← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 177

Distinctio IX.

De distinctione trium personarum.

Nunc ad distinctionem trium personarum accedamus. « Teneamus igitur, ut docet Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum1, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unum esse Deum naturaliter, nec tamen ipsum Patrem esse qui Filius est, nec Filium esse ipsum qui Pater est, nec Spiritum sanctum esse ipsum qui Pater est aut Filius. Una enim est essentia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, in qua non est aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus sanctus, quamvis personaliter alius sit Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus »2.

Cap. I.

De coaeternitate Patris et Filii.

Genitus est enim a Patre Filius, et ideo alius, nec tamen ante fuit Pater quam Filius; coaeternae enim sibi sunt tres personae. Sed contra hoc inquit haereticus, ut refert Ambrosius in libro primo de Trinitate3: « Omne quod natum est, principium habet; et ideo, quia Filius est, principium habet et esse coepit; quod haereticorum ore sic dictum est ». « Nam ipse Arius, ut meminit Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate4, dixisse fertur: Si Filius est, natus est; si natus est, erat, quando non erat Filius ».

Qui hoc dicit « non intelligit, etiam natum esse de Deo sempiternum esse, ut sit coaeternus Patri Filius, sicut splendor, qui gignitur ab igne atque diffunditur, coaevus est illi, et esset coaeternus, si ignis esset aeternus5 ».

Item: « Si Dei Filius, inquit Augustinus, virtus et sapientia Dei est, nec unquam fuit Deus sine virtute et sapientia, coaeternus est Deo Patri Filius. Dicit autem Apostolus6: Christum esse Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam; aut ergo non fuit, quando non fuit Filius, aut aliquando Deus non habuit virtutem et sapientiam, quod dementis est dicere ». Constat enim, quia semper habuit sapientiam, semper ergo habuit Filium.

Eidem quoque Arianicae quaestioni Ambrosius7 in hunc modum respondet: « Ego, inquam, Filium esse natum confiteor; quod reliquum est impietatis hor-

p. 178

resco ». Scriptum est enim in veteri Testamento8, ut vel unum e pluribus dicam: Ante me non fuit alius Deus, et post me non erit. Quis ergo hoc dicit? Pater an Filius? Si Filius, ante me, inquit, non fuit alius Deus; si Pater, post me, inquit, non erit: hic priorem, ille posteriorem non habet. Invicem enim in se et Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre cognoscitur9. Cum enim Patrem dixeris, eius etiam Filium designasti, quia nemo ipse sibi pater est; cum Filium nominas, etiam Patrem fateris, quia nemo ipse sibi filius est. Itaque nec Filius sine Patre, nec Pater potest esse sine Filio: semper igitur Pater, semper et Filius est ».

Item: « Dic, inquam, mihi haeretice, fuitne, quando omnipotens Deus Pater non erat, et Deus erat? Nam si Pater esse coepit, Deus ergo primo erat et postea Pater factus est. Quomodo ergo immutabilis Deus est? Si enim ante Deus, postea Pater fuit, utique generationis accessione mutatus est ». « Sed avertat Deus hanc amentiam10 ».

Cap. III.

De ineffabili et intelligibili generationis modo.

« Sed quaeris a me, inquit Ambrosius11, quomodo, si Filius sit, non priorem habeat Patrem? Quaero item abs te, quando vel quomodo Filium putes esse generatum? Mihi enim impossibile est generationis scire secretum. Mens deficit, vox silet, non mea tantum, sed et Angelorum; supra potestates et supra Angelos et supra Cherubim et supra Seraphim et supra omnem sensum est, quia scriptum est12: Pax Christi supra omnem sensum est. Et si pax Christi supra omnem sensum est, quomodo non est supra omnem sensum tanta generatio? » « Tu ergo ori manum admove; scrutari non licet superna mysteria. Licet scire, quod natus sit, non licet discutere, quomodo natus sit. Illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quaerere metus est ». Ineffabilis enim est illa generatio; unde Isaias13: Generationem eius quis enarrabit?

Quidam tamen de ingenio suo praesumentes dicunt, illam generationem posse intelligi et alia huiusmodi, inhaerentes illi auctoritati Hieronymi super Ecclesiasten14: « In sacris Scripturis quis saepissime non pro impossibili, sed pro difficili ponitur, ut ibi: Generationem eius quis enarrabit? » Sed hoc non dixit15 Hieronymus ideo, quod generatio Filii aeterna plene intelligi vel explicari possit a quoquam mortalium, sed quia de ea aliquid intelligi vel dici potest. Quidam tamen hoc accipiunt dictum de temporali Christi generatione.

