Dist. 9, Dubia
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 9
Dub. I.
In parte ista incidunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicitur: Non est aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus sanctus, quamvis personaliter etc. Videtur enim falsum quod dicitur, quia bene sequitur: Petrus est albus homo, ergo est animal album, quia idem significat albus et album: ergo pari ratione, quia idem significat3 alius et aliud, sequitur: est alius, ergo est aliud ens7. Si tu dicas, quod non est simile de hoc nomine alius et de hoc nomine aliud8; contra: bene sequitur: est alius homo, ergo est aliud animal: ergo a simili illud sequitur.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quia in Deo est singularis alietas, quia alietas est suppositi cum omnimoda unitate naturae: ideo singulari modo oportet exprimi. Et quoniam masculinum genus importat quandam distinctionem vel discretionem9, ideo respicit personam; sed neutrum propter indistinctionem respicit naturam: et ideo alius importat alietatem in persona, aliud10 in natura, et ideo in divinis non idem significant.
Posset etiam dici, quod in creaturis aliud significat11, cum dico: iste est alius ab illo, et aliud, cum dico: est aliud; et unum sequitur ad aliud. Non sic in divinis; et non est simile de albo, quia album imponitur a forma speciali, quae est albedo.12456
Dub. II.
Item dubitatur secundo de hoc quod dicit: Coaeternae sibi sunt tres personae. Videtur falsum, quia si coaeternae, et12 aeternae: ergo tres aeterni, quod est contra Symbolum, ubi dicitur: «Non tres aeterni»; et iterum contra rationem, quia numerus pluralis multiplicat formam. Unde non vere dicitur: tres sunt dii.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nomen significans substantiam in divinis reperitur secundum triplicem modum. Quoddam enim significat13 substantiam et per modum substantiae, ut nomen substantivum, ut Deus; et tale nullo modo plurificatur nec dicitur pluraliter, sive sit substantivum, sive substantivatum; ut14 hoc nomen aeternus; sic accipitur in Symbolo. Quaedam significant substantiam per modum adiacentiae, sicut nomina adiectiva adiective retenta15; et talia, quia trahunt numerum a substantivis, dicuntur pluraliter, et de genere talium sunt verba et participia. Alia sunt nomina, quae important substantiam in adiacentia, connotando intra relationem mutuam, qualia sunt coaeterni16; et talia ex duplici causa possunt dici pluraliter, tum ratione consignificationis sive modi significandi, tum ratione connotationis. Et sic patet, quod nulla est contradictio.
Quod17 autem obiicitur, quod pluralis numerus plurificat formam; dicendum, quod hoc non est verum in adiectivis18.
Dub. III.
Qui hoc dicit, non intelligit, natum esse etc.
Hic ponit Magister quatuor rationes demonstrantes, Filium coaeternum Patri, et ita argumentum Arii non valere19: Filius est natus, ergo non est aeternus.
Prima sumta est a simili et est talis: splendor est eiusdem durationis cum igne sive aequalis, et tamen est generatus ab igne: ergo multo fortius, cum Filius sit splendor Patris, quamvis ab ipso generetur, erit ei coaeternus: ergo conclusio praedictae rationis est falsa, et illa consequentia est interimenda20: si natus est, erat quando non erat. Sed contra: Si emanatio procedens a Deo est ei coaeterna, sicut emanatio procedens a creatura est ei coaequaeva21: ergo cum res exierint a Deo, videtur quod ab aeterno.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod egressus splendoris22 a luce vel igne est egressus connaturalis; et talis est egressus Filii a Patre, non autem egressus creaturae a Creatore, immo est voluntarius; et argumentum est bonum in proposito.
Item, si Dei Filius, inquit Augustinus, virtus et sapientia. Haec est secunda ratio Augustini: Filius Dei est virtus et sapientia: ergo si non est aeternus, aliquando fuit Deus sine virtute et sapientia; sed hoc est impossibile: ergo etc. Sed contra hanc rationem sic obiicitur: si enim sequitur: si Pater non habet sapientiam genitam, non est sapiens, videtur quod sit sapiens sapientia genita, quod expresse negat Augustinus in sexto de Trinitate23.
Respondeo: Augustinus istam rationem redarguit in sexto de Trinitate24, ostendens, illam procedere ex malo intellectu verbi; attamen, quia Magister adducit eam, potest dici, quod ratio valet, non quia Pater sit sapiens Filio, qui est sapientia genita, sed quia eadem25 est sapientia genita et ingenita; et ita, si una incipit, et alia.
Eidem quoque Arianicae quaestioni. Haec est tertia ratio quam adducit, et est Ambrosii, sumta ab auctoritate Isaiae: Ante me non est Deus, et post me non erit: ergo nec Pater ante Filium, nec Filius post Patrem. Sed contra: In divinis personis est ordo; sed ordo non est nisi prioris ad posterius: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut infra patebit26, non est ibi ordo durationis, quo alter est prior altero, sed ordo originis, quo alter ex altero.
Invicem enim in se, Pater in Filio, et Filius
in Patre cognoscitur. Haec est quarta ratio et est talis: relativa simul sunt natura27; sed Pater et Filius sunt relativa: ergo simul; sed Pater est aeternus: ergo Filius coaeternus. Probatio, quod Pater est aeternus: quia, si prius fuit Deus et postea Pater, mutatus est28. Sed contra istam rationem potest argui pari ratione: prius fuit Deus et postea Dominus: ergo mutatus est.
Respondeo: Aliqui volunt dicere, quod ista ratio valet, quia generatio est de substantia generantis; et ideo si incipit generare, substantia mutatur. Sed hoc non videtur, quia generatio in divinis non dicit motum. Alii dicunt, quod quia genitus est consubstantialis gignenti, si mutatur genitus, et gignens; sed genitus mutatur, si de novo generatur: ergo et generans per consequens. Alius modus dicendi est, quod paternitas veram dicit habitudinem in Patre, non sic creatio vel dominatio; et ideo paternitas adveniens29 mutat, non sic dominatio.
