← Back to Distinction 27

Dist. 27, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 27

Textus Latinus
p. 489

QUAESTIO IV. Utrum nomen verbi recte sit translatum ad divina.

Quarto quaeritur de translatione huius nominis verbum ad divina. Et quod nullo modo debeat transferri, ostenditur.

1. Omnis translatio est secundum similitudinem1; sed nihil in creatura vanius est verbo, quia statim dum fit, transit et non est, verbum autem Domini manet in aeternum2: ergo etc.

2. Item, cum sit verbum intelligibile et sensibile secundum duplex dicere, quaeritur, quod istorum transferatur. Et quod non exterius, vult Augustinus decimo quinto de Trinitate3: «Verbum exterius non est verbum, sed signum verbi»: ergo si Verbum divinum est verum verbum, ergo etc.

3. Item, exterius verbum exit a dicente, Verbum autem divinum semper est in dicente, ego in Patre, dicit Veritas, Ioannis decimo quarto4: ergo etc.

4. Item, videtur quod nec ad similitudinem interioris cogitationis, quia dicit Augustinus decimo quinto de Trinitate5: Cogitatio est quid volubile; in Deo autem nihil est volubile: ergo etc.

5. Item, cogitationes mortalium timidae sunt, Sapientiae nono6, et incertae providentiae nostrae; sed in Verbo divino nulla est falsitas, nulla dubietas: ergo etc.

6. Item, multa cogitamus, quae nobis displicent; sed Verbum divinum est per omnia placens Patri7: ergo etc.

7. Item, multa cogitamus, quae non possumus, sed Verbum divinum est omnipotens8: ergo etc.

Contra:

1. Inter omnia creata imago est expressior, ergo inter omnes emanationes ea est expressior, quae est in imagine; sed emanatio similis Verbo increato in imagine est emanatio verbi a mente: ergo expressissima, ergo convenienter transfertur.

2. Item, quod dicatur per comparationem verbi intellectus, hoc videtur per comparationem ad res extra, quoniam secundum aliam translationem Septuaginta Ecclesiasticus9: Principium omnis operis verbum; sed per Dei Filium omnia sunt facta: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod verbum vocis sit simile, videtur, quia Verbum dicitur, quia expressivum et manifestativum — unde nec Patrem quis novit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare, Matthaei undecimo10 — sed hoc maxime est in verbo vocis, nam verbum interius non patet nisi per verbum vocis: ergo Verbum increatum dicitur ad similitudinem exterioris verbi.

4. Item, Basilius11: «Filio Dei attribuitur sensus, sapientia, virtus, et verbum, lumen: sensus, quo cogitantur omnia; sapientia, qua omnia disponuntur; virtus, qua fiunt: verbum, quo annuntiantur; lumen, quo clarescunt». Si ergo Verbum dicitur ratione annuntiationis, et hoc pertinet ad verbum vocis, patet quod illud Verbum dicitur ad similitudinem verbi prolati.

CONCLUSIO. Nomen verbi, intellectum cum certis conditionibus, convenienter transfertur ad divina.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut ratio paternitatis per prius reperitur in Deo quam in creaturis, tamen ipsum nomen translatum est a nobis ad Deum12; sic ratio lucis, sic sapientiae, et horum similium, sic etiam ratio verbi. Et significatum per prius et nobilius est in Deo quam in nobis; tamen nomen translatum est a nobis ad Deum.

Translatio autem fit propter duo: una ratio est propter similitudinem expressam, alia ratio est propter instructionem nostram; et haec duo hic sunt.

Primum quidem est similitudo verbi creati ad increatum, ad quam insinuandam distinguit beatus Augustinus in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate13 verbum secundum triplicem differentiam. Nam unum est verbum sensibile, aliud est verbum intelligibile, tertium est verbum medium. Verbum sensibile attenditur in prolatione vocis, verbum intelligibile in cogitatione rei, verbum medium in cogitatione vocis. — Et est ordo, quia primo cogitat aliquid homo quid sit, secundo, qualiter debeat cogitatum pronuntiare, tertio pronuntiat.