Utrum debeat dici: semper gignitur Deus, vel semper genitus est.

Hic quaeri potest, cum generatio Filii a Patre nec principium habeat nec finem, quia aeterna est, utrum debeat dici: Filius semper gignitur, vel semper genitus est, vel semper gignetur. De hoc Gregorius super Iob16 ait: « Dominus Deus Iesus in eo, quod virtus et sapientia Dei est, de Patre ante tempora natus est, vel potius, quia nec coepit nasci nec desiit, dicamus verius semper natus; non autem possumus dicere semper nascitur, ne imperfectus esse videatur. At vero, ut aeternus designari valeat et perfectus, semper dicamus et natus, quatenus et natus ad perfectionem pertineat et semper ad aeternitatem; quamvis per hoc ipsum, quod perfectum dicimus, multum ab illius veritatis expressione deviamus, quia quod factum non est, non potest dici proprie perfectum »; sed balbutiendo, ut possumus, excelsa Dei resonamus. « Et Dominus, nostrae infirmitatis verbis condescendens, Estote, inquit, perfecti, sicut et Pater vester caelestis perfectus est17 ». Super illum locum etiam Psalmi: Ego hodie genui te, de hac generatione Filii ita loquitur Augustinus18: « Quamquam per hoc, quod dicit hodie, possit etiam intelligi dies ille, quo Christus secundum hominem natus est; tamen quia hodie praesentiam significat, atque in aeternitate neque praeteritum quidquam est, quasi esse desierit, neque futurum, quasi nondum sit, sed praesens tantum, quia quidquid aeternum est, semper est; divinius tamen accipitur de sempiterna generatione sapientiae Dei19 ». Ecce, his verbis ostendit Augustinus, quod generatio Filii semper est nec praeterit nec futura est, quia aeterna est. Ideo enim20 dixit genui, ne novum putaretur, scilicet ne videretur incepisse; hodie dixit, ne praeterita generatio videretur. « Ex his ergo verbis Prophetae, ut ait Ioannes Chrysostomus21, nihil aliud manifestatur, nisi quia ex ipsa essentia Patris semper genitus est Filius ».

p. 179

Origenes vero super Ieremiam22 dicit, quod Filius semper generatur a Patre, his verbis: « Salvator noster est sapientia Dei; sapientia vero splendor est aeternae lucis: Salvator ergo noster est splendor claritatis. Splendor autem non semel nascitur et desinit, sed quoties ortum fuerit lumen, ex quo splendor oritur, toties oritur etiam splendor claritatis: sic ergo Salvator semper nascitur. Unde ait in libro Sapientis23: Ante omnes colles generat me Dominus, non, ut quidam male legunt, generavit ». His verbis aperte ostendit Origenes sane dici posse et debere: Filius semper nascitur, quod videtur contrarium illi verbo Gregorii praemisso, scilicet, « non possumus dicere: semper nascitur ».

Sed ne tanti auctores sibi contradicere in re tanta videantur, illa24 verba Gregorii benigne interpretemur. « Dominus, inquit, Iesus ante tempora de Patre natus est, vel potius, quia nec coepit nasci nec desiit, dicamus verius: semper natus ». Sed quomodo verius dicitur hoc, scilicet, quod Filius semper natus est, quam illud, scilicet quod de Patre ante tempora natus est? Illud enim sincera et catholica fides tenet ac praedicat ut istud. Quare ergo ait: « Dicamus verius », cum utrumque pariter sit verum, nisi25 quia volebat intelligi, hoc ad maiorem evidentiam et expressionem veritatis dici quam illud? His etenim verbis omnis calumniandi versutiis haereticis obstruitur aditus, quibus Christi secundum deitatem generatio sine initio et sine fine esse ac perfecta monstratur. Non autem adeo aperte26 manifestatur veritas, cum dicitur: Filius ante tempora genitus est de Patre, vel Filius semper nascitur de Patre. Et ideo dicit Gregorius, quod « non possumus dicere, semper nascitur »; non, inquam, ita convenienter, non ita congrue ad explanationem veritatis; potest tamen dici, si sane intelligatur. « Semper enim nascitur Filius de Patre », ut ait Origenes; non quod quotidie iteretur illa generatio, sed quia semper est. Semper ergo nascitur, id est, nativitas eius sempiterna est.