Sed nulla praedictarum rationum30 dat vigorem huic rationi contra haereticos, quia haereticus dicebat, quod Filius non erat coaeternus, ac per hoc nec consubstantialis, nec idem in substantia. Propter hoc notandum, quod praedicta ratio bona est contra haereticum, facta eius suppositione; quia haereticus dicebat Patrem et Filium differentes in substantia et natura, sicut in generatione carnali31. Pari ratione contra eum dicit Ambrosius: cum ita sit, quod Pater iste mutetur accessione generationis, qui generat alium in substantia; et in divinis similiter Pater generat alium in substantia: ergo accessione generationis mutatur, ut32 iste.
Quocumque tamen modo dicatur, non est magnum periculum, quia non omnia argumenta, quae fiunt ad veritatem, sunt necessaria.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Vox silet non mea tantum, sed et Angelorum. Videtur enim male dicere Angelorum, quia vox non est nisi habentium organa et respirationem; sed Angeli haec non habent. Si dicas, quod habent voces spirituales, non prolatas, sicut dicit Damascenus34, quod tradant sibi intelligentias suas sine voce prolatas; quaero, quae sit necessitas vocis spiritualis, et quis modus loquendi, et quis modus audiendi?33
Respondeo: Breviter hic dicendum est — quia hoc extra principale propositum est quantum ad partem istam — quod necessitas est locutionis35; quia sicut unicuique naturae rationali data est voluntas libera, sic conscientia secreta. Unde sicut non potest aliquis voluntatem alterius in aliud vertere, sed solum inducere, nisi ipsa se inclinet, praeter solum Deum, in cuius manu sunt corda hominum: ita nemo potest conceptiones alterius cognoscere, sed solum coniicere, praeter Deum, nisi ipsa intelligentia exprimat; et ipsa expressio locutio nuncupatur. Ratio autem huius est, quia solus Deus format mentem et quantum ad intellectum et quantum ad affectum; et modus loquendi similis est modo addiscendi. Sicut enim nos per sensum addiscimus, ita quod species per interiorem sensum pervenit ad intellectum, sic exprimimus; quia verbum cogitationis internae unitur voci36 in excogitatione et postmodum voci sensibili in pronuntiatione, et ex hoc fit expressio in actu. Angelus autem unica virtute facit quod nos pluribus. Unde Angelus, sicut per applicationem speciei innatae ad ipsum cognoscibile ipsum cognoscit, sic ordinando speciem innatam ad alium Angelum cognoscentem, conceptus suos aperit; similiter alius mutua conversione recipit; et sic unus loquitur, alter audit. Simile est de duobus speculis sibi oppositis, si voluntarie possent abscondere aliis et offerre37 quae in se relucent.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Dicamus ergo verius, semper natus; et ratio sua est, ut Deus aeternus et perfectus valeat designari. Sed contra hoc est, quod inter omnia tempora praesens maiorem convenientiam habet cum aeternitate; quia verius dicitur est de Deo, quam fuit et erit, sicut exponit Augustinus, sicut habitum est in praecedenti distinctione38. Et ratio huius est, quia praesens dicit ens in actu, alia tempora non.
Respondeo: Dicendum, sicut supra tactum est39, quod verba diversorum temporum dicta de Deo non significant aliquos temporales actus, sed important durationem divini esse sine initio, ut praeteritum; sine intervallo, ut praesens; sine termino, ut futurum. Et quia omnia ista aeque vere reperiuntur in Deo, ideo omnia aeque vere dicuntur de eo40.
Sed tamen, quia multi erraverunt in generatione quantum ad initium, pauci vel nulli quantum ad intervallum vel terminum: ideo sacri Doctores, ut ora haereticorum obstruerent, eam41 per verbum praeteriti temporis, quod semper significat ut praeteritum, et ita nunquam habere principium, expresserunt.
Alia ratio est, quia nos generationem divinam manuductione quadam intelligimus per generationem, quae circa nos est; et quia videmus in hac generatione, quia genitus, dum generatur, est imperfectus, ne crederet posse aliquis, quod Dei Filius esset imperfectus semper42, ideo decreverunt dici semper genitus.
Dicendum ergo, quod quantum est ex parte rei, aeque vere ac proprie dicitur unum, sicut reliquum. Quod vero dicit Gregorius, dicit quantum ad maiorem fidei explanationem, ne error habeat locum; et sic exponit Magister.43 Magis ergo convenit dicere: semper genitus, quam semper generatur. Nec est simile de hoc verbo est et fuit; quia hoc verbum est significat per modum quietis, et ideo esse, dum est, perfectum est; sed hoc verbum generari penes haec inferiora per modum fieri; et44 quia in pluribus hoc verum est, quod aliquid, dum fit, non habet esse perfectum, ideo non est simile secundum rationem intelligentiae.
Dub. VI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ego hodie genui te, quia potest intelligi de die, quo ex matre natus est; sed hoc nihil videtur valere, quia secundum hanc generationem non habuit patrem, sed tantum matrem45.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud verbum intelligendum est causaliter; secundum enim generationem ex matre dicitur genuisse, quia fecit generari. Similis est expositio super illud Matthaei tertio46: Potens est de lapidibus illis suscitare filios Abrahae; Glossa: «In huius rei testimonium Deus de Sara genuit filium, id est, fecit generari».
Dub. VII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Origenes: Splendor autem non semel nascitur et desinit. Contra: si hoc simile rectum est, videtur quod Filius non semel nascatur: ergo quaeritur, quare magis generatio Filii assimilatur splendori quam aliis rebus, maxime cum non generetur a luce splendor nisi ad praesentiam corporis obiecti? Et praeterea, Filius dicitur lux47; non ergo splendor lucis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod generatio Filii habet in se perfectam conformitatem, coaeternitatem et aequalitatem48; et quia in creatura una simul haec non possumus invenire, ideo capimus ex multis, et ideo multas illi assimilamus. Quantum ergo ad conformitatem similis est generationi verbi49, quod est proles perfecte repraesentans illum, a quo est. Quantum ad coaeternitatem similis est egressui splendoris a luce, in quo est coaevitas50, propter lucis actualitatem. Quantum ad aequalitatem similis est generationi viventis ex vivente, qui generat sibi aequale51 omnino; et sic diversimode comparatur a Sanctis. Comparat igitur Origenes ad egressum splendoris, non quantum ad iterationis assimilationem, sed quantum ad privationem intermissionis sive interpolationis.