Sicut ergo ratio trinitatis reperitur in sensu, reperitur in ratione conversa ad sensum, reperitur et in ratione secundum se14, sic et ratio verbi. Et quemadmodum trinitas, in qua consistit expressa15 similitudo, non est in sensu, nec in inferiori parte rationis, sed in ratione secundum se; sic cum tripliciter dicatur verbum, in nullo consistit similitudo expressa, nisi in verbo intelligibili; et hoc est verbum, quod ad nullam pertinet linguam. Unde dicit16 quod «qui hoc potest videre, aliquo modo videt illius verbi similitudinem».

p. 490

Similitudinem autem istius verbi ad illud assignat quantum ad tria, scilicet quantum ad emanationem sive originem, quantum ad dispositionem, quantum ad unionem. Nam haec tria in Filio Dei est considerare: originem, secundum quam dicitur filius; dispositionem aeternam, secundum quam dicitur mundus archetypus et ars plena omnium rationum viventium17; et unionem, secundum quam dicitur homo factus.

Similitudo est in origine. Nam sicut Filius per modum naturae procedit per omnia Patri similis, sic verbum intellectus a mente procedit per modum naturae per omnia ei simile et aequale; unde dicitur mentis conceptus.

Quantum ad dispositionem est similitudo18. Nam sicut homo nihil operatur rationabiliter, quod non praecogitet et mente concipiat, sic Deus Pater omnia in Verbo disposuit. Et sicut dispositio nostra vel praeconceptio potest esse, etiam si non sequatur opus, sic et dispositio aeterna et praecognitio non ab opere dependet.

Quantum vero ad unionem est similitudo. Nam sicut verbum mentis unitur voci, ut innotescat, et tamen non transit in vocem, sed manet integrum in mente; sic per omnia in Verbo aeterno intelligendum est, quod unitum est carni et non transit in carnem, sed manet integrum apud Patrem. Haec igitur est similitudo.

Sed tamen haec similitudo non attenditur in verbo mentis generaliter. Nam, sicut idem dicit Augustinus19, frequenter cogitamus quae nescimus, et sic verbo nostro coniuncta est fallacia; frequenter, quae nolumus, et tunc iuncta est displicentia; frequenter, quae non possumus, et tunc iuncta est impotentia. Divinum autem verbum est verissimum, placentissimum, omnipotentissimum; ideo expressa similitudo non consistit in verbo nostro, nisi sit verbum certae notitiae et complacentiae et potentiae; et hoc est verbum, quod consistit in cogitatione, iuncta sibi affectiva et operativa. Unde Augustinus nono de Trinitate20: «Verbum est cum amore notitia»; et si addatur virtus, tunc est ratio perfecta, et sic verbum est cum amore et virtute notitia. — Transfertur igitur verbum a verbo interiori secundum praedictas similitudines et praedeterminatas conditiones; et haec est ratio ex parte rei.

Ratio autem ex parte nostra est, quia divina intelligimus per creata21. Quoniam ergo, cum audimus Patrem et Filium, cogitamus de patre carnali et filio, ut sublevemur ad cogitandum generationem spiritualem; ideo divinissimus Ioannes22, qui totus erat in contemplatione divinitatis elevatus, verbi nomine usus est dicens: In principio erat Verbum; quod Verbum qui intelligit, multum proficit in cognitione Filii Dei.

Solutio oppositorum.

His visis, patent obiecta. Concedo enim, quod verbum exterius non habet expressam similitudinem, tum quia vanum, tum quia procedit exterius, tum etiam quia non est verbum, sed verbi signum; verbum autem interius habet horum opposita. Concedo etiam, quod verbum interius dubium, vel falsum, vel impotens, vel displicens non habet expressam similitudinem, sed verbum, quod habet oppositas conditiones.

Ad illud quod obiicitur ad oppositum, quod verbum intelligibile habet similitudinem; concedendum est. Quod autem obiicitur de verbo sensibili, dicendum, quod aliqualem habet similitudinem, sed non expressam; ideo translatio non est secundum ipsum, sed secundum23 interius, quod est similius, ut patet. Nullum autem verbum potest per omnia illi assimilari. Nam illud solum habet cum dicente identitatem substantialem et simultatem naturalem, quia est simul natura et duratione: quae conditiones, ut dicit beatus Augustinus24, non sunt in nostro verbo. Et ideo quamvis sit similitudo, est tamen nonnulla dissimilitudo; et ideo potest recte dici translatio, quia non est per omnia simile. Et sic omnia patent.