Hilarius quoque dicit, Filium nasci ex Patre, in libro septimo de Trinitate27 his verbis: « Vivens Deus et naturae aeternae viventis potestas est; et quod cum sacramento scientiae suae ex eo nascitur, non potuit aliud esse quam vivens. Nam cum ait: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem, docuit vitam in se per viventem Patrem inesse ». Ecce hic habes, quia28 Filius nascitur ex Patre. Item in eodem29: « Cum dicit Christus: Sicut Pater habet vitam in se, sic et Filio dedit vitam habere in semetipso, omnia viva sua ex vivente testatus est. Quod autem ex vivo vivum natum est habet nativitatis perfectum sine novitate naturae. Non enim novum est quod ex vivo generatur in vivum, quia nec ex nihilo est; et vita, quae nativitatem sumit ex vita, necesse est per naturae unitatem et perfectae nativitatis sacramentum, ut et30 in vivente vivat et in se habeat vitam viventem ». Ecce et hic habes, quia generatur ex vivo vivens Filius. Item in eodem31: « In Deo totum quod est vivit; Deus enim vita est, et ex vita non potest quidquam esse nisi vivum; neque ex derivatione, sed ex virtute nativitas est. Ac sic, dum totum quod est vivit, et dum totum quod ex eo nascitur virtus est, habet nativitatem Filius, non demutationem ». Et hic dicit, quia nascitur. Item in nono libro de Trinitate32: « Donat Pater Filio tantum esse, quantum est ipse, cui innascibilitatis esse imaginem sacramento nativitatis impertit, quem ex se in forma sua generat ». Hic dicit, quia generat Pater Filium.

Dicamus ergo, Filium natum de Patre ante tempora et semper nasci de Patre, sed congruentius semper natum; et eundem fateamur ab aeterno esse et Patri coaeternum, id est auctori. Pater enim generatione auctor Filii est, ut in sequenti33 ostendetur. Ut ergo Pater est aeternus, ita et Filius aeternus est, sed Pater sine auctore, Filius vero non, quia Pater innascibilis, Filius natus. Et ut ait Hilarius in duodecimo libro de Trinitate34: « Aliud est sine auctore semper esse aeternum, aliud Patri, id est auctori, esse coaeternum. Ubi autem Pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; quia sicut nativitas ab auctore est, ita et ab aeterno auctore aeterna nativitas est. Omne autem, quod semper est, etiam aeternum est; sed tamen non omne, quod aeternum est etiam innatum est; quia quod ab aeterno nascitur habet aeternum esse, quod natum est. Quod autem non natum est, id cum aeternitate non natum est; quod vero ex aeterno natum est, id, si non aeternum natum est, iam non erit et Pater auctor aeternus. Si quid ergo ei, qui ab aeterno Patre natus est, ex aeternitate defuerit, id ipsum auctori non est ambiguum defuisse, quia si gignenti est infinitum gignere, et nascenti etiam est infinitum nasci. Medium enim quid inter nativitatem Dei Filii et generationem Dei Patris nec ratio35 nec sensus admittit, quia et in generatione nativitas est, et in nativitate generatio est, quia sine utroque neutrum est: utrumque ergo sine intervallo sui est ».

Cap. V.

De obiectionibus haereticorum nitentium probare, Filium non esse coaeternum Patri.

« Sed inquiet haereticus: omne quod natum est, non fuit semper, quia in id natum est, ut esset. Nemo ambigit, quin ea36 quae in rebus humanis nata sunt, aliquando non fuerint. Sed aliud est ex eo nasci, quod semper non fuit, aliud ex eo natum esse, quod semper est. Ibi nec semper fuit, qui pater est, nec semper pater est; et qui non semper pater est, non semper genuit. Ubi autem semper pater est, semper filius est. Quod si semper Deo Patri proprium est, quod semper est Pater, necesse est, semper Filio proprium esse, quod semper est Filius. Quomodo ergo cadet in intelligentiam nostram, ut non fuerit semper cui proprium est, semper esse quod natum est37? Natum ergo unigenitum Deum confitemur, sed natum ante tempora, nec ante esse quam natum, nec ante natum quam esse; quia nasci quod erat, iam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo. Hoc autem humanum sensum et intelligentiam mundi excedit. Non hoc capit ratio humanae intelligentiae, sed prudentiae fidelis pro-

---

English Translation

Distinction IX.