Et nota, quod differunt splendor, radius et lumen, cum omnia dicant influentiam a luminoso: quia radius dicit emissionem secundum diametralem distantiam; lumen, secundum circumferentiam, utrumque52 tamen in profundum transparentis; splendor dicit repercussionem ad corpus non transparens, tersum et limitatum. Sed tamen hic Origenes vocat splendorem lumen progrediens a luce.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Filius est lux; dicendum, quod lux habet in se naturam manifestandi; et ita respicit cognitionem et appropriatur Filio; habet in se vim multiplicandi sive generandi splendorem; et ita appropriatur Patri.53
Dub. VIII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod cum sacramento scientiae suae ex eo nascitur. Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod Pater secundum sacramentum scientiae generat Filium: ergo scientia est ratio generandi.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Hilarius vocat hic55 sacramentum sacrum secretum; dicit autem, Filium nasci cum sacramento scientiae, quia Filii generatio non tantum sacra, sed etiam secreta est, non, inquam, Deo secreta, sed nobis, quia nos eam non comprehendimus; ipse autem55 perfecte novit eam. Ideo dicit cum sacramento etc.
Dub. IX.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quod ex vivo vivum natum est habet nativitatis perfectum sine novitate naturae. Videtur enim falsum, quia puer nascitur de patre et matre viventibus, et tamen utrumque habet, scilicet imperfectionem et novitatem.
Respondeo: Ratio Hilarii, sicut patet per litteram sequentem56, intelligenda est de vivo per essentiam; ubi enim est vivens per essentiam, non fit ex non vivo vivens, sicut fit in vivente per participationem, ubi non generatur vivum ex vivo nisi per non vivum, ut patet, quia homo non generatur ex homine nisi mediante semine.
Dub. X.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Neque ex derivatione, sed ex virtute nativitas est. Videtur contrarium, quia secundum Dionysium57 et Anselmum Pater se habet ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum, ut fons, et illi ut rivi; sed rivus est a fonte per derivationem.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nativitas, quae est per derivationem, attenditur quantum ad transmutationem aliquam circa illud quod transmutatur, et ita dicit passionem quandam, ac per hoc infirmitatem58; sed vivens, quod est vita, est actus purus, et ita vita pura, in qua non est infirmitas, sed pura actualitas; et ideo vult Hilarius dicere, quod Pater generans est totus59 vita, et quod generat non est per vel demutationem, quae attenditur in derivatione, sed per omnimodam virtutem: ergo Filius genitus est virtus, non per mutationem natus.
Dub. XI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ubi Pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est. Videtur quod improprie dicit60, quia auctoritas dicit causalitatem; sed haec non recipitur in divinis: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod auctoritas dicit quandam principalitatem sive auctoritatem61 in persona, quae nihil habet ab alio, sed ab ipso omnes; et ista auctoritas in Patre est innascibilitas; unde non dicit causalitatem, sed privationem principii, et per hoc summam principalitatem.
Dub. XII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quod vero ab aeterno natum est, id, si non aeternum natum est etc; et innuit Hilarius hic tale argumentum: si Filius non est generatus sive natus ab aeterno, generatio eius non est aeterna; et si hoc62, Pater non generat ab aeterno: ergo Pater non est aeternus: ergo qui derogat aeternitati Filii, derogat aeternitati Patris. Sed ista ratio non videtur valere, quia similiter ego arguam ex parte Creatoris et creaturae: si63 creatura non est aeterna, non ab aeterno creavit Deus, et ita non est Creator aeternus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est simile, sicut patet ex sequenti64 eius quod Hilarius supponit, quod esse Patrem sit proprie proprium illius personae: ergo cum tale semper conveniat, aut aliter res non habet esse perfectum, sequitur de necessitate: aut Filius est aeternus, aut Pater ab aeterno non habet esse perfectum. Creare vero, etsi solius Dei sit, tamen ratione connotati habet imperfectionem coniunctam, secundum quam non tantum impossibile, sed etiam non intelligibile est, aliquid ab aeterno creari65.
Dub. XIII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sed se ipsum demutare nascendo; quia secundum hoc, cum Filius Dei prius esset et postea ex Virgine natus sit66: ergo esset mutatus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ipse Hilarius intelligit secundum eandem naturam, secundum quam prius erat. Si enim secundum eandem naturam prius erat et postea natus est, necesse est, quod secundum illam naturam mutatus sit; sed si secundum aliam, oportet mutationem fieri in illa natura, sed non in persona, cum illa natura non dicat aliquid in persona, sed magis aliquid cum persona. Unde nulla fit mutatio in alia natura.
---
Dub. I.
In this part doubts arise concerning the text [of the Master], and first there is a doubt about what is said: The Father is not other, the Son other, the Holy Spirit other, although personally etc. For what is said seems false, because it well follows: Peter is a white man (albus homo), therefore he is a white animal (animal album), since albus and album signify the same thing: therefore by parity of reasoning, since alius and aliud signify the same thing, it follows: he is another (alius), therefore he is another being (aliud ens)7. If you say that the case of the noun alius and the noun aliud is not similar8; on the contrary: it well follows: he is another man, therefore he is another animal: therefore by similar reasoning that follows3.
I respond: It must be said that, because in God there is a singular otherness, since the otherness is of supposit with complete unity of nature: therefore it must be expressed in a singular manner. And since the masculine gender imports a certain distinction or discreteness9, therefore it regards the person; but the neuter, on account of indistinction, regards the nature: and therefore alius imports otherness in person, aliud10 in nature, and so in the divine [persons] they do not signify the same.
