixit Deus: fiat, et factum est.Ps. 32:9, and 148:5. — In the Vatican edition the words from and from the first chapter of Genesis: God said: Let it be made, and it was made are missing.
- Sic codd.; Vat. omittit ante esse dictum particulam non, et deinde etiam verba: prout accipitur aeternaliter, et respondet ei Verbum aeternum, sed.Thus the codices; the Vatican omits before esse dictum the particle non, and likewise the words: as it is taken eternally and corresponds to the eternal Word, but.
- Cap. 7, n. 9, ubi originale: Verbo Tibi coaeterno simul et sempiterne dicis omnia quae dicis, et fit quidquid dicis ut fiat, nec aliter quam dicendo facis, nec tamen et simul et sempiterne fiunt omnia quae dicendo facis.Chapter 7, n. 9, where the original reads: By a Word coeternal with thee, together and eternally thou sayest all that thou sayest, and whatever thou sayest comes to be, that it should come to be, nor in any other way than by speaking dost thou make, nor however do all the things which by speaking thou makest come to be together and eternally.
- Quaest. 63. In originali ultima verba textus citati sunt: sed ad illa etiam, quae per Verbum facta sunt, operativa potentia.Question 63. In the original the last words of the cited text are: but also toward those things which through the Word were made, an operative power.
- Enarrat. in Ps. 61. v. 12. n. 18; non ad verbum, sed ad sensum.Commentary on Psalm 61, v. 12, n. 18; not word for word, but as to the sense.
- Cap. 34.Chapter 34.
- Ioan. 1, 1.John 1:1.
- Cod. T omittit mente, et subinde pro illa substituit aliqua.Codex T omits mente, and thereafter substitutes aliqua for illa.
- Quaest. 1. — Paulo post pro voluntaria sola Vat. contingens, quam immutationem textus eadem Vat. facit etiam infra in solutione huius obiectionis.Question 1. — A little later, for voluntaria the Vatican alone reads contingens, which textual change the same Vatican edition makes also below in the solution to this objection.
- Cap. 33.Chapter 33.
- Num. 11, 17. et 25, de quo vide supra d. 17. p. II. dub. 1, d. 18. dub. 6. De spiritu Eliae cfr. IV. Reg. 2, 9. et 15. Cfr. etiam lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 4. et 5.Numbers 11:17 and 25, on which see above d. 17. p. II. dub. 1, d. 18. dub. 6. On the spirit of Elias, see IV Kings 2:9 and 15. See also the text of the Master, d. XVIII. c. 4 and 5.
- In quaest. praeced.In the preceding question.
- Monolog. c. 31. 33. Propositiones sequentes summam continent eorum quae Anselmus loc. cit. c. 32-36 docet. — Vat. perperam Augustinus pro Anselmus.Monologion, cc. 31, 33. The following propositions contain a summary of what Anselm in the cited place, cc. 32–36, teaches. — The Vatican wrongly has Augustine for Anselm.
- Cfr. I. Cor. 1, 24; et infra d. 32. a. 2. q. 2.Cf. I Cor. 1:24; and below d. 32. a. 2. q. 2.
- Dist. 18, praesertim q. 2. et 5.Distinction 18, especially q. 2 and 5.
- Vide fundam. 1, ubi et integer textus Augustini, qui deinde occurrit. — Paulo inferius cod. cc actualem pro actualiter.See foundation 1, where also the entire text of Augustine, which then occurs. — A little later codex cc reads actualem for actualiter.
- Pro sunt, quod auctoritate omnium codd. et edd. posuimus, Vat. cum originali fiunt. Mox pro habitualem multi codd. ut C H L M R S T U V Y Z bb habitudinalem, et codd. A G L O habitudinem; non recte; vide supra pag. 325, nota 10.For sunt, which on the authority of all the codices and editions we have placed, the Vatican with the original reads fiunt. Soon for habitualem many codices, as C H L M R S T U V Y Z bb, read habitudinalem, and codices A G L O habitudinem; not rightly; see above p. 325, note 10.
- Vers. 8.Verse 8.
- Dan. 13, 45: Suscitavit Dominus spiritum sanctum pueri iunioris, cuius nomen Daniel.Dan. 13:45: The Lord raised up the holy spirit of the younger boy, whose name was Daniel.
- Vers. 45. — Actus spirandi, de quo S. Doctor loquitur paulo superius, idem accipiendus est ac actus inspirandi. — Post verba de quo, quae proxime sequuntur, ed. 1 subiicit dicitur; idem verbum Vat. praeter auctoritatem codd. mox repetit post ita. Deinde pro spirat Eliae cod. inspiratur Eliae, et ed. 1 inspirat Eliae. — De etymologia vocis Deus vide supra pag. 60, nota 2.Verse 45. — The act of breathing (spirandi) of which the holy Doctor speaks a little above is to be taken as the same as the act of inspiring (inspirandi). — After the words de quo, which follow next, edition 1 inserts dicitur; the Vatican repeats the same word, against the authority of the codices, after ita. Then for spirat Eliae a codex reads inspiratur Eliae, and edition 1 inspirat Eliae. — On the etymology of the word Deus see above p. 60, note 2.
- Cod. T inspiratur.Codex T reads inspiratur.
- Supra d. 18. q. 4. 5.Above d. 18. q. 4 and 5.
- De Vera Religione, c. 55. n. 113, ubi originale recurrimus pro reducimur. — Paulo ante codd. P Q tum post et Deum, tum post ad Deum addunt Patrem.On True Religion, c. 55, n. 113, where the original reads recurrimus for reducimur. — A little before, codices P Q add Patrem both after et Deum and after ad Deum.