On the distinction of the three persons.

Now let us approach the distinction of the three persons. "Let us therefore hold, as Augustine teaches in the book On Faith to Peter1, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are by nature one God, yet that the Father himself is not the one who is the Son, nor the Son the one who is the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the one who is the Father or the Son. For there is one essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another, although personally the Father is one, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another"2.

Chap. I.

On the coeternity of the Father and the Son.

For the Son is begotten of the Father, and therefore another, yet the Father did not exist before the Son; for the three persons are coeternal to one another. But against this the heretic says, as Ambrose reports in the first book On the Trinity3: "Everything that is born has a beginning; and therefore, because he is the Son, he has a beginning and began to be; which has been said in this way from the mouth of heretics." "For Arius himself, as Augustine recalls in the sixth book On the Trinity4, is said to have said: If he is a Son, he has been born; if he has been born, there was [a time] when the Son was not."

He who says this "does not understand that even to be born is, with respect to God, to be eternal, so that the Son is coeternal with the Father, just as the splendor which is begotten from fire and is diffused is coeval with it, and would be coeternal if the fire were eternal5."

Likewise: "If the Son of God, says Augustine, is the power and wisdom of God, and God never was without power and wisdom, then the Son is coeternal with God the Father. For the Apostle says6: that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; therefore either he did not exist when the Son did not exist, or at some time God did not have power and wisdom, which it is mad to say." For it is established that he always had wisdom; therefore he always had a Son.

To the same Arian question Ambrose7 responds in this manner: "I, I say, confess that the Son has been born; what remains of impiety I shud-

p. 178

der at." For it is written in the Old Testament8, that I may speak of one out of many: Before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none. Who, then, says this? The Father or the Son? If the Son, before me, he says, there was no other God; if the Father, after me, he says, there shall be none: this one has no prior, that one no posterior. For mutually in themselves both the Father is known in the Son and the Son in the Father9. For when you say "Father," you have also designated his Son, because no one is his own father; when you name the Son, you also confess the Father, because no one is his own son. Therefore neither can the Son be without the Father, nor the Father without the Son: therefore always the Father, and always the Son also is."

Likewise: "Tell me, I say, heretic, was there a time when omnipotent God was not Father and yet was God? For if he began to be Father, then God first existed and afterwards was made Father. How then is God unchangeable? For if he was first God and afterwards Father, he was certainly changed by the accession of generation." "But may God turn away this madness10."

Chap. III.

On the ineffable and intelligible mode of generation.

"But you ask of me, says Ambrose11, how, if he is a Son, he does not have a Father prior to him? I in turn ask of you, when or how do you think the Son was generated? For to me it is impossible to know the secret of generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent — not mine only, but the Angels' too; it is above the powers and above the Angels and above the Cherubim and above the Seraphim and above all sense, because it is written12: The peace of Christ is above all sense. And if the peace of Christ is above all sense, how is so great a generation not above all sense?" "You therefore, put your hand to your mouth; it is not permitted to scrutinize heavenly mysteries. It is permitted to know that he was born; it is not permitted to discuss how he was born. To deny that is not permitted me; to inquire into this is fearful." For that generation is ineffable; whence Isaiah13: Who shall declare his generation?

Yet some, presuming on their own wit, say that that generation can be understood, and other things of this sort, clinging to that authority of Jerome on Ecclesiastes14: "In the sacred Scriptures quis ('who') is very often put not for the impossible but for the difficult, as there: Who shall declare his generation?" But Jerome did not say15 this on the ground that the eternal generation of the Son could be fully understood or explained by any mortal, but because something can be understood or said of it. Yet some take this as said of the temporal generation of Christ.

Whether it ought to be said: God is always being begotten, or has always been begotten.