It could also be said that in creatures aliud signifies11, when I say: this one is other than that one, and aliud, when I say: it is another thing; and one follows upon the other. Not so in the divine [persons]; and the case of white is not similar, because album is imposed from a special form, namely whiteness.12456
Dub. II.
Likewise, secondly there is a doubt about what he says: The three persons are coeternal to one another. It seems false, because if [they are] coeternal, [they are] also12 eternal: therefore three eternals, which is against the [Athanasian] Creed, where it is said: «Not three eternals»; and again against reason, because a plural number multiplies the form. Hence it is not truly said: there are three gods.
I respond: It must be said that a noun signifying substance in the divine is found according to a threefold mode. For one [kind] signifies13 substance and after the mode of substance, like a substantive noun, as God; and such [a noun] is in no way pluralized nor said in the plural, whether it be substantive or used as a substantive14, as this noun eternal; thus it is taken in the Creed. Certain [nouns] signify substance after the mode of adjacency, like adjectival nouns retained adjectivally15; and such [nouns], because they draw number from substantives, are said in the plural, and verbs and participles are of this kind. Other [nouns] are those which import substance in adjacency, connoting an internal mutual relation, such as coeternal (coaeterni)16; and such [nouns] can be said in the plural for a twofold cause, both by reason of consignification or mode of signifying, and by reason of connotation. And so it is plain that there is no contradiction.
As for what17 is objected, that a plural number pluralizes the form; it must be said that this is not true in adjectives18.
Dub. III.
He who says this does not understand that to be born etc.
Here the Master sets down four arguments demonstrating the Son to be coeternal to the Father, and thus that the argument of Arius is not valid19: The Son is born, therefore he is not eternal.
The first is taken from a similitude and is such: a splendor is of the same duration as the fire — or equal — and yet is generated from the fire: therefore much more so, since the Son is the splendor of the Father, although he is generated from him, he will be coeternal to him: therefore the conclusion of the aforesaid argument is false, and that consequence is to be done away with20: if he is born, there was [a time] when he was not. But on the contrary: If an emanation proceeding from God is coeternal to him, just as the emanation proceeding from a creature is coaeval21 to it: therefore since things have gone forth from God, it seems that [they have done so] from eternity.
I respond: It must be said that the going-forth of a splendor22 from a light or fire is a connatural going-forth; and such is the going-forth of the Son from the Father, but not the going-forth of a creature from the Creator — rather, it is voluntary; and the argument is good for the matter at hand.
Likewise, if the Son of God, says Augustine, [is] virtue and wisdom. This is the second argument of Augustine: The Son of God is virtue and wisdom: therefore if he is not eternal, at some [time] God was without virtue and wisdom; but this is impossible: therefore etc. But against this argument it is objected thus: for if it follows: if the Father does not have begotten wisdom, he is not wise, it seems that he is wise by begotten wisdom, which Augustine expressly denies in the sixth book On the Trinity23.
I respond: Augustine refutes that argument in the sixth book On the Trinity24, showing that it proceeds from a bad understanding of the word; nevertheless, because the Master adduces it, it can be said that the argument holds, not because the Father is wise by the Son, who is begotten wisdom, but because the same25 is begotten and unbegotten wisdom; and so, if the one begins, the other [does] also.
To the same Arian question [also]. This is the third argument which he adduces, and it is Ambrose's, taken from the authority of Isaiah: Before me there is no God, and after me there will be none: therefore neither [is] the Father before the Son, nor the Son after the Father. But on the contrary: In the divine persons there is order; but order is only of prior to posterior: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that, as will appear below26, there is no order of duration there, by which one is prior to the other, but an order of origin, by which one is from the other.
For mutually in himself, the Father in the Son, and the Son
is known in the Father. This is the fourth argument and is such: relatives are simultaneous in nature27; but Father and Son are relatives: therefore simultaneous; but the Father is eternal: therefore the Son is coeternal. Proof that the Father is eternal: because, if he was first God and afterwards Father, he is changed28. But against this argument one can argue by parity of reasoning: he was first God and afterwards Lord: therefore he is changed.
I respond: Some wish to say that this argument holds, because generation is from the substance of the one generating; and therefore if he begins to generate, the substance is changed. But this does not seem [right], because generation in the divine [persons] does not signify motion. Others say that, because the begotten is consubstantial with the begetter, if the begotten is changed, the begetter is also; but the begotten is changed if he is newly generated: therefore the generator [is changed] consequently. Another way of speaking is, that paternity declares a true relation in the Father, but creation or lordship does not so; and therefore paternity supervening29 alters, but lordship does not.
But none of the foresaid arguments30 gives force to this argument against the heretics, because the heretic was saying that the Son was not coeternal, and through this neither consubstantial nor the same in substance. On account of this it should be noted that the foresaid argument is good against the heretic, given his supposition; for the heretic was saying that the Father and the Son were different in substance and nature, as in carnal generation31. By parity of reasoning Ambrose says against him: since it is so that that [carnal] father is changed by the access of generation, who generates another in substance; and in the divine [persons] similarly the Father generates another in substance: therefore he is changed by the access of generation, as32 that one [is].
In whatever way it be said, however, there is no great danger, because not all arguments which are made for [the sake of] truth are necessary.
Dub. IV.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: The voice falls silent, not only mine, but also the angels'. For it seems wrongly said of the angels, because there is no voice except of those having organs and respiration; but the angels do not have these. If you say that they have spiritual voices, not uttered aloud, as Damascene says34, that they communicate their intelligences to one another without an uttered voice; I ask, what is the necessity of a spiritual voice, and what is the mode of speaking, and what is the mode of hearing?33
I respond: Briefly it must here be said — since this is outside the principal proposition so far as this part is concerned — that there is a necessity of speech35; because as to each rational nature there is given a free will, so there is a secret conscience. Hence as no one can turn the will of another to something else, but only induce [it], unless it itself inclines itself, except God alone, in whose hand are the hearts of men: so no one can know the conceptions of another, but only conjecture them, except God, unless the intelligence itself expresses [them]; and that expression is called speech. The reason of this is, that God alone forms the mind both as to intellect and as to affection; and the mode of speaking is similar to the mode of learning. For as we learn through sense, in such a way that the species comes through the interior sense to the intellect, so we express; because the word of inner thought is joined to the voice36 in cogitation, and afterwards to the sensible voice in pronunciation, and from this expression in act comes about. The angel, however, by a single power does what we [do] by many. Hence the angel, as by the application of an innate species to the very knowable thing he knows it, so by ordering the innate species to another knowing angel, he opens his concepts; similarly the other by mutual conversion receives [them]; and so the one speaks, the other hears. It is similar to two mirrors set opposite to each other, if they could voluntarily hide from others and offer37 [to others] what is reflected in themselves.