Scholion

De translatione eiusque speciebus vide supra d. 22. q. 3, et S. Thom., S. I. q. 13. a. 6. — Cum argumenta ex utraque parte allata nimium importent, dum prima series probare nititur, quod nulla species creati verbi transferri debeat, alia vero, quod omnes species; hinc est quod S. Doctor ad utramque seriem argumentorum ponit aliquas restrictiones. — Responsio p. 491 auctoris praeclara est, praesertim quod de similitudine et dissimilitudine inter verbum Dei et nostrum dicit; nonnulla magis explicantur per ea quae de differentia inter vestigium et imaginem etc. dicta sunt supra d. 3. p. I. q. 2, et p. II. a. 1. q. 1. 2.

Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 62. m. 1. a. 1. 3. — S. Thom., quaestionem tangit hic q. 2. a. 1; S. 1. q. 34. a. 1; de Veritate q. 4. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. 4. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic. 2. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., a. 59. q. 2. passim, praesertim n. 41.

---

English Translation

QUESTION IV. Whether the name 'word' is rightly transferred to divine matters.

Fourthly, the question is asked concerning the transference of this name word to divine matters. And that it ought in no way to be transferred is shown.

1. Every transference is according to a likeness1; but nothing in a creature is more empty than a word, since as soon as it comes to be, it passes away and is not, but the word of the Lord endures forever2: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, since there is an intelligible and a sensible word, according to the twofold sense of to speak, it is asked which of these is transferred. And that it is not the exterior [word], Augustine in On the Trinity book fifteen3 holds: «The exterior word is not a word, but a sign of a word»: therefore if the divine Word is a true word, then etc.

3. Likewise, the exterior word goes forth from the speaker, but the divine Word is always in the speaker — I [am] in the Father, says the Truth, in John fourteen4: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it seems that [it is] not even according to the likeness of interior thought, since Augustine says in On the Trinity book fifteen5: Thought is something fluctuating; but in God there is nothing fluctuating: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, the thoughts of mortals are timid, Wisdom nine6, and our forecasts uncertain; but in the divine Word there is no falsity, no doubt: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, we think many things which displease us; but the divine Word is in all things pleasing to the Father7: therefore etc.

7. Likewise, we think many things which we cannot [do], but the divine Word is omnipotent8: therefore etc.

On the contrary:

1. Among all created things the image is the most expressive, therefore among all emanations that one is the most expressive which is in [the manner of] an image; but the emanation similar to the uncreated Word in [the manner of] an image is the emanation of a word from the mind: therefore [it is] most expressive, therefore [the name word] is fittingly transferred.

2. Likewise, that it is said by comparison with the word of the intellect seems [to be shown] by comparison with things outside, since according to the other translation of the Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus9: The beginning of every work is the word; but through the Son of God all things were made: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that the word of the voice is similar [to the divine Word] is seen, since [the Son] is called Word because [he is] expressive and manifestative — whence no one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son shall will to reveal [him], Matthew eleven10 — but this [manifesting function] is most fully in the word of the voice, for the interior word is not made open except through the word of the voice: therefore the uncreated Word is so called by likeness to the exterior word.

4. Likewise, Basil11: «To the Son of God are attributed sense, wisdom, power, and word, light: sense, by which all things are thought; wisdom, by which all things are arranged; power, by which they are made; word, by which they are announced; light, by which they shine forth». If, then, [the Son] is called Word by reason of announcement, and this pertains to the word of the voice, it is plain that that Word is so called by likeness to the spoken word.

CONCLUSION. The name 'word', understood with certain conditions, is fittingly transferred to divine matters.

I respond: It must be said that, just as the account of paternity is found prior in God than in creatures, yet the very name was transferred by us from [creatures] to God12, so the account of light, [the account] of wisdom, and of these similar [things], so also the account of word. And what is signified is, prior and more nobly, in God than in us; yet the name was transferred by us from [creatures] to God.

Now transference is made for two [reasons]: one ground is on account of an express likeness, another ground is on account of our instruction; and both these are present here.

The first [reason] indeed is the likeness of the created word to the uncreated, to the indicating of which blessed Augustine in book fifteen of On the Trinity13 distinguishes the word according to a threefold difference. For one is the sensible word, another is the intelligible word, the third is the medial word. The sensible word is regarded in the utterance of the voice, the intelligible word in the thought of a thing, the medial word in the thought of the voice. — And there is an order, since first man thinks of something, what it is; secondly, in what manner he ought to pronounce what has been thought; thirdly, he pronounces [it].