Here it can be asked, since the generation of the Son from the Father has neither beginning nor end, because it is eternal, whether it ought to be said: the Son is always being begotten, or has always been begotten, or shall always be begotten. About this Gregory on Job16 says: "The Lord God Jesus, in that he is the power and wisdom of God, was born from the Father before time; or rather, because he neither began to be born nor ceased, let us say more truly always born; we cannot, however, say always being born, lest he seem to be imperfect. But indeed, so that he may be designated both eternal and perfect, let us say both always and born, in that born pertains to perfection and always to eternity; although by this very thing, that we say 'perfect,' we deviate much from the expression of that truth, because what has not been made cannot properly be called perfect"; but stammering, as we can, we re-echo the lofty things of God. "And the Lord, condescending to the words of our infirmity, says: Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect17." Upon that place also of the Psalm: Today I have begotten thee, Augustine18 speaks thus of this generation of the Son: "Although by this, that he says today, that day too can be understood on which Christ was born according to man; yet because today signifies presence, and in eternity nothing is past, as though it had ceased to be, nor future, as though it were not yet, but only present, because whatever is eternal always is; yet it is taken more divinely of the eternal generation of the wisdom of God19." Behold, by these words Augustine shows that the generation of the Son always is, and neither passes away nor is to come, because it is eternal. For he said I have begotten20 lest it be thought new, that is, lest it should seem to have begun; he said today lest the generation should seem past. "From these words of the Prophet therefore, as John Chrysostom21 says, nothing else is manifested than that from the very essence of the Father the Son is always begotten."

p. 179

Origen, however, on Jeremiah22 says that the Son is always being generated from the Father, in these words: "Our Saviour is the wisdom of God; but wisdom is the splendor of the eternal light: therefore our Saviour is the splendor of brightness. The splendor, however, is not born once and ceases, but as often as the light has risen from which the splendor arises, so often does the splendor of brightness also arise: so therefore the Saviour is always being born. Whence he says in the book of the Wise One23: Before all the hills the Lord begets me, not, as some badly read, has begotten." By these words Origen plainly shows that it can rightly be said and must be said: The Son is always being born, which seems contrary to that word of Gregory set forth above, namely: "We cannot say: he is always being born."

But lest such great authors should seem to contradict one another in so great a matter, let us interpret those24 words of Gregory benignly. "The Lord Jesus, he says, was born from the Father before time; or rather, because he neither began to be born nor ceased, let us say more truly: always born." But how is this said more truly, namely that the Son was always born, than that, namely that he was born of the Father before time? For the sincere and catholic faith holds and preaches the former as it does the latter. Why then does he say "Let us say more truly," since both are equally true, unless25 because he wished it to be understood that this is said for the greater evidence and expression of the truth than that? For by these words every approach of calumniating wiles is closed to the heretics, by which the generation of Christ according to his deity is shown to be without beginning and without end, and perfect. But the truth is not manifested so plainly26 when it is said: The Son was generated of the Father before time, or The Son is always being born of the Father. And therefore Gregory says, "we cannot say, he is always being born"; not, I say, so suitably, not so congruously to the explanation of the truth; yet it can be said, if rightly understood. "For the Son is always being born of the Father," as Origen says; not that that generation is daily repeated, but because it always is. He is always therefore being born, that is, his nativity is eternal.

Hilary also says that the Son is born from the Father, in the seventh book On the Trinity27 in these words: "Living God is also the power of an eternal living nature; and what is born from him with the sacrament of his own knowledge cannot have been other than living. For when he says: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, he taught that life is in himself through the living Father." Behold here you have that28 the Son is born from the Father. Likewise in the same book29: "When Christ says: As the Father has life in himself, so also to the Son he has given to have life in himself, he has testified that all his living things are from the Living One. But what is born living from a living one has the perfection of nativity without novelty of nature. For it is not new that what is generated from the living into the living, since it is not from nothing; and the life which takes its nativity from life must, through the unity of nature and the sacrament of perfect nativity, both30 live in the Living One and have living life in itself." Behold here also you have that a living Son is generated from a living one. Likewise in the same book31: "In God whatever is, lives; for God is life, and from life nothing can be except living; and the nativity is not by derivation but by power. And so, while everything which is, lives, and while everything which is born from him is power, the Son has nativity, not transformation." And here he says that he is born. Likewise in the ninth book On the Trinity32: "The Father gives to the Son to be as much as he himself is, to whom by the sacrament of nativity he imparts the image of unbegotten being, whom he generates from himself in his own form." Here he says that the Father generates the Son.