Dub. V.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: Let us therefore say more truly, ever-born; and his reason is, that he may be designated as the eternal and perfect God. But against this it is [argued] that among all tenses the present has greater agreement with eternity; because is is more truly said of God than was and will be, as Augustine expounds, as was held in the preceding distinction38. And the reason of this is that present signifies a being in act, the other tenses [do] not.
I respond: It must be said, as was touched on above39, that verbs of various tenses said of God do not signify any temporal acts, but import the duration of the divine being without beginning, as the past; without interval, as the present; without term, as the future. And because all these things are equally truly found in God, therefore they are all equally truly said of him40.
But nevertheless, because many have erred concerning generation as to its beginning, [but] few or none as to its interval or term: therefore the holy Doctors, in order to stop the mouths of the heretics, expressed it41 by a verb of the past tense, which always signifies as past, and thus as never having a beginning.
Another reason is, that we understand the divine generation by a certain leading-by-the-hand, through the generation that is about us; and because we see in this generation that the begotten, while he is being generated, is imperfect, lest anyone could believe that the Son of God were always imperfect42, therefore they decreed to say always begotten.
It must therefore be said that, so far as is on the side of the thing, the one is just as truly and properly said as the other. As for what Gregory says, he says it as to a greater explanation of the faith, lest error find a place; and so the Master expounds it.43 Therefore it is more fitting to say always begotten than always being begotten. Nor is the case of the verb is and was similar; because the verb is signifies after the mode of rest, and therefore to be, while it is, is perfect; but the verb to be generated among these lower things [signifies] after the mode of becoming; and44 because in many cases it is true that something, while it is becoming, does not have perfect being, therefore the case is not similar according to the account of understanding.
Dub. VI.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: Today I have begotten thee, because this can be understood of the day on which he was born of [his] mother; but this seems to be of no avail, because according to this generation he had no father, but only a mother45.
I respond: It must be said that this word is to be understood causally; for according to the generation from the mother he is said to have begotten, because he caused [him] to be generated. Similar is the exposition upon that text of Matthew 346: He is able from these stones to raise up sons to Abraham; the Gloss: «In testimony of this matter God begot a son from Sara, that is, caused [him] to be generated».
Dub. VII.
Likewise there is a question about what Origen says: But a splendor is not born once and ceases. On the contrary: if this similitude is correct, it seems that the Son is not born once: therefore it is asked, why is the generation of the Son rather likened to a splendor than to other things, especially since splendor is not generated from a light except in the presence of an opposing body? And besides, the Son is called light47; therefore [he is] not the splendor of light.
I respond: It must be said that the generation of the Son has in itself perfect conformity, coeternity and equality48; and because in a creature we cannot find these together in one, therefore we take from many, and so we liken him to many. As to conformity therefore he is similar to the generation of a word49, which is an offspring perfectly representing the one from whom it is. As to coeternity he is similar to the going-forth of a splendor from a light, in which there is coaeval50, on account of the actuality of the light. As to equality he is similar to the generation of a living from a living, who generates one altogether equal51 to himself; and thus in diverse ways he is compared by the Saints. Therefore Origen compares [it] to the going-forth of a splendor, not as to a likeness of iteration, but as to the privation of intermission or interruption.
And note that splendor, ray, and light differ, since all signify an influence from the luminous: because a ray signifies emission according to diametrical distance; light (lumen), according to the circumference, both52 however into the depth of the transparent; splendor signifies the reflection back to a non-transparent, clean, and limited body. But nevertheless here Origen calls the light proceeding from the light a splendor.
To that, then, which is objected, that the Son is light; it must be said that light has in itself the nature of manifesting; and so it regards cognition and is appropriated to the Son; it has in itself the power of multiplying or generating splendor; and so it is appropriated to the Father.53
Dub. VIII.
Likewise there is a question about what Hilary says, that with the sacrament of his knowledge he is born from him. For it seems according to this that the Father generates the Son according to the sacrament of knowledge: therefore knowledge is the ground of generating.
I respond: It must be said that Hilary here55 calls sacrament a sacred secret; and he says that the Son is born with the sacrament of knowledge, because the generation of the Son is not only sacred but also secret — not, I say, secret to God, but to us, because we do not comprehend it; but he himself55 perfectly knows it. Therefore he says with the sacrament etc.
Dub. IX.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: That which is born living from a living thing has the perfection of birth without newness of nature. For it seems false, because a child is born from a living father and a living mother, and yet both have, namely, imperfection and newness.
I respond: The argument of Hilary, as appears through the following text56, is to be understood of the living by essence; for where there is a living [thing] by essence, the living does not come about from a non-living, as it comes about in a living [thing] by participation, where the living is not generated from the living except through the non-living, as is plain, because a man is not generated from a man except by means of seed.
Dub. X.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: Nativity is not from derivation but from power. The contrary seems [to be the case], because according to Dionysius57 and Anselm the Father stands to the Son and the Holy Spirit as a fount, and they to him as rivers; but a river is from the fount by derivation.
I respond: It must be said that nativity which is by derivation is regarded as to some change concerning that which is changed, and so signifies a certain passion, and through this an infirmity58; but the living, which is life, is pure act, and thus pure life, in which there is no infirmity but pure actuality; and therefore Hilary wishes to say that the Father, in generating, is wholly59 life, and what he generates is not through change or transmutation, which is regarded in derivation, but through omnimodal power: therefore the begotten Son is power, born not through change.