Just as, therefore, the account of trinity is found in sense, [and] is found in reason turned toward sense, [and] is found also in reason in itself14, so also is the account of word. And just as the trinity in which an express15 likeness consists is not in sense, nor in the lower part of reason, but in reason in itself; so when word is said in three ways, in none does the express likeness consist except in the intelligible word; and this is the word which pertains to no [particular] tongue. Whence he says16 that «whoever is able to see this, in some way sees the likeness of that Word».

Now he assigns the likeness of this [created] word to that [uncreated Word] with respect to three things, namely with respect to emanation or origin, with respect to disposition, [and] with respect to union. For these three things are to be considered in the Son of God: origin, according to which he is called son; eternal disposition, according to which he is called the archetypal world and the art full of all the living reasons17; and union, according to which he is called made man.

There is a likeness in [respect of] origin. For just as the Son by way of nature proceeds in all things like to the Father, so the word of the intellect from the mind proceeds by way of nature, in all things like and equal to it; whence it is called the concept of the mind.

With respect to disposition there is a likeness18. For just as man does nothing rationally that he does not previously think and conceive in mind, so God the Father has disposed all things in the Word. And just as our disposition or preconception can exist even if a work does not follow, so also the eternal disposition and foreknowledge does not depend on a work.

With respect indeed to union there is a likeness. For just as the word of the mind is united to a voice in order to become known, and yet does not pass over into the voice, but remains entire in the mind; so in all respects it is to be understood concerning the eternal Word, that he is united to flesh and does not pass over into flesh, but remains entire with the Father. This therefore is the likeness.

But yet this likeness is not regarded in the word of the mind generally. For, as the same Augustine says19, we frequently think things we do not know, and so falsehood is conjoined to our word; frequently [we think] things which we do not will, and then displeasure is conjoined; frequently, things which we cannot [do], and then impotence is conjoined. But the divine word is most true, most pleasing, most omnipotent; therefore the express likeness does not consist in our word unless it be a word of certain knowledge and complacency and power; and this is the word which consists in thought, with the affective and operative joined to it. Whence Augustine in On the Trinity book nine20: «A word is knowledge with love»; and if power be added, then the account is perfect, and so a word is knowledge with love and power. — Therefore word is transferred from the interior word according to the aforesaid likenesses and predetermined conditions; and this is the ground from the side of the thing.

Now the ground from our side is that we understand divine things through created things21. Since therefore, when we hear Father and Son, we think of a carnal father and son, in order that we may be lifted up to think of spiritual generation; therefore the most divine John22, who was wholly elevated in the contemplation of divinity, used the name word, saying: In the beginning was the Word; whoever understands which Word, profits much in the knowledge of the Son of God.

Solution of the opposites.

These things having been seen, the objections are clear. For I concede that the exterior word does not have an express likeness, both because [it is] empty, and because it proceeds outwardly, and also because it is not a word, but a sign of a word; but the interior word has the opposites of these. I also concede that the interior word [if it be] doubtful, or false, or impotent, or displeasing does not have an express likeness, but [only] the word which has the opposite conditions.

To that which is objected on the opposite side, that the intelligible word has a likeness, it must be conceded. As to what is objected concerning the sensible word, it must be said that it has some sort of likeness, but not an express [likeness]; therefore the transference is not according to it, but according to the23 interior [word], which is more like, as is plain. But no word can be assimilated to that one in all respects. For that [Word] alone has substantial identity with the speaker and natural simultaneity, since it is simultaneous in nature and duration: which conditions, as blessed Augustine says24, are not in our word. And therefore although there is likeness, yet there is some dissimilitude; and therefore it can rightly be called transference, since it is not similar in all things. And so all things are clear.

Scholion

Concerning transference and its species see above d. 22, q. 3, and St. Thomas, Summa I, q. 13, a. 6. — Since the arguments adduced from each side carry too much weight — while the first series strives to prove that no species of created word ought to be transferred, and the other [strives to prove] that all species [are to be transferred] — hence it is that the holy Doctor places certain restrictions upon each series of arguments. — The author's response is excellent, especially what he says concerning the likeness and unlikeness between the word of God and ours; some points are more fully explained through what was said concerning the difference between vestige and image etc. above at d. 3, p. I, q. 2, and p. II, a. 1, q. 1, 2.

Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 62, m. 1, a. 1, 3. — St. Thomas touches on the question here at q. 2, a. 1; Summa I, q. 34, a. 1; On Truth q. 4, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3, 4, 7. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1, 2. — Richardus de Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here princ. 2, q. 1. — Henricus Gandavensis, a. 59, q. 2, passim, especially n. 41.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Omnes fere codd. cum ed. 1 propnum [recte: propinquum] pro respectum, lectio contextui contraria. Proxime ante cod. T post similitudo interiicit et expressio.
    Almost all the codices with ed. 1 [read] propinquum in place of respectum, a reading contrary to the context. Just before this, cod. T after similitudo interjects et expressio.
  2. Permulti codd. cum sex primis edd. modo pro loco; inepte, ut liquet. — Epist. I. Petr. I, 23.
    Very many codices with the first six editions [read] modo in place of loco; unfittingly, as is plain. — 1 Peter 1:23.
  3. Plurimi codd. cum edd. 2, 3 paterna pro praevia; lectio evidenter corrupta. — Cap. 11. n. 20: Verbum quod foris sonat, signum est verbi quod intus lucet, cui magis verbi competit nomen. — Paulo ante plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 6 omittunt istorum.
    Very many codices with editions 2, 3 [read] paterna in place of praevia; a clearly corrupt reading. — De Trinitate XV, c. 11, n. 20: «The word which sounds outside is a sign of the word which shines within, to which the name of word more properly belongs.» — A little before, very many codices with editions 1, 6 omit istorum.
  4. Vers. 11.
    [John 14,] verse 11.
  5. Cap. 15. n. 25: Quid est, inquam, hoc formabile nondumque formatum, nisi quiddam mentis nostrae, quod hac atque hac volubili quadam motione iactamus, cum a nobis nunc hoc, nunc illud, sicut inventum fuerit vel occurrerit, cogitatur? — Et c. 16: Quapropter ita dicitur illud Dei Verbum, ut Dei cogitatio non dicatur, ne aliquid esse quasi volubile credatur in Deo.
    [De Trinitate XV,] c. 15, n. 25: What is, I say, this thing capable of being formed but not yet formed, if not something of our mind, which we toss about with such-and-such fluctuating motion, when by us now this, now that, as it shall have been found or shall have occurred, is thought? — And c. 16: Wherefore that Word of God is so called that it not be called the thought of God, lest anything be believed to be as it were fluctuating in God.
  6. Vers. 14. — Ed. 1 voci Sapientiae praemittit sicut dicitur.
    [Wisdom 9,] verse 14. — Ed. 1 prefixes sicut dicitur ("as is said") to the word Sapientiae.
  7. Cfr. Matth. 3, 17, et 17, 5. — Vocabulum Patri, in Vat. desideratum, posuimus auctoritate praestantiorum mss. et ed. 1.
    Cf. Matthew 3:17 and 17:5. — The word Patri, missing in the Vatican [edition], we have placed [in the text] on the authority of the more excellent manuscripts and of ed. 1.
  8. Sap. 18, 15.
    Wisdom 18:15.
  9. Cap. 37, 20, ubi Vulgata: Ante omnia opera verbum verax praecedat te.
    [Ecclesiasticus] c. 37, [v.] 20, where the Vulgate [reads]: Before all works let a true word precede thee.
  10. Vers. 27.
    [Matthew 11,] verse 27.
  11. Hunc textum etiam alii Scholastici, ut B. Albertus et S. Thomas, citant, sed non indicant, in quo Basilii scripto habeatur. Editores operum illorum Scholasticorum textum sumtum volunt ex Basilii opere contra Eunomium, in quo opere (lib. II. n. 17.) aliqua quidem istorum nominum, quae hic Filio Dei attribuuntur, occurrunt, sed non omnia, neque ibi nomina ista explicantur, sicut fit in nostro textu. Plura praedictorum nominum exposita inveniuntur apud Greg. Nazianz., Orat. 36 et 49. — Tertullian. vero in Apolog. c. 21 ait: «Et nos etiam Sermoni (Verbo) atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quae omnia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et Sermo insit pronuntianti, et ratio adsit disponenti, et virtus praesit perficienti». Et in libr. adv. Prax. c. 6 dicit, quod Deus protulit Sermonem (Verbum), «ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata atque disposita, immo et facta iam quantum in Dei sensu». — In ipso textu citato post virtus qm [?] codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 omittunt cuncta.