Let us say therefore that the Son was born from the Father before time and is always being born from the Father, but more congruously always born; and let us confess that he is from eternity and coeternal with the Father, that is, with the author. For the Father by generation is the author of the Son, as shall be shown in what follows33. As therefore the Father is eternal, so also the Son is eternal, but the Father is without author, the Son not so, because the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten. And as Hilary says in the twelfth book On the Trinity34: "It is one thing to be eternal without author, another to be coeternal to the Father, that is, to the author. But where the Father is author, there nativity also is; because as nativity is from the author, so also from an eternal author nativity is eternal. But everything which always is, is also eternal; yet not everything which is eternal is also unbegotten; because what is born from eternity has eternal being, in that it has been born. But what has not been born, is unborn together with eternity; and what is born from eternity, if it is not eternally born, the Father will no longer be also the eternal author. If therefore anything is lacking from eternity to him who is born of the eternal Father, it is not doubtful that the same thing is lacking to the author, because if it is infinite for the begetter to beget, for the begotten also it is infinite to be born. For neither reason35 nor sense admits any middle between the nativity of God the Son and the generation of God the Father, because both in generation there is nativity, and in nativity there is generation, since without either neither exists: therefore each is without interval of itself."

Chap. V.

On the objections of the heretics striving to prove that the Son is not coeternal with the Father.

"But the heretic will say: Everything which has been born was not always, because it was born in order that it might be. No one doubts that those things36 which in human affairs have been born at some time were not. But it is one thing to be born from that which always was not, another to have been born from that which always is. There neither was he always who is father, nor is he always father; and he who is not always father has not always begotten. But where he is always father, there always is the son. But if it is always proper to God the Father that he is always Father, it must also always be proper to the Son that he is always Son. How then will it fall under our understanding, that he was not always to whom it is proper always to be that which has been born37? Therefore we confess God the only-begotten as begotten, but begotten before time, neither being before being born nor born before being; because to be born what one already was is no longer to be born, but to change oneself in being born. But this exceeds human sense and the understanding of the world. Reason of human intelligence does not grasp this, but [it does grasp] of faithful prudence pro-