Dub. XI.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: Where the Father is author, there also is nativity. It seems he speaks improperly60, because authority signifies causality; but this is not received in the divine [persons]: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that authority signifies a certain principality or authority61 in a person which has nothing from another, but from itself all [others have]; and that authority in the Father is innascibility; hence it does not signify causality, but the privation of a principle, and through this the highest principality.
Dub. XII.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: But that which has been born from eternity, if it has not been born eternal etc.; and Hilary here implies such an argument: if the Son is not generated or born from eternity, his generation is not eternal; and if this62, the Father does not generate from eternity: therefore the Father is not eternal: therefore he who detracts from the eternity of the Son detracts from the eternity of the Father. But this argument does not seem to hold, because similarly I will argue on the part of the Creator and the creature: if63 the creature is not eternal, God did not create from eternity, and so the Creator is not eternal.
I respond: It must be said that the case is not similar, as is plain from the consequence64 of what Hilary supposes, that to be Father is properly proper to that person: therefore since such [an attribute] always belongs [to him], or otherwise the thing does not have perfect being, it follows of necessity: either the Son is eternal, or the Father from eternity does not have perfect being. But to create, even though it belong to God alone, nevertheless by reason of the connoted has an imperfection joined with it, according to which it is not only impossible, but also not intelligible, that anything be created from eternity65.
Dub. XIII.
Likewise there is a question about what he says: But to alter himself by being born; because according to this, since the Son of God existed before and afterwards was born of the Virgin66: therefore he would be changed.
I respond: It must be said that Hilary himself understands [this] according to the same nature according to which he existed before. For if according to the same nature he existed before and afterwards was born, it is necessary that he be changed according to that nature; but if according to another [nature], the change must come to be in that nature, but not in the person, since that nature does not say something in the person, but rather something with the person. Hence no change comes about in the other nature.
---
- Ita vetustiores mss. et ed. 1, dum Vat. cum cod. cc ipse est Filius et purus. Paulo ante unus alterve cod. ut PQ cum ed. 1 sua loco sui.So the older mss. and ed. 1, while the Vatican [edition] with cod. cc [reads] ipse est Filius et purus. A little before, one or another cod. like PQ with ed. 1 [reads] sua in place of sui.
- Lectio Vat. simile loco simul sint corrigitur ex mss. et ed. 1.The Vatican reading simile in place of simul sint is corrected from the mss. and ed. 1.
- Ed. 1 addit ergo.Ed. 1 adds ergo.
- Verba Augustini vide supra in ipsa obiectione. — Mox ed. 1 dicatur loco dicitur. Paulo ante fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus perfecte pro perfecto.For Augustine's words see above in the objection itself. — Then ed. 1 [reads] dicatur in place of dicitur. A little before, on the testimony of the mss. and ed. 1 we have substituted perfecte for perfecto.
- Vat. contra mss. ista.The Vatican [edition], against the mss., [reads] ista.
- Hoc est, quae semper est. — Paulo infra post nec tamen semper Vat. explicando addit eius productio, quod deest in mss. et ed. 1.That is, which always is. — A little further on after nec tamen semper the Vatican [edition], by way of explanation, adds eius productio, which is absent from the mss. and ed. 1.
- Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 hic et paulo ante significant.The Vatican [edition], against the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] significant here and a little before.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. aliud ens.The Vatican [edition], without the support of the mss. and the first six editions, [reads] aliud ens.
- Codd. antiquiores inter se non consentiunt; alii enim ut T W cum ed. 1 omittunt distinctionem vel, alii autem ut AFGHIKSVXYZ etc. vel discretionem.The older codices do not agree among themselves; for some, as T W with ed. 1, omit distinctionem vel, but others, as AFGHIKSVXYZ etc., [omit] vel discretionem.
- Vat. repetit hic alietatem, quod deest in mss. et ed. 1.The Vatican [edition] here repeats alietatem, which is absent from the mss. and ed. 1.
- Ed. 1 significatur et paulo post consequitur loco sequitur. — Plura de hac re vide supra d. 4. q. 2.Ed. 1 [reads] significatur and a little after consequitur in place of sequitur. — See more on this matter above, d. 4, q. 2.
- Unus alterque cod. ut PQ ergo loco et.One or another cod. like PQ [reads] ergo in place of et.
- Ita plurimi antiquiores codd., dum Vat. cum ed. 1 et cod. cc legit Quaedam enim significant.So very many older codices, while the Vatican [edition] with ed. 1 and cod. cc reads Quaedam enim significant.
- Vat. cum cod. cc, interpunctione mutata, loco ut ponit et. — Sub voce substantivatum intellige adiectivum vel aliud nomen loco substantivi adhibitum.The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc, with the punctuation changed, puts et in place of ut. — Under the term substantivatum understand an adjective or other noun put in place of a substantive.
- Pro non congruo vocabulo tenta ope mss. et ed. 1 substituimus retenta; mox antiquioribus mss. cum ed. 1 consentientibus, lectionem perturbatam Vat. et cod. cc correximus ponendo quia pro quae.In place of the unsuitable word tenta, with the help of the mss. and ed. 1 we have substituted retenta; then, the older mss. agreeing with ed. 1, we have corrected the disturbed reading of the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc by putting quia in place of quae.
- Nonnulli codd. ut H M Y ee cum ed. 1 addunt et huiusmodi. Paulo post fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 pro significationis substituimus consignificationis, quod primam rationem, scilicet quatenus sunt adiectiva seu important substantiam in adiacentia, distinctius exhibet; secunda ratio fundatur in connotata mutua relatione.Some codices, as H M Y ee with ed. 1, add et huiusmodi. A little after, on the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, in place of significationis we have substituted consignificationis, which more distinctly exhibits the first ground, namely insofar as they are adjectives or import substance in adjacency; the second ground is founded in the connoted mutual relation.
- Ed. 1 Ad illud quod obiicitur. Mox cod. dd multiplicat loco plurificat.Ed. 1 [reads] Ad illud quod obiicitur. Then cod. dd [reads] multiplicat in place of plurificat.