    This text other Scholastics also, such as Bl. Albert and St. Thomas, cite, but they do not indicate in which writing of Basil it is found. The editors of the works of those Scholastics hold the text to be taken from Basil's work Against Eunomius, in which work (book II, n. 17) some of these names which are here attributed to the Son of God do indeed occur, but not all, nor are these names there explained as is done in our text. Several of the aforesaid names are found explained in Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 36 and 49. — Tertullian, however, in Apology c. 21 says: «We also ascribe to the Speech (Word) and to the reason and likewise to the power, through which we have declared God to have wrought all things, a proper substance, [namely] spirit, in which the Speech is present to the one pronouncing, and the reason is at hand to the one disposing, and the power presides over the one perfecting». And in the book Against Praxeas c. 6 he says that God brought forth the Speech (Word), «that through him all things might come to be, by whom they had been thought and disposed, indeed already made insofar as [they were] in the sense [mind] of God». — In the very text cited, after virtus, certain[?] codices with editions 1, 2, 3 omit cuncta.
  12. Cfr. supra d. 22. q. 3, praecipue fundam. 1. — Paulo inferius post quam sola Vat. interponit in hominibus vel.
    Cf. above d. 22, q. 3, especially fundamentum 1. — A little below, after quam, the Vatican [edition] alone interposes in hominibus vel ("in human beings, or").
  13. Cap. 10. n. 19, et c. 11. n. 20. — Paulo superius voci similitudo Vat. cum paucis codd. praemittit expressa.
    [De Trinitate XV,] c. 10, n. 19, and c. 11, n. 20. — A little above, the Vatican [edition] with a few codices prefixes expressa to the word similitudo.
  14. Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 3. n. 5, ubi S. Doctor summam exhibet eorum quae in aliis libris de triplici hac trinitate docuit, de prima scil. et secunda in libr. XI. c. 2. et 3; de tertia in libr. IX. c. 4, et X. c. 11.
    De Trinitate book XV, c. 3, n. 5, where the holy Doctor [Augustine] presents a summary of what he had taught in the other books concerning this threefold trinity — concerning the first and second namely in book XI, c. 2 and 3; concerning the third in book IX, c. 4, and X, c. 11.
  15. Lib. XV. de Trin. c. 10. n. 19. Quae sententiam citatam sequuntur, sumta sunt ex c. 11. n. 20.
    De Trinitate book XV, c. 10, n. 19. What follows the cited sentence is taken from c. 11, n. 20.
  16. Cfr. supra pag. 130, nota 1 et 3.
    Cf. above [in this volume] p. 130, notes 1 and 3.
  17. Pro est similitudo multi codd. similis, ed. 1 etiam est similis.
    In place of est similitudo many codices [read] similis; ed. 1 also [reads] est similis.
  18. Loc. cit. c. 14. n. 23, et c. 15. n. 24.
    Loc. cit. [De Trinitate XV,] c. 14, n. 23, and c. 15, n. 24.
  19. Cap. 10. n. 15.
    [De Trinitate XV,] c. 10, n. 15.
  20. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. q. 2.
    Cf. above d. 3, p. II, q. 2.
  21. Cap. I, 1.
    [John] c. 1, [v.] 1.
  22. In principio erat Verbum, Ioan. I, 1.
    In the beginning was the Word, John 1:1.
  23. Supple cum cod. X verbum; et paulo inferius post illud cum codd. A aa bb scilicet aeternum.
    Supply, with cod. X, verbum ("word"); and a little below after illud [supply], with codices A aa bb, scilicet aeternum ("namely the eternal").
  24. Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 13-16. n. 22-26. — Immediate post Vat. cum cod. cc non insunt pro non sunt in, et in fine similis pro simile.
    De Trinitate book XV, c. 13–16, n. 22–26. — Immediately after, the Vatican [edition] with cod. cc [reads] non insunt in place of non sunt in, and at the end similis in place of simile.
← Dist. 27, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 27, Part 1, Dubia→