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. I. n. 5. — In principio distinctionis omnes codd. omittunt trium.
    Chapter I, n. 5. — At the beginning of the distinction all the codices omit trium.
  2. Vat. huic capitulo addit verba sequentis cap.: Genitus est usque alius.
    The Vatican edition adds to this chapter the words of the following chapter: Genitus est through alius.
  3. Cap. II. n. 73. — Solummodo Vat. et edd. 1, 6, 8 citant hunc librum sub nomine de Fide ad Gratianum; cfr. supra Dist. II. c. 4. In textu contra originale et codd. nostros, Vat. cum ceteris edd. post Filius addit natus.
    Chapter II, n. 73. — Only the Vatican edition and editions 1, 6, 8 cite this book under the name On Faith to Gratian; cf. above, Dist. II, c. 4. In the text, against the original and our codices, the Vatican edition with the other editions adds natus after Filius.
  4. Cap. I. n. 1, unde et duae auctoritates, quae sequuntur, sumtae sunt. In primo textu solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 6 cum originali Augustini ante quando addunt tempus. Sed notum adagium Arii est: Erat quando non erat (ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν).
    Chapter I, n. 1, whence also the two authorities that follow are taken. In the first text only the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6, with Augustine's original, add tempus before quando. But the well-known adage of Arius is: There was [a time] when he was not (ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν).
  5. Sola Vat. perperam omittit aeternus.
    The Vatican edition alone wrongly omits aeternus.
  6. I. Cor. 1, 24; sed in Vulgata et Augustino deest esse. Paulo ante post coaeternus Vat. et edd. 4, 9 addunt ergo.
    1 Cor. 1, 24; but in the Vulgate and in Augustine esse is absent. A little before, after coaeternus, the Vatican edition and editions 4, 9 add ergo.
  7. Loc. cit. — Ex eodem libro c. 8. n. 88 proximus huius capituli locus sumtus est, secundus et tertius ex c. 9. n. 58 et 59, quartus ex eodem cap. n. 60.
    Loc. cit. — From the same book, c. 8, n. 88, the next passage of this chapter is taken; the second and third from c. 9, nn. 58 and 59; the fourth from the same chapter, n. 60.
  8. Isai. 43, 10.
    Isaiah 43, 10.
  9. Respicitur illud Ioan. 14, 9. et 10. — Paulo supra post priorem Vat. contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 8 adiicit et.
    This refers to John 14, 9 and 10. — A little above, after priorem, the Vatican edition, against the original, the codices, and editions 1, 8, adds et.
  10. Codd. CE et A (in margine) cum edd. 1, 8 hic addunt: quia semper habuit sapientiam, semper habuit Filium, quae verba, quia non levi carent interpolationis suspicione, in textum non recepimus.
    Codices CE and A (in the margin) with editions 1, 8 here add: quia semper habuit sapientiam, semper habuit Filium ("because he always had wisdom, he always had a Son"), which words, because they are not free from a not-light suspicion of interpolation, we have not received into the text.
  11. Libr. I. de Fide ad Gratian. c. 10. n. 64. et 65. — In principio huius loci sola Vat. habet habet pro habeat. Mox in codd. BCDE et ed. 1 deest quando vel, quod tamen est in originali.
    Book I On Faith to Gratian, c. 10, nn. 64 and 65. — At the beginning of this passage only the Vatican edition has habet for habeat. Soon after, in codices BCDE and edition 1, quando vel is missing, which is nevertheless in the original.
  12. Philip. 4, 7. Verba, quae infra sequuntur: ori manum admove et scrutari non licet, respiciunt Eccli. 5, 14. et 3, 22.
    Philippians 4, 7. The words which follow below, ori manum admove ("put your hand to your mouth") and scrutari non licet ("it is not permitted to scrutinize"), refer to Sirach 5, 14 and 3, 22.
  13. Isai. 53, 8.
    Isaiah 53, 8.
  14. Cap. 3.
    Chapter 3.
  15. Vat. cum paucis edd. dicit.
    The Vatican edition with a few other editions [reads] dicit.
  16. Libr. XXIX. Moral. c. 1. in principio. Etiam verba, quae sequuntur post resonamus, ibidem inveniuntur. In principio primi loci codd. ABDE et edd. 1, 8 omittunt Iesus.
    Book XXIX of the Moralia, c. 1, at the beginning. Likewise the words which follow after resonamus are found in the same place. At the beginning of the first passage, codices ABDE and editions 1, 8 omit Iesus.
  17. Matth. 5, 48. — Paulo ante Vat. et edd. 3, 4, 7, 9 resonemus pro resonamus.
    Matthew 5, 48. — A little before, the Vatican edition and editions 3, 4, 7, 9 [read] resonemus for resonamus.
  18. Expos. in Psalm. 2. v. 6. — Paulo ante Vat. perperam Psalmista. Eadem Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt etiam ante intelligi.
    Exposition on Psalm 2, v. 6. — A little before, the Vatican edition wrongly [reads] Psalmista. The same Vatican edition and edition 4 omit etiam before intelligi.
  19. Codd. ACE ad marginem et edd. 1, 5, 9 in textu haec adiiciunt: Unde etiam Augustinus in libro LXXXIII quaest. de semper nato (q. 37.) disserens ait: melior est natus, quam qui semper nascitur, quia qui semper nascitur nondum natus et nunquam natus est aut natus erit, si semper nascitur. Aliud est enim nasci, aliud natum esse, ac per hoc nunquam Filius est, si nunquam natus est; Filius autem est, quia natus, et semper Filius, quia aeternus, semper ergo natus.