- De hac solutione vide infra d. 24. a. 1. q. 2. Cfr. etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 49. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2, et S. 1. q. 39. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic circa litteram.On this solution see below, d. 24, a. 1, q. 2. Cfr. also Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. 1, q. 49, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, and Summa 1, q. 39, a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- Vat. hic addit quod tale est, quae tamen verba desunt in codd. et ed. 1. Nonnulli codd. ut EFIKWYZ valet pro valere. Mox post ergo non supplevimus ex mss. et ed. 1 est.The Vatican [edition] here adds quod tale est, but these words are absent from the codices and ed. 1. Some codices, as EFIKWYZ, [read] valet for valere. Then after ergo non we have supplied est from the mss. and ed. 1.
- Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic superflue additum et, e contra paulo infra post consequentia adiecimus est.On the testimony of the mss. and ed. 1 we have expunged the superfluously added et here, and on the contrary a little further on after consequentia we have added est.
- Codd. inter se dissentiunt, alii enim ut EFINUXZ habent coaeva loco coaequaeva, alii ut A G K S T W dd ff falso addunt coaeterna, sicut et ed. 1 falso habet coaeva et coaeterna.The codices disagree among themselves; for some, as EFINUXZ, have coaeva in place of coaequaeva, others, as A G K S T W dd ff, falsely add coaeterna, just as ed. 1 also falsely has coaeva et coaeterna.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 hic addit a sole, et paulo infra post talis est contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 habet egressio loco egressus.The Vatican [edition], without the support of the mss. and editions 1, 2, 3, here adds a sole, and a little further on after talis est, against the older codices and ed. 1, has egressio in place of egressus.
- Cap. 1. n. 1. Vide etiam ibid. VII. c. 1. n. 2. et XV. c. 7. n. 12.Ch. 1, n. 1. See also ibid. VII, c. 1, n. 2, and XV, c. 7, n. 12.
- Cap. 1. n. 2.Ch. 1, n. 2.
- Ed. 1 addit sapientia. — Plura hac de re vide infra d. 32. a. 2. q. 1.Ed. 1 adds sapientia. — See more on this matter below, d. 32, a. 2, q. 1.
- Dist. 20. a. 2. q. 1. et 2. — Paulo infra multi codd. ut AFGHIKTVWX etc. prius loco prior.D. 20, a. 2, q. 1 and 2. — A little further on, many codices, as AFGHIKTVWX etc., [read] prius in place of prior.
- Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Relativis. — Mox post simul fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus sed loco si et Probatio pro Probatur.Aristotle, Categories, chapter On Relatives. — Then after simul, on the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, we have substituted sed in place of si and Probatio in place of Probatur.
- Est ratio Ambrosii, quae habetur in lit. Magistri c. 2. in fine.It is the argument of Ambrose, which is found in the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end.
- Fide plurium mss. ut HIKM etc. et ed. 1 substituimus adveniens loco veniens.On the testimony of several mss., as HIKM etc., and ed. 1, we have substituted adveniens in place of veniens.
- Cod. D responsionum. Mox cod. Y haereticum pro haereticos. Paulo infra in Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 post coaeternus additur Patri et pro nec habetur non, ac post idem omittitur in.Cod. D [reads] responsionum. Then cod. Y [reads] haereticum for haereticos. A little further on in the Vatican [edition], against the older codices and ed. 1, after coaeternus there is added Patri and in place of nec it has non, and after idem the word in is omitted.
- Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 delevimus hic superflue repetitum carnalis.On the authority of the mss. and ed. 1 we have deleted the superfluously repeated carnalis here.
- Vat., obnitentibus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, et loco ut.The Vatican [edition], with the mss. and editions 1, 2, 3 against [it], [reads] et in place of ut.
- Hoc dubium fusius explicatur hic q. 3.This doubt is more fully explained here, q. 3.
- Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 3: Sed sine ulla prolati sermonis ope mutuo sibi sensa sua communicant et consilia.Book II, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 3: But without any aid of an uttered word they mutually communicate to one another their senses and counsels.
- Sequimur codd. YZ, dum multi cum ed. 1 ponunt, sed non ita bene quia necessitas locutionis, Vat. autem cum praecedentibus coniungendo legit: quae sit in Angelis necessitas locutionis.We follow codd. YZ, while many with ed. 1 put — but not so well — quia necessitas locutionis, while the Vatican [edition], joining [it] with the preceding, reads: quae sit in Angelis necessitas locutionis.
- In cod. T a secunda manu additum est intelligibili.In cod. T by a second hand the word intelligibili has been added.
- Fide plurium mss. ut FHPQ cc dd ee substituimus bonam lectionem offerre pro auferre, loco cuius cod. Y ponit ostendere et ed. 1 afferre. — Plura de locutione Angelorum vide II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 1.On the testimony of several mss., as FHPQ cc dd ee, we have substituted the good reading offerre for auferre, in place of which cod. Y puts ostendere and ed. 1 afferre. — See more on the speech of angels in II Sent. d. 10, a. 3, q. 1.
- Parte 1. lit. Magistri c. 1. et dub. 7. — Mox ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus particulam Et, quam etiam paulo superius post fuit substituimus loco aut.Part 1, text of the Master, c. 1 and dub. 7. — Then from the older mss. and ed. 1 we have added the particle Et, which also a little above after fuit we have substituted in place of aut.
- In praeced. dist. loco paulo supra citato. Cfr. etiam hic q. 4. — Fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus post Dicendum superflue additum quod. Paulo infra cod. E motus pro actus.In the preceding distinction at the place cited just above. Cfr. also here q. 4. — On the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1 we have expunged the quod superfluously added after Dicendum. A little further on cod. E [reads] motus for actus.
- Vat. contra plures codd. ut AGISTVXZ etc. cum ed. 1 Deo.The Vatican [edition], against several codices, as AGISTVXZ etc., with ed. 1, [reads] Deo.
- Mss. cum ed. 1 omittunt eam, certe supplendum.The mss. with ed. 1 omit eam, which is certainly to be supplied.
- Restituimus ex mss. et ed. 1 hic non bene omissum semper.We have restored from the mss. and ed. 1 the semper not well omitted here.
- Hic, c. 2.Here, c. 2.
- Supplevimus ope mss. et sex primarum edd. particulam et.We have supplied, with the help of the mss. and the first six editions, the particle et.
- Cod. X ultimam propositionis partem sic exhibet: generationem pater non genuit, sed tantum mater. Mox post Dicendum fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus quod.Cod. X presents the last part of the proposition thus: the father did not beget the generation, but only the mother. Then after Dicendum, on the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, we have added quod.
- Vers. 9, in quo textu Vulgata post est addit Deus et pro illis habet istis. Glossam vide apud Lyranum in hunc locum. — Paulo ante supplevimus ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 post Similis verbum est.V. 9, in which text the Vulgate after est adds Deus and in place of illis has istis. See the Gloss in Lyra at this place. — A little before, we have supplied from the older mss. and ed. 1, after Similis, the verb est.
- Ioan. I, 9. — In Vat. ante praeterea deest Et, quod tamen in vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 habetur.John 1:9. — In the Vatican [edition] before praeterea the word Et is missing, which nevertheless is found in the older mss. and ed. 1.
- Cod. T coaequalitatem.Cod. T [reads] coaequalitatem.
- Unus alterque cod. ut M Y addit ex mente.One or another cod., as M Y, adds ex mente.
- Praeferimus lectionem paucorum mss. ee, ff et ed. 1 coaevitas pro coaeternitas, utpote quae in se verior est.We prefer the reading of a few mss. ee, ff and ed. 1 coaevitas in place of coaeternitas, inasmuch as it is more true in itself.
- Cod. W simile. Paulo infra cod. V terminationis loco iterationis.Cod. W [reads] simile. A little further on cod. V [reads] terminationis in place of iterationis.
- In Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, utrinque, et mox transferentis loco transparentis. Paulo infra post corpus duce cod. O adiecimus non, quae lectio et in se probatur et ex auctoritate confirmatur aliorum auctorum v. g. B. Albert., hic a. 8. et 21; Scot., II. Sent. d. 13. q. unica; Richard. a Med., II. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. ad 4 etc. — De differentia inter lucem, lumen, colorem cfr. infra d. 17. p. 1. q. 1. in corp.In the Vatican [edition], with the mss. and ed. 1 against [it], [it reads] utrinque, and then transferentis in place of transparentis. A little further on after corpus, with cod. O leading, we have added non, which reading both commends itself in itself and is confirmed by the authority of other authors, e.g. B. Albert, here a. 8 and 21; Scotus, II Sent. d. 13, q. unica; Richard of Mediavilla, II Sent. d. 13, a. 2, q. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, ad 4 etc. — On the difference between lux, lumen, [and] color cfr. below d. 17, p. 1, q. 1, in corp.
- Plura de hac similitudine sumta a splendore exhibent Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 42. m. 5. a. 3, et ceteri auctores paulo supra allegati et Aegid. R., hic circa lit.More on this similitude taken from splendor is given by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. 1, q. 42, m. 5, a. 3, and the other authors alleged a little above, and Aegidius Romanus, here on the text.
- Aliqui codd. ut AITZ bb cc enim; ed. 1 vero.Some codices, as AITZ bb cc, [read] enim; ed. 1 [reads] vero.
- Quae Hilarii verba vide in lit. Magistri c. 4. post medium. — Mox plures codd. ut FHITXYZ etc. cum ed. 1 intelligitur loco intelligenda est.For these words of Hilary see in the text of the Master, c. 4, after the middle. — Then several codices, as FHITXYZ etc., with ed. 1, [read] intelligitur in place of intelligenda est.
- De Div. Nom. c. 2. § 5: Pater fons in supersubstantiali Deitate. Anselm., de Fide Trin. c. 8. et de Process. Spiritus S. c. 17, ubi haec similitudo fuse exponitur.On the Divine Names, c. 2, § 5: The Father [is] the fount in the supersubstantial Deity. Anselm, On the Faith of the Trinity, c. 8, and On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, c. 17, where this similitude is at length expounded.
- Multi codd. ut ACFGHIKLRSTUV etc. cum subnexis non cohaerenter informitatem.Many codices, as ACFGHIKLRSTUV etc., with what follows, [read] not coherently informitatem.
- Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 minus apte tota. Mox cod. M ita quod pro et quod. Paulo infra post demutationem in Vat. additur seu diminutionem, quod abest ab antiquis mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3.The Vatican [edition], against the mss. and ed. 1, less aptly [reads] tota. Then cod. M [reads] ita quod for et quod. A little further on after demutationem, in the Vatican [edition] there is added seu diminutionem, which is absent from the old mss. and editions 1, 2, 3.
- Vat. dicat. Mox cod. Y reperitur loco recipitur.The Vatican [edition] [reads] dicat. Then cod. Y [reads] reperitur in place of recipitur.
- Cod. Z addit sive auctoritatem.Cod. Z adds sive auctoritatem.
- In cod. M additur ergo.In cod. M ergo is added.
- Fide codd. F T Y substituimus si pro sed. Mox verbis ab aeterno codd. WXY cum ed. 1 praemittunt ergo, Vat. cum aliquibus mss. enim; cod. H ponit quia non ab aeterno; multi codd. ut A F G T V etc. quamlibet particulam omittunt.On the testimony of codd. F T Y we have substituted si for sed. Then before the words ab aeterno codd. WXY with ed. 1 prefix ergo, the Vatican [edition] with some mss. [prefixes] enim; cod. H puts quia non ab aeterno; many codices, as A F G T V etc., omit any such particle.
- Cod. W consequenti.Cod. W [reads] consequenti.
- De quo vide II. Sent. d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.On which see II Sent. d. 1, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
- Vat. cum ed. 1, mutata interpunctione, sic, at codd. AFGHIKT etc. exhibent textum nostrum.The Vatican [edition] with ed. 1, with the punctuation changed, [reads] thus, while codices AFGHIKT etc. exhibit our text.