    Codices ACE in the margin and editions 1, 5, 9 in the text add the following: Whence also Augustine in his book of the 83 Questions, treating of "always born" (q. 37), says: He who is born is better than he who is always being born, because he who is always being born is not yet born and never has been or will be born, if he is always being born. For it is one thing to be born, another to have been born, and through this he is never the Son if he never has been born; but he is the Son because he has been born, and always the Son because eternal, therefore always born.
  20. Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittit enim.
    The Vatican edition, against the codices and editions 1, 8, omits enim.
  21. Homil. 2. in Epist. ad Hebr. n. 3.
    Homily 2 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 3.
  22. Homil. II. circa finem, sed non paucis mutatis.
    Homily II, near the end, but with not a few alterations.
  23. Prov. 8, 25 secundum Septuag.; Vulgata: ante colles ego parturiebar. — Aliquae edd. sic citant: in libro Sapientiae pro Sapientis, cui errori etiam codd. favent; ed. 9 inde ait in Prov. 8. Sapientia.
    Proverbs 8, 25 according to the Septuagint; the Vulgate has: before the hills I was being brought forth. — Some editions cite thus: in the book of Wisdom (Sapientiae) instead of of the Wise One (Sapientis), an error which the codices also favor; edition 9 has in Prov. 8. Sapientia.
  24. Sola Vat. omittit illa.
    The Vatican edition alone omits illa.
  25. Mss. BCE addunt forte.
    Manuscripts BCE add forte ("perhaps").
  26. Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 superflue addunt semper; codd. BC omisso aperte legunt semper. Immediate post cod. D et edd. 1, 8 monstratur pro manifestatur.
    The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, 9 superfluously add semper; codices BC, with aperte omitted, read semper. Immediately after, codex D and editions 1, 8 [read] monstratur for manifestatur.
  27. Num. 27. — Textus Scripturae, ab Hilario citatus, est Ioan. 6, 58, ubi Hilarius ponit per Patrem loco propter Patrem, quod habet Vulgata.
    Number 27. — The text of Scripture cited by Hilary is John 6, 58, where Hilary puts per Patrem ("through the Father") in place of propter Patrem ("on account of the Father"), which the Vulgate has.
  28. Codd. quod loco quia. Postea cod. D et edd. 1, 8 de Patre loco ex Patre.
    The codices [read] quod in place of quia. Afterward codex D and editions 1, 8 [read] de Patre in place of ex Patre.
  29. Ibid. — Textus Scripturae est Ioan. 5, 26, ubi Vulgata et edd. 1, 2, 5, 9 semetipso pro se. Deinde post ex vivente cod. D addit glossema Patre, et cod. A omnino vitam suam pro omnia viva sua.
    Ibid. — The text of Scripture is John 5, 26, where the Vulgate and editions 1, 2, 5, 9 [read] semetipso for se. Then after ex vivente codex D adds the gloss Patre, and codex A has altogether vitam suam for omnia viva sua.
  30. Edd. 1, 8 omittunt et, quod ceterae auctoritates nostrae cum Hilario habent; mox eadem particula et post Ecce omittitur a cod. D et ed. 8.
    Editions 1, 8 omit et, which our other authorities together with Hilary have; soon the same particle et after Ecce is omitted by codex D and edition 8.
  31. Loc. cit. n. 28. — Codd. CDE addunt Hilarius, et CE prosequuntur: Attende quod totum pro In Deo totum. Deinde edd. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 contra originale et male legunt ex virtute nativitatis pro ex virtute nativitas. Immediate post Vat. cum pluribus edd. mendose legit si pro sic, quod habetur in originali et edd. 5, 6, 8, 9.
    Loc. cit., n. 28. — Codices CDE add Hilarius, and CE continue: Attend that the whole (Attende quod totum) for In God the whole (In Deo totum). Then editions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 against the original wrongly read ex virtute nativitatis for ex virtute nativitas. Immediately after, the Vatican edition with several editions faultily reads si for sic, which is held in the original and in editions 5, 6, 8, 9.
  32. Num. 54, ubi contra codd., edd. 5, 9 et originale ceterae edd. habent impartit pro impertit. Deinde ed. Maurin. Hilarii legit in formam suam pro in forma sua.
    Number 54, where against the codices, editions 5 and 9, and the original, the other editions have impartit for impertit. Then the Maurinist edition of Hilary reads in formam suam for in forma sua.
  33. Immediate post, et Dist. XV. circa finem.
    Immediately after, and Dist. XV, near the end.
  34. Num. 21. — In hoc textu circa medium pro ex aeterno edd. 1, 8 non bene ab aeterno, et paulo post codd. DE qui Pater pro et Pater.
    Number 21. — In this text, about the middle, for ex aeterno editions 1, 8 not well [read] ab aeterno, and a little after, codices DE [read] qui Pater for et Pater.
  35. Codd. et plurimae edd. contra originale et Vat. omittunt nec ratio; et deinde ante in generatione Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit et.
    The codices and most editions, against the original and the Vatican edition, omit nec ratio; and then before in generatione the Vatican edition with a few editions omits et.
  36. In codd. et Hilario deest ea. — Paulo post, ante ex eo natum Vat. cum paucis edd. est.
    In the codices and in Hilary ea is absent. — A little after, before ex eo natum, the Vatican edition with a few editions has est.
  37. Apud Hilar. (ed. Maurin.) natus est, ubi in calce dicitur, plures codd. lectionem natum exhibere, quam mss. nostri et edd. habent. — Mox codd. CDE post iam non addunt tantum.
    In Hilary (Maurinist edition) [the reading is] natus est, where it is said in the footnote that several codices exhibit the reading natum, which our manuscripts and editions have. — Soon codices CDE after iam non add tantum.
Dist. 9, Divisio Textus→